Fact Check: Most people on the right do not care about political scandals.

Fact Check: Most people on the right do not care about political scandals.

Published July 13, 2025
Β±
VERDICT
Partially True

# Fact Check: "Most people on the right do not care about political scandals." ## What We Know The claim that "most people on the right do not care a...

Fact Check: "Most people on the right do not care about political scandals."

What We Know

The claim that "most people on the right do not care about political scandals" can be examined through various studies and analyses of political behavior and partisanship. According to a study conducted by University of Houston Professor Brandon Rottinghaus, scandals in modern politics have less impact on politicians than they did in the past, particularly due to increased partisanship. Rottinghaus states, "Scandals don’t hit like they used to," indicating that politicians are often able to survive scandals because their supporters are less critical of them when they are involved in controversies (source-1).

The study suggests that partisanship plays a significant role in how scandals are perceived, with individuals more likely to defend politicians from their own party regardless of the nature of the scandal. This is supported by the observation that "people can consume the media that fits their political preferences," leading to a situation where supporters may dismiss or downplay scandals involving their favored politicians (source-1).

Moreover, research indicates that while political scandals do negatively affect trust in politicians, they do not significantly diminish trust in government institutions as a whole. This suggests a complex relationship between political scandals and public perception, particularly among partisan groups (source-2).

Analysis

The evidence points to a nuanced understanding of how political scandals are perceived among different partisan groups. While it may be true that many individuals on the right show a reduced level of concern regarding scandals involving their political leaders, this does not universally apply to all individuals within that demographic. The research by Rottinghaus highlights that partisanship can lead to a "survival" of scandals for politicians, particularly among their base, who may prioritize party loyalty over ethical concerns. This is further corroborated by the findings that suggest scandals can even enhance fundraising efforts for some politicians (source-1).

However, it's important to note that the perception of scandals can vary widely among individuals based on personal beliefs, values, and the specific nature of the scandal. For instance, while some studies indicate that voters may punish politicians for certain types of scandals, such as corruption or sexual misconduct, the overall impact can differ based on the political climate and the party affiliation of the politician involved (source-5).

The reliability of the sources used in this analysis is generally strong, with academic studies and reputable surveys providing a solid foundation for understanding public attitudes toward political scandals. However, there is always a risk of bias in how survey data is interpreted, particularly when considering the influence of social desirability on responses (source-8).

Conclusion

The claim that "most people on the right do not care about political scandals" is Partially True. While evidence suggests that partisanship significantly influences how scandals are perceived, leading many on the right to downplay or dismiss scandals involving their political leaders, this does not mean that all individuals within this group share the same sentiment. The impact of scandals is complex and varies based on individual beliefs and the specific context of each scandal. Thus, while partisanship may shield some politicians from the consequences of their actions, it is an oversimplification to assert that "most people on the right" are indifferent to political scandals.

Sources

  1. Research Finds Scandals Have Less Impact on Politicians Than ...
  2. Trust and Scandal: A Tale of Two Theories
  3. Do you trust politicians? Depends on how you define trust
  4. Do You Trust Politicians? Depends on How You Define Trust
  5. Corruption, scandals and incompetence: Do voters care?
  6. Pitfalls in measuring corruption with citizen surveys
  7. Public Trust in Government: 1958-2024 - Pew Research Center
  8. Do they really care? Social desirability bias in attitudes ...

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

πŸ’‘ Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
βœ“100% Free
βœ“No Registration
βœ“Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: We have 50 years of
data that tells us what
corporations do with tax cuts.
This has been one of the most
studied things by universities
around the world for the last
50 years. And in the last 50
years across 18 of the
wealthiest nations in the world
not one has corporate tax cuts
equated to higher job growth.
00:35
Not once. Or we can just look
at the Trump tax cuts passed in
twenty 17. Donald Trump created
40, 000 less jobs a month than
Barack Obama did. And oh by the
way that's leaving out COVID.
That's leaving out all the job
losses from the pandemic. There
is one thing that happens when
you give corporations big tax
breaks. This right here. 50
years of data. You see that red
line on top? That's the rich
getting richer. You see those
two lines on the bottom? That's
the bottom 905percent? No In
01:06
twenty 18 corporations spent
over a trillion dollars on
stock buybacks and created less
jobs than they did in twenty
fourteen, 15, 16, and
seventeen. You see the rich can
afford to pump all of this
misinformation into your brain.
And that's why you believe it.
There's not a single case in
history of tax cuts for the
rich helping an economy in any
way shape or form.
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: We have 50 years of data that tells us what corporations do with tax cuts. This has been one of the most studied things by universities around the world for the last 50 years. And in the last 50 years across 18 of the wealthiest nations in the world not one has corporate tax cuts equated to higher job growth. 00:35 Not once. Or we can just look at the Trump tax cuts passed in twenty 17. Donald Trump created 40, 000 less jobs a month than Barack Obama did. And oh by the way that's leaving out COVID. That's leaving out all the job losses from the pandemic. There is one thing that happens when you give corporations big tax breaks. This right here. 50 years of data. You see that red line on top? That's the rich getting richer. You see those two lines on the bottom? That's the bottom 905percent? No In 01:06 twenty 18 corporations spent over a trillion dollars on stock buybacks and created less jobs than they did in twenty fourteen, 15, 16, and seventeen. You see the rich can afford to pump all of this misinformation into your brain. And that's why you believe it. There's not a single case in history of tax cuts for the rich helping an economy in any way shape or form.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: We have 50 years of data that tells us what corporations do with tax cuts. This has been one of the most studied things by universities around the world for the last 50 years. And in the last 50 years across 18 of the wealthiest nations in the world not one has corporate tax cuts equated to higher job growth. 00:35 Not once. Or we can just look at the Trump tax cuts passed in twenty 17. Donald Trump created 40, 000 less jobs a month than Barack Obama did. And oh by the way that's leaving out COVID. That's leaving out all the job losses from the pandemic. There is one thing that happens when you give corporations big tax breaks. This right here. 50 years of data. You see that red line on top? That's the rich getting richer. You see those two lines on the bottom? That's the bottom 905percent? No In 01:06 twenty 18 corporations spent over a trillion dollars on stock buybacks and created less jobs than they did in twenty fourteen, 15, 16, and seventeen. You see the rich can afford to pump all of this misinformation into your brain. And that's why you believe it. There's not a single case in history of tax cuts for the rich helping an economy in any way shape or form.

Jul 30, 2025
Read more β†’
Fact Check: Transcript
00:00
911 was a false flag. For the
first 10 years, I did not think
anything other than the
official narrative then after
being shown a video, a close up
video of building number seven
coming down and that got me
going because it's obvious to
me that building seven was was
a controlled demolition because
the building collapses from the
bottom down. The trade centers
were unique in that they were
designed to withstand the
00:33
impact of a a a jet. From what
I understand the the outer
skeleton of the building. The
outer columns was like a a fish
net and you had these inner
core columns which was
substantial thick steel beams
to withstand four or five times
what the loads were. Got it.
The engineers always over
design a building. No steel
frame building has ever
collapsed before or since 9/
eleven. So that should say
something right there. And it
said that building seven it was
01:05
aggressive collapse that it was
caused by fire but progressive
collapse unlike the twin
towers, the twin towers
collapse from the top down.
That's a progressive collapse.
Sure. Floor by floor by floor.
But if you look at the videos
of building seven collapsing,
it collapses uniformly, it's
collapsing from the bottom, the
building stays intact all the
way to the bottom of the ground
and you could see the sides
caving in on it. For a building
to collapse uniformly which the
video show all the load bearing
it would have to have failed
01:36
simultaneously. Now, fire
doesn't act like that. I came
across an analogy of the twin
towers and if you could
visualize cast iron stoves
stacked. One on top of each
other. The stoves up at the
top. Yes, there's fire and
they've been damaged but the
stoves on the bottom, they
haven't been damaged. Okay. So,
the structure underneath all of
that is intact. So, it's
impossible for a building to
collapse near free fall speed
and increase. Without a
02:07
controlled demolition. You're
running into the path of most
resistance. I something else is
going on. I don't believe that
it was just the planes or the
fires I think that and they
examine the dust and they found
what they call thermitic
material which is like a
explosive incendiary which was
in the dust samples and that's
documented. There were reports
of the buildings were
undergoing a extensive elevator
renovation in the two or three
years prior to all kinds of
02:40
workers they had access to the
the core the cores of the
building and on the day of the
attack the the elevator company
would not assist in the
operations of the elevators and
the elevator company was the
elevator company it
subsequently went out of
business and a couple of years
after that
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Jul 28, 2025
Read more β†’
Fact Check: Sexuality falls on a spectrum and most people aren't say completely 100% straight
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Sexuality falls on a spectrum and most people aren't say completely 100% straight

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Sexuality falls on a spectrum and most people aren't say completely 100% straight

Aug 14, 2025
Read more β†’
Fact Check:    Most Wars are pointless more innocent people die.Settle it peacefully!But, if a person who is causing lots of harm needs to be taken down you almost always have to wage warπŸ€—πŸ€—
Partially True

Fact Check: Most Wars are pointless more innocent people die.Settle it peacefully!But, if a person who is causing lots of harm needs to be taken down you almost always have to wage warπŸ€—πŸ€—

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Most Wars are pointless more innocent people die.Settle it peacefully!But, if a person who is causing lots of harm needs to be taken down you almost always have to wage warπŸ€—πŸ€—

Aug 3, 2025
Read more β†’
Fact Check:    Most Wars are pointless more innocent people die.Settle it peacefully!
Partially True

Fact Check: Most Wars are pointless more innocent people die.Settle it peacefully!

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Most Wars are pointless more innocent people die.Settle it peacefully!

Aug 3, 2025
Read more β†’
Fact Check: Deportations Under President Obama
Total Deportations
Barack Obama deported over 3 million individuals during his two terms from 2009 to 2017.
Annual Deportation Records
YEAR
NUMBER OF DEPORTATIONS
2013
438,421
2014
414.481
2009-2016
Over 3 million total
Summary Removals
Between 75% and 83% of those deported did not have the opportunity to plead their case in court, as many were removed through expedited processes
Comparison with Other Presidents
Obama holds the record for the most
Partially True

Fact Check: Deportations Under President Obama Total Deportations Barack Obama deported over 3 million individuals during his two terms from 2009 to 2017. Annual Deportation Records YEAR NUMBER OF DEPORTATIONS 2013 438,421 2014 414.481 2009-2016 Over 3 million total Summary Removals Between 75% and 83% of those deported did not have the opportunity to plead their case in court, as many were removed through expedited processes Comparison with Other Presidents Obama holds the record for the most

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Deportations Under President Obama Total Deportations Barack Obama deported over 3 million individuals during his two terms from 2009 to 2017. Annual Deportation Records YEAR NUMBER OF DEPORTATIONS 2013 438,421 2014 414.481 2009-2016 Over 3 million total Summary Removals Between 75% and 83% of those deported did not have the opportunity to plead their case in court, as many were removed through expedited processes Comparison with Other Presidents Obama holds the record for the most

Jul 31, 2025
Read more β†’
Fact Check: Most people on the right do not care about political scandals. | TruthOrFake Blog