RALEIGH – With more news breaking this week about the continuing investigation of former Gov. Mike Easley, the details of last summer’s shooting incident involving soon-to-be-former Sen. R.C. Soles, and other matters of political import, now is a good time to assess how much such news is likely to affect politics in North Carolina.

My own view is that scandals can indeed determine electoral outcomes, but not through the mechanism that most often springs to mind: propelling undecided voters into the camp of the party out of power.

I don’t doubt that high-profile scandals can sometimes do this. In 2006, the perception of widespread Republican incompetence and corruption in Congress and the administration probably led some voters with weak partisan affiliations to lean in favor of giving Democrats more power. What I doubt is that the number of undecided voters swayed by scandal is large. Could they make the difference in an otherwise-close race? Of course. Any seemingly minor factor can be determinative if the margin is tiny.

But I would contend that the greater effect of political scandal on elections comes from base voters, not swing voters. Within the party of a politician convicted or even just credibly accused of wrongdoing, the allegations sap the energy of volunteers, weaken the pitch of fundraisers, and depress the turnout of the base. It happened to the Republicans in 2006. It happened to Democrats in 1994, after a series of scandals in the then-Democratic Congress.

Meanwhile, within the party out of power, scandal leads to two mutually reinforcing responses: righteous indignation at incumbent abuses of power and rising expectations about the possibility of electoral victory. As a result, challengers benefit from more energetic volunteers, more effective fundraisers, and more turnout.

In addition to the fact that I think the elections data bear out this thesis, I think there are good logical reasons to believe that scandal stories affect the base more than the swing.

Ideological, highly partisan voters are better informed about the details of politics than swing voters. On both sides, they are more likely to know which party controls which congressional or legislative chambers. They are more likely to recognize the names of politicians below the rank of president, governor, or U.S. Senate. And they are more consistent consumers of political news, from newspapers, talk radio, public radio, or online sources.

So when a scandal breaks, they are far more likely to make the necessary connections. Person A is a scoundrel. He is a Whig. The Whigs currently control the House of Burgesses. If I’m a Whig, I’m depressed that my party contains scoundrels like this fellow. If I’m a Tory, I’m furious at the misbehavior of those dastardly Whigs and exhilarated at the possibility of removing them from power.

Adding these effects will create a difference in resources and turnout. In non-presidential years such as 1994, 1998, and 2006 – all years in which one or both chamber of Congress changed hands – real or perceived scandals in the incumbent party contributed to its downfall largely by depressing turnout among base voters. Those are cycles in which swing voters played smaller roles, because there was no presidential race at the top of the ticket to bring them to the polls.

Looking at the 2010 elections in North Carolina, then, I think we may well see a similar dynamic. I know more than a few Democrats who are tired of seeing their leaders show up in scandals, particularly if they worked hard to get those leaders elected or keep them in power. And I know quite a few Republicans who are both outraged at the shenanigans of Black, Easley, etc. and expectant of a rising tide for their party in November.

Still, there are still enough truly undecided voters to tip the balance in key races. They’ll vote more on economic and fiscal issues than ethical ones. If GOP candidates offer them a credible set of alternatives for addressing North Carolina’s problems, those voters will swing Republican.

It won’t be because Ruffin Poole is guilty of tax evasion. They don’t know who he is.

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.