In Isolation

Let me tell you this: I don't understand my parents' relationship. And yet I'm supposed to, over the span of a campaign, understand the reasoning behind the presidential candidate's choice of mate and infer certain characteristics based on his choice. I think that's nearly impossible.
Jon Stewart. (GQ Magazine, October 2004.)

Apparently, this also includes a lack of a mate, as "GOP donors fret over Scott's single status," according to Axios. While this story is presented as a "scoop," I'm not sure that it even qualifies as a spoonful, given the paucity of actual information it contains. In short, anonymous sources report that "some conservative Republican donors" have concerns, "curiosity and apprehension" over the fact that Senator Tim Scott is not married, and he's keeping the identity of his girlfriend secret.

In other words, Conservative Republican donors are afraid that, since Senator Scott isn't obviously married, and thus can't trot out a wife to show what a "regular guy" he is, he might actually be uninterested in being married or (horror of horrors!) gay. But "Conservative Republican Donors Demand Public Displays of Their 'Family Values' in Return for Money," isn't a scoop, given that it's about as unexpected as "Water Makes Things Wet," and "The Sun Rose in the East This Morning." Is there a news story in there about the idea that Republican donors would have doubts about someone who doesn't openly follow the "Family Man" model of Conservative masculinity? Maybe. After all, given that Conservatism writ large is typically defined by concerning itself with wanting to halt the flow of social change, if not roll it back, this seems pretty much par for the course.

Given the fact that Donald Trump is able to raise plenty of money without needing to display any particular fealty, or even lip service, to Conservative values, I suspect that may actually be going on here is that donors have serious concerns about Senator Scott's prospects. Personally, I'm of the opinion that he's running to raise his profile ahead of a more serious 2028 run for the White House. There's almost no realistic chance that he'll win the Republican nomination. Now, I've noted how bad I am at predicting the future, so it would be unwise of me to say for certain that Senator Scott's days as a candidate for President in 2024 are numbered, even if I suspect that it's where the smart money is. Since donors, though, are all about smart money, I would not be surprised if these alleged worries about the Senator's relationship status are simply a smokescreen for more rational concerns about what their donations are actually going to be used for. A lot changes in politics in four years, and people who have no problem donating to him now might not want that to simply go into a "Scott in 2028" fund given that uncertainty.

Gossip and rumor passing for political news is becoming commonplace, as outlets seek to fill page space with whatever they think that someone might be interested in, without needing to expend much in the way of resources fleshing things out. And that's the case here, because their could be an interesting story here, either about a disconnect (intentional or otherwise) between the Conservative donor class and the public more broadly, or concerns over Senator Scott's long-term viability as a candidate. Taking two "anonymice" (as Slate's Jack Sheafer used to call them) and building a story around their leaks, using old stories and a brief history lesson to pad things out saves on costs. "News worthy of your time," has to also be worthy of some resources.