In 1983, Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards quipped to reporters "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy". Edwards was a very quotable politician and this one entered the political lexicon to describe a situation where a candidate is a shoo-in and would have to really screw up to blow the election. But has anybody really thought about what it means, of it it's even accurate anymore?
Let's step back for a minute and consider the meaning. At the time Edwards said it, he was suggesting that he could get away with having an affair with a woman as long as she did not wind up dead as a result of the affair, presumably by him murdering her (though it's possible he was making a reference to Chappaquiddick although that particular dead girl didn't cost anybody an election except for District Attorney Edmund Dinnis). But if he were found with a 'live boy', that is, having a gay affair, that would cost him the election. So what this essentially does is compare being gay to being a murderer. Does anybody else have a problem with this?
And I'm really not sure how true any of this is. To some extent, voters have become less tolerant of politicians having affairs, but that's mostly a result of the press being less skittish about reporting such things. Or course there are examples of both cases. A New York congressman resigned because he was sending out shirtless pictures on a dating service (and presumably had he not quit, the press would have found whoever he was cheating with). Yet the Appalachian Trail hiking former Governor of South Carolina was able to make a quick comeback to congress.
As for the 'dead girl' scenario, the only prominent example where a prominent politician has been linked to a dead girl I can think of (besides Kennedy, who didn't lose) is Gary Condit. He did lose, but that was probably as much for trying to cover up the affair. It was eventually proven that he had nothing to do with her death.
But would a politician survive being found with a 'live boy' these days? The three most recent cases I can think off all went down not because they were found with a guy, but because of related misbehavior. Larry Craig got busted for trying to pick up a cop in an airport bathroom then lying about it. Jim McGreevey gave his boyfriend a job that he was not qualified for and then the boyfriend was going to sue him for sexual harassment. Paul Babeu threatened to deport his former boyfriend to get him to keep his mouth shut. (Worth mentioning that Babeu won re-election to his post as Sheriff. As a Republican to boot.)
Let's consider a couple of Dems running for re-election to the senate who are on the 'safe' list. If Dick Durbin or Jack Reed were found to be having a straightforward gay affair (that is, the only thing improper would be the infidelity), do you think either would lose? I don't, though I suspect those Catholics in RI would be less happy about it than the people in IL. I don't really think it would hurt them all that much more than if they were found to be having an affair with a woman. Both would cost them some votes and support, but I don't see either doing them in. But if either were substantively linked to a dead girl - if voters really believed they were responsible for the death, either through outright murder or even negligence, this would be a much harder thing to overcome.
The only way this quote would still be accurate today would be if you thought 'boy' literally meant a boy - an underage male - but I don't think anybody takes it that way as that would also suggest the same thing about 'girl' and a politician couldn't get away with having sex with a child no matter what the gender.
So perhaps it's time to retire the dead girl/live boy quote? Because it's inaccurate and also offensive to gay people.