From what I can tell, this was the original question:
Do you think that the two Democrats pictured above would be elected today if their proclivities or scandals were out there for people to talk about?
I think that question is honest (that is, seeking a real answer or some real discussion) and is insightful as well.
Dishonest questions are not seeking an honest answer (though the questioner will deny it) but instead are intended to:
(a) distract or divert the conversation away from something the questioner prefers not to discuss; or
(b) impart information in a deniable way; or
(c) make just about any possible reply look foolish; or
(d) turn attention away from the matter in question itself to some person; or
(e) create a big smokescreen of confusion and annoyance behind which the original topic of discussion, or the whole possibility of having a discussion at all, is purposely lost; or
(f) try to make the questioner look more erudite than he actually is.
So, do I think the two politicians in the question could be elected today?
Possibly not elected for the first time, but if running for re-election possibly yes.
The right-wing screaming section does not control all elections, in all states, all the time. Sometimes a candidate's record of actual performance as a legislator counts for something with his constituents. And it is quite possible for someone to perform well as a legislator without being a person you'd want to spend all your time with. It's a public service job, not a referendum on somebody's life.
And sometimes you vote for the best available candidate for the job realizing no candidate in the race is perfect. If you think of it, an election is like hiring somebody, and all the applicants have strengths and weaknesses.