Tim Scott isn't married. Is that a problem?

Maybe.

(Tim Scott)

When South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott announced for president on Monday, something was missing. There was no wife by his side or kids looking on — adoringly, of course — at their dad.

See, Scott is single. Always has been. And, at age 57, that makes him a major outlier in the world of presidential politics.

The United States has only elected two bachelors president in its history — James Buchanan and Grover Cleveland. Buchanan was a lifelong bachelor while Cleveland married a year into his time in the White House.

And, in the wake of Scott’s announcement, there was talk that being single was a major impediment to his chances.

In a viral tweet, Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at the Internet Accountability Project, wrote that “Tim Scott is 57, never married, no children. Not to be harsh, but that's simply disqualifying.”

Katrina Pierson, a one-time aide to Donald Trump and a conservative pundit, agreed, writing:

There is something to be said about relatability here. How can someone make decisions for millions of families who doesn’t have the fundamental experience of managing and maintaining a family? Or, anyone other than themselves? It’s like those people without kids comparing their theoretical parenting skills to yours. Sure, your kids would be perfect and your parenting skills are far above average in your head. Reality is more than just a philosophy in practice.

I’d note here that a politician doesn’t necessarily have to have personal experience with an issue to be able to address it. You don’t have to be an immigrant to have views on immigration policy. Or a gun owner to have a belief on the right role for guns in society. You get the idea.

But, the broader point here is worth asking: Does it matter to voters that Scott is not married?

It might! Especially because Scott is leaning so heavily on his personal biography to sell himself to voters. Just check out his first TV ad, which launched today in Iowa and New Hampshire:

Given such a strong emphasis on his life story, voters are likely to want to know more about the personal side of Scott. And, at least when it comes to relationships, he is a bit of a vault.

Here’s an exchange between Scott and NBC’s Tom Llamas after he announced his candidacy on Monday:

LLAMAS: There’s a question America would love for you to answer. If you become president you’d be like Grover Cleveland and James Buchanan, you would-- you’d go as a bachelor, as a single man. Is-- is there someone in your life-- h-- is there time for a woman in your life right now?

SCOTT: Oh, there’s always-- there’s always time for-- a great relationship with a wonderful woman. And I thank god that that is happening. But-- so I’ll leave it there.

LLAMAS: Okay.

So, Scott is dating someone then? But isn’t saying who? Am I reading that right?

This isn’t the first time that Scott has been decidedly (or purposely) vague about his personal life.

This, from a 2012 Daily Mail story, is instructive:

Rep. Tim Scott first campaigned across South Carolina as a proud 30-year-old virgin, unabashed about his Evangelical Christian faith and his devotion to God's commandments.

That pledge of abstinence has not survived his career in politics. After 16 years in public life and winning a seat in the US House, Scott, now 46 and still unmarried, admits he is no longer a virgin.

That assumption came from this quote that Scott gave to reporter Ben Terris for a 2012 profile in National Journal when asked whether he was still a virgin: “Yeah… Not as well as I did then. The Bible’s right. You’re better off to wait. I just wish we all had more patience.”

(Terris wrote about his interaction with Scott on Twitter Tuesday.)

So, yeah, Scott is a little bit cagey about his personal life.

Which may not matter! After all, the frontrunner to be the Republican presidential nominee (and the man who served as president for four years) is thrice married and has kids from all three of those marriages.

While Republican voters may have once put stock in the idea of a traditional nuclear family, it’s uniquely possible that Donald Trump broke that mold. That voters just don’t care about who you are married to (or if you are married) anymore. Or that, if they care, it’s way down their priority list.

The only pushback I will make to that argument is that politics is the art of empathy. It’s about convincing large swaths of people that you understand their lives in a fundamental way — that even though you are running for president, you are, at root, like them.

And, the fact is that Republicans over-index as married. There is a marriage gap between Republicans and Democrats.

This, from a 2009 Gallup survey. is useful to make that point:

And, as Gallup concludes from the data: “This marriage gap in party identification is evident across races as well as age groups.”

So, Scott not being married may mark him as different or other. It may make it harder for him to connect to voters who he needs to become a viable candidate.

And it may be that until Scott looks viable — he remains mired in the low single digits right now — all of this is a moot point.

That’s the view of one senior Republican strategist I asked about Scott’s relationship status.

“The fact that Senator Scott is single doesn't mean a damned thing right now, and won't until his support rises and he becomes a potential target for one of the other candidates,” the source said. “Everything changes if he hits the top tier.”