A growing number of Democrats are struggling with the issue of how much offense should be tolerated in their candidates before disqualifying them from the party's primaries. The dilemma came to a head when Graham Platner, a gruff veteran-turned-oysterman running for the U.S. Senate in Maine, sparked controversy over his past social media posts on Reddit.
Platner's posts, which included comments that some deemed racist and misogynistic, brought into question whether he is too far gone to be saved. As one former Alabama Senator Doug Jones noted, "Things like overt racism, overt misogyny... are bright lines," but drawing a fine line has become increasingly difficult in today's polarized climate.
Jones stated that the Democratic Party must find a balance between being forgiving and holding its candidates accountable for their actions. He argued that while party insiders should set boundaries, it is crucial to be understanding of past mistakes made by individuals who have "convincingly proven" that they've grown and learned from them.
The evolution in tolerance among Democrats can be attributed, in part, to the Republican Party's long history of tolerating problematic behavior. For example, Donald Trump stood by a nominee like Roy Moore despite allegations of sexual misconduct, while Vice President JD Vance defended operatives who made inflammatory remarks about Black people.
While no Democrat wants to go as far as Republicans have, they are now engaging in more open discussions about where to draw the line on acceptable behavior for their candidates. As former Obama aide Tommy Vietor noted, "The Democratic Party sometimes wants to grow our candidates in the lab and check all the right boxes," but this approach may no longer be effective.
As social media continues to play a larger role in politics, it's becoming increasingly difficult to ignore past controversies. Candidates who don't qualify for AARP are likely to have posted something embarrassing or regrettable on their social media accounts at some point. However, Democrats are looking for genuine apologies and contrition from their candidates before they can be forgiven.
Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to continue supporting a candidate with a troubled past will rest with small donors and voters. If those groups keep showing up and choosing the candidate despite concerns, there's little the party can do about it.
Platner's posts, which included comments that some deemed racist and misogynistic, brought into question whether he is too far gone to be saved. As one former Alabama Senator Doug Jones noted, "Things like overt racism, overt misogyny... are bright lines," but drawing a fine line has become increasingly difficult in today's polarized climate.
Jones stated that the Democratic Party must find a balance between being forgiving and holding its candidates accountable for their actions. He argued that while party insiders should set boundaries, it is crucial to be understanding of past mistakes made by individuals who have "convincingly proven" that they've grown and learned from them.
The evolution in tolerance among Democrats can be attributed, in part, to the Republican Party's long history of tolerating problematic behavior. For example, Donald Trump stood by a nominee like Roy Moore despite allegations of sexual misconduct, while Vice President JD Vance defended operatives who made inflammatory remarks about Black people.
While no Democrat wants to go as far as Republicans have, they are now engaging in more open discussions about where to draw the line on acceptable behavior for their candidates. As former Obama aide Tommy Vietor noted, "The Democratic Party sometimes wants to grow our candidates in the lab and check all the right boxes," but this approach may no longer be effective.
As social media continues to play a larger role in politics, it's becoming increasingly difficult to ignore past controversies. Candidates who don't qualify for AARP are likely to have posted something embarrassing or regrettable on their social media accounts at some point. However, Democrats are looking for genuine apologies and contrition from their candidates before they can be forgiven.
Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to continue supporting a candidate with a troubled past will rest with small donors and voters. If those groups keep showing up and choosing the candidate despite concerns, there's little the party can do about it.
I think this is a really tough spot for the Dems. On one hand, you gotta give people another chance if they've truly changed their ways. On the other hand, holding them accountable for past mistakes isn't gonna cut it either. It's like, we all make some stuff we regret in our lives and grow from 'em, but that doesn't mean we get a free pass to hurt others again.
. It's not about "growing" them or "checking all the right boxes", it's about holding people accountable for their actions 
.
. Is there any credible source that says they've "convincingly proven" they've grown from their mistakes? I'm not seeing it 
.
Let's hear from some actual experts on the issue before we start making decisions about who we support 
What's the party to do when people like Graham Platner think they can just apologize and move on? It feels like they're giving a free pass to people who might not be as committed to changing their ways...
. Like, I get that politicians are human and all, but at some point you gotta have a red line, right? It's not just about being forgiving, but also about accountability 
. And yeah, it's wild how much pressure there is to grow your candidate "in the lab" - like, come on, folks! You can't fix everything with a few tweets and a fancy speech 
. The problem is that social media makes all this so public, it's hard not to take the good with the bad. I mean, if you're gonna ask for our vote, we gotta expect some level of integrity 
. Can't just be sorry and expect us to forget like nothing happened 
. We need to see real change before we'll even consider supporting your campaign 
. i think its because they're all about the aesthetics and not really thinking about what their human wants 
. anyway, speaking of frozen faces, platner's social media posts were pretty cringeworthy 
. but at the same time, can we talk about how weird it is that politicians are now expected to be perfect? like, we all make mistakes and stuff...
. It feels like no one knows how to handle social media anymore - just delete the post or edit it and move on? No, that's not how politics works. The thing is, I get why they're struggling with this, but can't we just have a set of standards or something? I mean, overt racism and misogyny are pretty hard to ignore... I've been seeing so many old posts from politicians online lately and it's just cringeworthy. Can't we all just move on from that? It feels like no one is willing to hold people accountable for their past mistakes, but at the same time, we can't let them get away with stuff without any consequence... ugh, I don't know anymore 
. It's like they think they can just apologize their way out of a problem or pretend like they've changed since like, middle school 
. And I'm not alone, either. Small donors and voters deserve better than some half-hearted apology from a candidate who thinks they can just pivot and expect everyone to forget about it.
, but at what cost? They're more concerned with being liked by insiders than actually being accountable for their actions. It's time for some tough love, folks 
It's hard enough trusting someone with the power to make decisions that affect our lives without having to keep up with some secret life they've been hiding from us. And don't even get me started on how social media makes it so easy for people to just delete and pretend like nothing ever happened 
. The thing is, though, we need politicians who are willing to own up to their mistakes and say sorry, not just apologize in a tweet 
. If they can do that, then maybe, just maybe, we can forgive them and move on 