Progressive Democratic candidates are sending a clear message to the party establishment amid a series of primary wins poised to reshape the party’s ideological stance: Stop dwelling on old social media posts.
They argue that attacks focusing on past calls to defund the police and identity politics, issues that emerged from the party’s leftward shift during Donald Trump’s presidency, won’t be the key concerns for voters in the upcoming November elections.
Instead, these candidates believe that a populist economic message addressing affordability issues will secure their victory.
âYou can talk about my tweets if you want to, but you canât afford your health care, you canât afford your groceries, you canât afford your housing,â Michigan Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed said in an interview. âAnd itâs because of Donald Trumpâs absurd policies.”
This defensive approach, popular among progressive candidates, represents a new direction for Democrats, who continue to grapple with the impact of a difficult presidential election. Some attribute the loss to the party’s hesitance to distance itself from progressive positions on trans rights, policing, and other topics that alienated moderate voters.
Many progressives have embraced their outspoken nature, hoping voters will value their authenticity. However, moderate opponents worry about potential losses if primary voters choose candidates with apparent vulnerabilities that Republicans could exploit.
The line between which past comments should be addressed and which can be sidestepped remains unclear. Generally, though, progressive candidates are brushing off attacks related to their past actions.
âIâve been to 400-plus public events, and nobodyâs ever asked me about my tweets,â El-Sayed said.
Roxie Richner, spokesperson for El-Sayed’s campaign, mentioned that he deleted all posts older than July 2023 âto prevent any old posts from being taken out of contextâ without targeting a specific topic.
The necessity to address past comments varies by primary. James Talarico, the Texas Democratic Senate nominee, has retracted some of his boldest statements, like calling God nonbinary and discussing white privilege, admitting they were âcringey.â
In contrast, Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York City managed to navigate criticisms of her prison abolition stance to defeat longtime Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.).
However, she did express regret for some past posts, including ones harshly critical of Kamala Harris and Joe Biden.
Bill Neidhardt, a Democratic strategist with the progressive firm Middle Seat, noted that while thereâs room for apologies, rejecting attacks on their progressive past can resonate well with voters seeking an outsider candidate.
âWhenever I see an incumbent focusing on tweets and not about the economy, I feel like my campaign is in the place where I want it to be,â said Neidhardt, whose firm has supported progressives like Avila Chevalier, El-Sayed, and Melat Kiros, who recently unseated a 15-term incumbent in Colorado.
El-Sayed has consistently highlighted that he prefers not to focus on the past, despite attempts by opponents to do so over his deleted 2020 posts about police funding.
He told POLITICO, âthe idea that you stand by everything you ever said, out of context, is an insane thing to assume about anybody.â
Yet, El-Sayed’s evolving stance on past statements has complicated matters. After claiming he had never advocated for defunding, CNN reported that in a June 2020 interview, he said âwe do need to defund the police.â
In response to coverage of his past remarks, El-Sayed questioned the newsworthiness, suggesting that the debate over past tweets is more about generating clicks than addressing real issues.
Neidhardt advises candidates to focus on significant topics like economic issues rather than getting distracted by past social media posts.
âThey care about whether someone’s gonna fight for them,â he said about the voters.
This approach is echoed by Francesca Hong, a gubernatorial candidate in Wisconsin, who has also faced criticism for past social media posts. Hong leads in recent primary polls, despite the critiques.
Allison Geyer, Hongâs campaign spokesperson, explained that while slogans can attract attention, they often fail to capture the complexity of policy issues.
Geyer noted that Hong âdoes not regret speaking outâ on issues of police violence and racial injustice, though slogans are âimperfect tools.â
However, some candidates have found their campaigns hindered by problematic social media posts and personal controversies, as seen with Maine Democrat Graham Platner. Since-deleted posts and various scandals have severely impacted his campaign, leading to its suspension.
Platner ended his campaign following allegations of sexual assault by an ex-girlfriend, which he denied.
Despite progressives’ confidence, opponents worry that their dismissive approach to past comments may haunt them. Some of Hongâs opponents in Wisconsin criticized her posts, with Joel Brennan saying âI don’t think there are three words that have done more damage to Democrats in the last decade than âdefund the police.ââ
âIf we spend this fall defending those words, I’m afraid we lose,â Brennan added, even as he trails in the polls.
Michigan Republicans are eager to contest El-Sayed. Republican Senate nominee Mike Rogers stated, âhide and deflect all he wants, Michiganders see Abdul and the Democrats for how out-of-touch they really are.â
Arik Wolk, spokesperson for El-Sayed’s primary opponent, claimed Republicans see El-Sayed as a vulnerable candidate.
El-Sayed has experienced a glimpse of potential Republican opposition if he wins the primary. The National Republican Senatorial Committee launched an attack ad portraying him as âtoo radical for Michigan.â El-Sayed responded by suggesting this characterization is precisely why people should support him.
However, Kate deGruyter from Third Way warned that embracing a radical image could backfire, as Republicans often use such evidence to paint Democrats as extremists on camera.
