How does deleting old social media posts impact a candidate's public trust when those posts inevitably resurface?

Question

Accepted Answer

Deleting old posts usually does more damage to public trust than leaving them up and explaining them, because deletion can look like concealment even when the candidate says the goal was to prevent posts from being taken out of context. In practice, old posts rarely disappear. Archived screenshots, reposts and opposition research often bring them back, and the act of deleting them becomes part of the story. That shifts attention from the original remark alone to a second question: whether the candidate is being fully candid now. In Abdul El-Sayed’s case, the resurfacing of deleted 9/11- and COVID-related posts added a layer of scrutiny beyond the substance of the comments themselves, especially when paired with questions about judgment and public messaging. Trust tends to depend less on whether a post once existed than on how a candidate responds when it resurfaces. Voters and analysts are often more forgiving when a candidate acknowledges the post, explains the context, says clearly whether the view has changed, and accepts responsibility. Public figures such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Maxwell Frost have argued that voters can distinguish between an old mistake, a pattern of behavior and a refusal to be accountable. Deletion is most harmful when it appears selective, unexplained or inconsistent with current messaging. It is less politically damaging when followed by prompt transparency, a clear rationale and a consistent record. The broader lesson is that in modern cam…

El-Sayed Says He Will Attend 9/11 Memorial as Public Schedule Lists 3 Festive Events

Sources

Sources

El-Sayed Says He Will Attend 9/11 Memorial as Public Schedule Lists 3 Festive Events

Summary

Sources

Insights

Related Stories

Sources

Related Stories