The New York Times's editorial board put the Democratic Party square in its sights with a devastating critique of its lack of direction — and a bleak warning of what it will achieve.
The newspaper's editors were tackling the sensational implosion of Maine candidate Graham Platner's campaign after he was accused of sexual assault and quit.
But their overriding message was not about flawed candidates, but about the party's apparent refusal to embrace personalities that spark excitement.
"It’s tempting to treat this as a story of one flawed man and a vetting process that failed," the board wrote. "There is truth in that, and the party should absorb the obvious lesson about scrutinizing candidates before it pours itself into them.
"But the more uncomfortable lesson is the one that the Platner boom offered before the bust. The hunger that lifted him — the overflow crowds, the volunteer armies, the sense that here, at last, was someone who meant it — was real. It was also a hunger the party keeps trying to satisfy with a personality instead of a purpose.
"Let’s concede what is true in the case for candidates like Mr. Platner. Democrats do need fresh, charismatic, younger contenders, and they should stop treating the next name in line as an entitlement. A party is strongest when it is a genuinely big tent, willing to host real disagreement rather than enforce a single approved script. Voters can tell the difference between a coalition and a focus group, and they are drawn to the former."
The editors' takedown echoes multiple voices concerned that the party has avoided being associated with progressive candidates that spark enthusiastic support, particularly among younger voters.
In New York City, Senator Chuck Schumer outright refused to endorse Zohran Mamdani as he ran for mayor last year, a position shared by many establishment figures of the party. Mamdani went on to win with more than 50 percent of the vote.
A similar lukewarm welcome has been given to progressive candidates who have beaten longtime Democratic Party incumbents in New York City and in Denver in recent primaries.
"Voters keep saying the same thing: They want change, they want action and they are tired of being managed," the Times' editors wrote.
"... One sign of the party’s dysfunction came in May, when the Democratic National Committee released an embarrassing autopsy on the party’s presidential loss in 2024. Instead of offering honest reflections and a vision for the future, the report resembled an incomplete homework assignment, filled with notes like, 'This section was not provided by author.' It was another missed chance to chart a new path."
The Times' editorial concluded: "This is the deeper reason the Platner phenomenon should unsettle Democrats. Mr. Platner’s appeal was never really about oysters or facial hair. It was that he seemed to stand for something. He was angry on voters’ behalf about an economy that seems rigged for the powerful, and he was unafraid to say so. People responded to the promise of conviction.
"That signal is the one the party ought to be reading. The tragedy of a campaign like his is not only that it collapsed, as it deserved to, but that so much energy was poured into a messenger before anyone was sure of the message."