Two Democratic candidates drew attention this week when they teamed up for a rally in Texas, and scrutiny quickly followed over their public social media behavior and past posts that critics say clash with the image they present on the trail.

Jasmine Crockett is running for the U.S. Senate in Texas and will naturally command a lot of headlines, but other Democrats on the ballot are grabbing attention for different reasons. James Talarico, a Texas state representative, is running in the same Senate primary, and Bobby Pulido, the Grammy Award-winning musician, is seeking a House seat against Republican Congresswoman Monica De La Cruz in the 15th District in Weslaco. When two candidates with big personalities pair up for a rally, reporters and voters start digging beyond the talking points.

What made this particular event odd for many observers was not the music or the speeches but the digital footprints these men have left behind. Reporting has highlighted a series of social media posts and follows that, to critics, undercut the moral and religious arguments some Democrats try to make when courting swing voters. That backdrop explains why the rally became more than a local get-together and instead a story about image and credibility.

Bobby Pulido, an award-winning musician-turned-congressional candidate, has a digital footprint of references to explicit material that lingers on his social media as he pursues a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. 

From 2013 to as recently as 2024, Pulido has posted a range of links, images and references to pornographic material. 

In 2013, Pulido told viewers to visit pornographic website YouPorn if bored and reposted links to porn sites featuring the music of fellow musicians, asking them if they’re receiving royalties for being featured.  

In 2015, he posted a link to YouPorn but later deleted it, claiming his account had been hacked.  

“It’s impossible to have Twitter and not watch porn,” Pulido said in a 2014 post on X, formerly known as Twitter. 

“To everyone crying over the shutdown of XVideos, I’m telling you there are other free sites. I mean, that’s what they’ve told me. #you’rewelcome,” Pulido wrote in a 2016 post on X. 

The reaction is predictable: voters wonder whether someone who casually promoted explicit sites or joked about adult sites is fit for public office, even if the behavior isn’t illegal. Pulido has defended past posts as either jokes or the result of account issues, but in politics plausibility matters more than intent. When your digital past is readily searchable, the easy answers rarely satisfy skeptical voters.

James Talarico, a Texas Democrat running for U.S. Senate who has put his faith at the forefront of his campaign, follows several adult film performers, escorts and OnlyFans models on Instagram, according to an Axios review. 

The big picture: Talarico, 36, a seminarian and state House member, has become a sensation in Texas politics by talking about how his Christianity is the basis for his Democratic politics. 

He says he wants to win back Christians who have left the Democratic Party by exposing how Republican policies on immigration and other issues don’t align with biblical values. 

Talarico has drawn large crowds around the state, and praise from party leaders including former President Obama.

Talarico’s spokesperson JT Ennis said in a statement that “the social media team — including James — follows back and engages with supporters who have large followings and does not investigate their backgrounds.” The Instagram accounts Talarico follows typically have at least 50,000 followers. 

That contrast between preaching faith and following adult entertainers online cuts straight to a credibility question. If Talarico is serious about appealing to religious voters he must explain why his social media behavior looks disconnected from the values he claims to represent. His team says following back is automatic, but automatic behavior still reflects choices about who is allowed to populate a campaign’s public face.

Voters should expect consistency, not convenient explanations after a controversy breaks. Democrats in safe states can sometimes treat campaigns like a showcase, inviting friendly crowds and celebrities and hoping national attention masks awkward details. But Texas, despite pockets of blue, is still largely conservative, so these optics matter for down-ballot races and primary fights alike.

There is also a broader pattern worth noting: parties that routinely excuse bad behavior end up with candidates who feel untouchable until a local reporter pulls a thread. Whether it is crude social posts or worse lapses, the public deserves straightforward answers from anyone asking for power. Candidates who cannot meet that standard should not be surprised when opponents and voters press for clarity.

In the end, this rally became less about policy and more about how political brands are built and defended in public. When a campaign pitches faith or moral authority, the public will check whether the personal record backs it up. For those running in competitive environments, odd digital histories are not a distraction—they are a liability.