In the end, justice prevails; past statements captured on the internet became a liability.

If you visit Francesca Hong's website (https://francescahong.com), this phrase appears at the top.

"State Representative. Single Mom. Restaurant Worker. Chef."

She is a state representative (the first Asian American state representative in Wisconsin and a three-term legislator), a single mom, has worked in restaurants, and is a chef.

This is a powerful summary of her life in four sentences.

It emphasizes that she is not an ordinary political elite but someone who has worked and raised children.

However, perhaps because I have a bit of a traditional mindset, I feel a bit of a "I am the alpha and the omega, I have done this and that, so vote for me" vibe from it.

Of course, politicians need to sell themselves. If someone has a background as a prosecutor, they highlight that experience, and if they are a military veteran, they emphasize their military service.

There is nothing wrong with someone who has worked in a restaurant talking about the life of a worker.

The problem comes next.

If she was considering running for governor beyond being a state representative, she should have reviewed what she said in the past.

In the internet age, even statements made on Twitter five years ago do not disappear.

What friends say over drinks can be forgotten the next day, but posts made on social media are captured, searchable, and ultimately resurface during election season on the opponent's computer.

Calls to abolish the police, abolish ICE, and abolish the federal Senate may have been accepted as political slogans within the progressive camp at the time.

However, a gubernatorial election, which targets the entire electorate of the state, is a different story.

Criticizing Thanksgiving as 'a holiday for colonizers' and later claiming it as a favorite holiday makes it easy for opponents to create ads.

"Why did you say that back then?" That one question is enough.

People's thoughts can change.

My thoughts in my twenties are vastly different from my current thoughts, and there is no rule that politicians must live with the same beliefs for life.

In fact, if one has thought incorrectly, changing one's mind is normal.

However, during an election, that change must be explained.

Voters need to be convinced with, "I thought that way at the time, but my experiences have changed my perspective."

If she cannot do that, her opponent will not say she has changed; they will say she has flip-flopped.

This difference is immensely significant for someone aspiring to be a politician.

Especially if she dreams of being governor, she should have managed her political life as if she were drawing on a clean canvas.

A provocative statement made today to earn applause from enthusiastic supporters could become a reason for moderate voters to reject her five years down the line.

If this election was truly a nail-biter with a 0.4% difference, it is even more bitter.

If 100 people voted and she lost 60 to 40, there would be nothing to say.

However, in an election that is nearly split, one past post, one interview comment, or a few thousand voters who changed their minds in the last few days could flip the results.

That is why the phrase 'justice prevails' comes to mind as I reflect on this outcome.

It is not because of her progressive political stance. A conservative politician who made absurd statements in the past would have faced the same scrutiny right before the election.

Ultimately, politicians will receive a receipt for what they have said.

What is even scarier is that these receipts are no longer on paper but are permanently stored on the internet.

In this world, anyone aspiring to be a politician should first take a look at their Google search results before their business card.