Well now, here is a story that ought to give Democratic strategists in Washington a case of the cold sweats.

Graham Platner looked like the answer to a prayer for Democrats hoping to unseat Republican Senator Susan Collins in Maine. A former Marine who farms oysters for a living, Platner seemed custom-built to appeal to the rural voters who have kept Collins in office for decades. The kind of candidate who could walk into a VFW hall or a fishing co-op and speak the language.

The numbers tell a compelling story. Recent polling shows Platner holding a commanding 33-point lead over Maine Governor Janet Mills in the Democratic primary. That is not a typo. Thirty-three points. Other surveys have consistently shown similar margins, suggesting this is no statistical fluke.

On paper, Platner's campaign reads like a populist playbook. He is running hard against the establishment, taking aim at billionaires and monopolies with the kind of rhetoric that once defined the Democratic Party's working-class roots. His platform includes major healthcare reforms, a "cost-of-living" tax cut funded by increased taxes on the wealthy, and an end to military aid and weapons shipments to Israel. He talks about breaking up monopolies and standing up for the little guy.

But here is where the story takes a turn, and it is a turn we have seen before in American politics. The past has a way of catching up with candidates, especially in the age when nothing ever truly disappears from the public record.

Throughout his campaign, Platner has found himself repeatedly answering for previous remarks that keep surfacing like unwelcome ghosts at a family reunion. Most recently, he was compelled to issue another public apology this Wednesday, the latest in what has become a troubling pattern for his campaign.

The details matter here, and they raise questions that voters deserve to have answered. How many apologies does it take before a pattern emerges? When does a candidate's past stop being isolated incidents and start revealing something more fundamental about character and judgment?

There is also the matter of Platner's background, which does not quite add up upon closer examination. Despite running as a working-class oyster farmer, questions have emerged about how his father managed to contribute $60,000 to Democratic causes. That is a substantial sum for someone supposedly representing the struggling working class.

Democrats in Maine face a difficult calculation. They have a candidate who polls extraordinarily well, who looks the part, and who says many of the right things to energize the progressive base. But they also have a candidate who cannot seem to escape his own history, who keeps having to explain himself, and whose carefully crafted image may not withstand sustained scrutiny.

Senator Collins has proven herself a survivor in Maine politics, winning re-election even as the state has trended Democratic in presidential contests. She knows her constituents, and she knows how to campaign in a state where authenticity matters more than party label.

The question now is whether Platner's populist appeal can overcome the accumulating weight of his controversies, or whether Democrats have once again found a candidate whose promise exceeds his ability to deliver. The answer will likely determine whether Collins faces a serious challenge or merely another failed attempt to unseat her.

Courage, as they say, is required to face the truth. Maine voters will soon enough decide what truth they see in Graham Platner.

Related: President Signals Possible Pakistan Trip to Close Nuclear Agreement With Iran