I agree wholeheartedly. We have too many of these character-free candidates floating around in various campaigns, now and in the past. Of course, it makes one question why politics has always attracted those types, and why we can't get more people of character to run for office. Is it the process itself that seems unsavory to regular people who might serve the public without baggage, or is it simply a money issue? I truly enjoyed your take on this.
I think you’re the one missing the point, and by a long shot. These purity tests are destructive and unproductive, and I would add unrealistic Platner is certainly a flawed candidate, but there are elected officials with much worse flaws. Collins herself for example had an affair with a married man. Some would call her a home wrecker. Platner has never been credibly accused of anything, and all this screeching about his infidelities are misplaced. He served his country for four tours in wars that Collins voted for. Additionally, one of the women in the Times arty is a Republican operative who helped Kavanaugh’s nomination, a man who was credibility accused of attempted rape. This smear campaign against Platner will help those currently in power, people who do not represent the people of our country in any honest or effective way.
I get your point but these standards seem to apply to only Democrats, not republicans. A lot of political science research has shown that voters and pundits alike treat democrats like women and republicans like men. In our patriarchy, men are readily excused for their flaws and usually women are held to a higher standard. I think you get my drift. In this case, we’re holding Platner to a higher standard than Trump, Collins, etc. in the Epstein era, we want to hold people accountable but we’re not punishing the guilty parties. It’s a new moral zeitgeist but a misguided one
I agree that Democrats are more stringent about policing their candidates than Republicans are. I don't think that's a reason for Democrats to start nominating worse people.
I don’t think democrats are nominating worse people but again you’re speaking in judgmental moral terms. Platner is a flawed human being but so are the voters and they think he had their interests at heart unlike Collins and others who haven’t experienced the rough edges of life as he has.
Per our conversation yesterday there’s an article in the New Republic about Platner on why he needs to win. If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend.
The Democratic party has been criticized for paying more attention to purity tests than to character and effectiveness. In the minds of many voters that means that they don't really care about the issues they claim to care about--the issues are less important than virtue signaling.
And here you are, making the ridiculous claim that to support Graham Platner is to nominate someone "who is comfortable with Nazi rhetoric and imagery."
I have some sympathy with people who have reservations about Platner because he may have behaved badly with a few women years ago (though not with others, apparently). But to suggest that Platner's tattoo makes him a Nazi sympathizer is asinine--the stupidest form of character assassination. Sure, the Republicans might use the tattoo as a political argument. So what? It will blow up in their face. Any sentient person can see that Platner--whatever his strengths and weaknesses--is not that kind of a bad guy. If he'd gotten the tattoo as a dissolute biker, then maybe there'd be something to talk about. But he got it with a bunch of servicemen as a goof. Some Nazi.
That some Democrats are trying to put distance between themselves and Platner does them no credit. It simply reinforces the notion that they're a bunch of pussies. If Platner makes a bad case for important principles--or a good case for deplorable principles--then call him on it. Until then, to natter on about his CV is to support Susan Collins--and Donald Trump and Russell Vought and Stephen Miller.
You're arguing that Democrats should focus more on character and effectiveness. Fine, but we have zero evidence about Platner's effectiveness as a senator or any kind of officeholder. And what we know about his character is at the very least spotty.
Also, not wanting a candidate with a Nazi-themed tattoo on his chest doesn't really strike me as a very stringent "purity test."
Before you make a judgement on Platner, I suggest you listen to him at his town halls as well as spend a few minutes learning about PTSD. Clearly his has managed to overcome his Totenkopf and other war related garbage with the help of the VA. I was not a fan of his until I met him in person. Now I believe that he speaks honestly and cogently. I suspect I will vote for him in the hope that we will go beyond stale Susan. McGG in ME.
If you simply expressed some skepticism that Platner is the virtuous tribune that he currently appears to be, I would not have responded.
Of course what we know about Platner and his character is spotty. His rise has echoes of "Meet John Doe." He was persuaded to run because some politicos saw his efforts about local issues and thought he had the charisma and back story to win the hearts of the public. He appears to have risen to the challenge as well as they dreamed. That doesn't mean that he'll be a good Senator. He does, however, appear to be a good candidate, something your piece implicitly denies. The "Nazi-themed tattoo on his chest," in the absence of any evidence that he's a Nazi sympathizer, makes him more believable as a regular guy, without pretensions, who can speak for regular people.
"Meet John Doe" is cynical about the American love for the (white male) "common man", and certainly our politics is full of examples of good communicators with the common touch who are inappropriate political leaders--our current President being bizarrely exemplary, though he appears to be losing his touch. On the other hand, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Zohran Mamdani, good communicators without obvious prior "qualifications" to be Representative and NYC Mayor, appear to be quite capable in their jobs--and every bit as principled as they claimed to be.
Democrats are regularly accused of being "Republican-lite" and of "having abandoned the people they claim to represent." If it's a matter of their platform or even of their accomplishments in office, the accusation is debatable. On the other hand, the Democrats have preferred to put forward the kinds of people who used to be in the progressive end of the Republican party--clean-cut, well-mannered technocrats. It's not surprising that large parts of the population look elsewhere. Racism, sexist, and xenophobia are part of the explanation, but not the whole story. That has to change if the Dems are going to become a real majority.
And yet despite being rat fucked he is still cruising to the primary and presumably will vanquish corrupt Shaking Susan Collins. Funny things voters are 🤔😁
I feel you because itʻs the same with women. Statistically, weʻre the ones out there volunteering and donating, yet itʻs apparently no big deal to throw us under the bus- abortion is the big one. Now, seeing Democrats support a man who clearly doesnʻt care about even the women closest to him is a slap in the face. The party just assumes women will be there to save them every time, no matter how they treat us or how little they fight for us.
Your leap to categorizing Platner as a Nazi sympathizer who espouses Nazi behavior is absurd. This man went through hell in an American serviceman’s uniform, experiencing the brutality of war, the inhumanity of what a “war fighter” often endures. The damage inflicted by these experiences is not only physical but mental, emotional and spiritual. It takes years to overcome PTSD. Platner has put in the work to push back the demons he (and tens of thousands more) was haunted by. The citizens of Maine will choose the person they believe will be the best person to represent them in the US Senate in November 2026. The nationwide hysteria by media and Republicans matters not.
At no point did I describe him as a Nazi sympathizer. And I don't doubt that he went through hell during his military service. That's certainly commendable and sympathetic but it doesn't mean one has earned a Senate nomination.
He has earned the support of many, many Maine citizens to represent their state in the US Senate because they agree with his viewpoints and ideas of how to improve the lives of Mainers. Period.
All points taken, but I’m not sure you’re addressing the actual trade off here, which is (1) problematic (Democratic) candidate and possibly problematic senator versus (2) far more problematic (Republican) senator and control of the Senate. If that’s indeed the choice, then the answer, to me, seems obvious. It’s not like there is another viable nominee waiting in the wings (and, no, Janet Mills is not a viable nominee).
Regardless of what happens, it is important that the Democratic Party asks how someone like Platner managed to win over such a large part of the primary electorate, and presumably the general as well, given polls. For good or for ill, Platner was not a 705+ year old person who actually had a coherent ideology rooted in FDR's New Dealism that conveyed complex ideas in a manner that people could actually understand. A good example of this would be his interview with Jon Stewart. It is hard to think of a similar candidate supported by the establishment? I recall a dissertation by my former colleague, Andrew Tyner, that found one big distinction between Clinton and Trump in 2016 is that in the campaign, Clinton converged on no single topic/theme, whereas Trump did. Using the old terminology, Clinton had the rhetoric of a fox, whereas Trump a hedgehog (you have no idea how much it hurts to write this). Likewise, one theme I noticed in reading about the Democratic attempts to recover as an organization is that everytime there is an attempt to "manage" the different interests in the party, no one ever seems able to craft a coherent vision that attracts the various factions to their cause. Easier said than done, obviously, but the point is the Democratic Party needs people with boldness, vision and leadership, which was lacking in Maine and in numerous candidates backed by a Schumer establishment.
I agree wholeheartedly. We have too many of these character-free candidates floating around in various campaigns, now and in the past. Of course, it makes one question why politics has always attracted those types, and why we can't get more people of character to run for office. Is it the process itself that seems unsavory to regular people who might serve the public without baggage, or is it simply a money issue? I truly enjoyed your take on this.
I think you’re the one missing the point, and by a long shot. These purity tests are destructive and unproductive, and I would add unrealistic Platner is certainly a flawed candidate, but there are elected officials with much worse flaws. Collins herself for example had an affair with a married man. Some would call her a home wrecker. Platner has never been credibly accused of anything, and all this screeching about his infidelities are misplaced. He served his country for four tours in wars that Collins voted for. Additionally, one of the women in the Times arty is a Republican operative who helped Kavanaugh’s nomination, a man who was credibility accused of attempted rape. This smear campaign against Platner will help those currently in power, people who do not represent the people of our country in any honest or effective way.
I know there are elected officials with worse flaws. That doesn't seem like a great standard, though.
I get your point but these standards seem to apply to only Democrats, not republicans. A lot of political science research has shown that voters and pundits alike treat democrats like women and republicans like men. In our patriarchy, men are readily excused for their flaws and usually women are held to a higher standard. I think you get my drift. In this case, we’re holding Platner to a higher standard than Trump, Collins, etc. in the Epstein era, we want to hold people accountable but we’re not punishing the guilty parties. It’s a new moral zeitgeist but a misguided one
I agree that Democrats are more stringent about policing their candidates than Republicans are. I don't think that's a reason for Democrats to start nominating worse people.
I don’t think democrats are nominating worse people but again you’re speaking in judgmental moral terms. Platner is a flawed human being but so are the voters and they think he had their interests at heart unlike Collins and others who haven’t experienced the rough edges of life as he has.
Hi,
Per our conversation yesterday there’s an article in the New Republic about Platner on why he needs to win. If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend.
I think you're the one who is missing the point.
The Democratic party has been criticized for paying more attention to purity tests than to character and effectiveness. In the minds of many voters that means that they don't really care about the issues they claim to care about--the issues are less important than virtue signaling.
And here you are, making the ridiculous claim that to support Graham Platner is to nominate someone "who is comfortable with Nazi rhetoric and imagery."
I have some sympathy with people who have reservations about Platner because he may have behaved badly with a few women years ago (though not with others, apparently). But to suggest that Platner's tattoo makes him a Nazi sympathizer is asinine--the stupidest form of character assassination. Sure, the Republicans might use the tattoo as a political argument. So what? It will blow up in their face. Any sentient person can see that Platner--whatever his strengths and weaknesses--is not that kind of a bad guy. If he'd gotten the tattoo as a dissolute biker, then maybe there'd be something to talk about. But he got it with a bunch of servicemen as a goof. Some Nazi.
That some Democrats are trying to put distance between themselves and Platner does them no credit. It simply reinforces the notion that they're a bunch of pussies. If Platner makes a bad case for important principles--or a good case for deplorable principles--then call him on it. Until then, to natter on about his CV is to support Susan Collins--and Donald Trump and Russell Vought and Stephen Miller.
You're arguing that Democrats should focus more on character and effectiveness. Fine, but we have zero evidence about Platner's effectiveness as a senator or any kind of officeholder. And what we know about his character is at the very least spotty.
Also, not wanting a candidate with a Nazi-themed tattoo on his chest doesn't really strike me as a very stringent "purity test."
Before you make a judgement on Platner, I suggest you listen to him at his town halls as well as spend a few minutes learning about PTSD. Clearly his has managed to overcome his Totenkopf and other war related garbage with the help of the VA. I was not a fan of his until I met him in person. Now I believe that he speaks honestly and cogently. I suspect I will vote for him in the hope that we will go beyond stale Susan. McGG in ME.
I have listened to him and he’s very good. Again, the question is whether Dems want to take on having to justify his past constantly
If you simply expressed some skepticism that Platner is the virtuous tribune that he currently appears to be, I would not have responded.
Of course what we know about Platner and his character is spotty. His rise has echoes of "Meet John Doe." He was persuaded to run because some politicos saw his efforts about local issues and thought he had the charisma and back story to win the hearts of the public. He appears to have risen to the challenge as well as they dreamed. That doesn't mean that he'll be a good Senator. He does, however, appear to be a good candidate, something your piece implicitly denies. The "Nazi-themed tattoo on his chest," in the absence of any evidence that he's a Nazi sympathizer, makes him more believable as a regular guy, without pretensions, who can speak for regular people.
"Meet John Doe" is cynical about the American love for the (white male) "common man", and certainly our politics is full of examples of good communicators with the common touch who are inappropriate political leaders--our current President being bizarrely exemplary, though he appears to be losing his touch. On the other hand, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Zohran Mamdani, good communicators without obvious prior "qualifications" to be Representative and NYC Mayor, appear to be quite capable in their jobs--and every bit as principled as they claimed to be.
Democrats are regularly accused of being "Republican-lite" and of "having abandoned the people they claim to represent." If it's a matter of their platform or even of their accomplishments in office, the accusation is debatable. On the other hand, the Democrats have preferred to put forward the kinds of people who used to be in the progressive end of the Republican party--clean-cut, well-mannered technocrats. It's not surprising that large parts of the population look elsewhere. Racism, sexist, and xenophobia are part of the explanation, but not the whole story. That has to change if the Dems are going to become a real majority.
And yet despite being rat fucked he is still cruising to the primary and presumably will vanquish corrupt Shaking Susan Collins. Funny things voters are 🤔😁
Nazi tattoos in conjunction with sexist comments, bad behavior and lies about a fake genocide demonstrate a lack of character and integrity.
He is a perfect example of why so many Jews are politically homeless now.
It’s getting to be very clear the party doesn’t care about losing us or others who think winning at any cost is questionable.
That’s not about crazy purity tests either.
I feel you because itʻs the same with women. Statistically, weʻre the ones out there volunteering and donating, yet itʻs apparently no big deal to throw us under the bus- abortion is the big one. Now, seeing Democrats support a man who clearly doesnʻt care about even the women closest to him is a slap in the face. The party just assumes women will be there to save them every time, no matter how they treat us or how little they fight for us.
Is he Jewish?
Nazis are right wing, Platner is left wing.. any questions 🤔😂
He got an SS tattoo on his chest. Guess he didn’t get the memo.
Let Mainers decide.
I mean, they will
Exactly dude
All Congressional races affect the whole country!! Maine will decide this one, but it will affect all of us.
Your leap to categorizing Platner as a Nazi sympathizer who espouses Nazi behavior is absurd. This man went through hell in an American serviceman’s uniform, experiencing the brutality of war, the inhumanity of what a “war fighter” often endures. The damage inflicted by these experiences is not only physical but mental, emotional and spiritual. It takes years to overcome PTSD. Platner has put in the work to push back the demons he (and tens of thousands more) was haunted by. The citizens of Maine will choose the person they believe will be the best person to represent them in the US Senate in November 2026. The nationwide hysteria by media and Republicans matters not.
At no point did I describe him as a Nazi sympathizer. And I don't doubt that he went through hell during his military service. That's certainly commendable and sympathetic but it doesn't mean one has earned a Senate nomination.
He has earned the support of many, many Maine citizens to represent their state in the US Senate because they agree with his viewpoints and ideas of how to improve the lives of Mainers. Period.
All points taken, but I’m not sure you’re addressing the actual trade off here, which is (1) problematic (Democratic) candidate and possibly problematic senator versus (2) far more problematic (Republican) senator and control of the Senate. If that’s indeed the choice, then the answer, to me, seems obvious. It’s not like there is another viable nominee waiting in the wings (and, no, Janet Mills is not a viable nominee).
Mills looks pretty pathetic 😏
Regardless of what happens, it is important that the Democratic Party asks how someone like Platner managed to win over such a large part of the primary electorate, and presumably the general as well, given polls. For good or for ill, Platner was not a 705+ year old person who actually had a coherent ideology rooted in FDR's New Dealism that conveyed complex ideas in a manner that people could actually understand. A good example of this would be his interview with Jon Stewart. It is hard to think of a similar candidate supported by the establishment? I recall a dissertation by my former colleague, Andrew Tyner, that found one big distinction between Clinton and Trump in 2016 is that in the campaign, Clinton converged on no single topic/theme, whereas Trump did. Using the old terminology, Clinton had the rhetoric of a fox, whereas Trump a hedgehog (you have no idea how much it hurts to write this). Likewise, one theme I noticed in reading about the Democratic attempts to recover as an organization is that everytime there is an attempt to "manage" the different interests in the party, no one ever seems able to craft a coherent vision that attracts the various factions to their cause. Easier said than done, obviously, but the point is the Democratic Party needs people with boldness, vision and leadership, which was lacking in Maine and in numerous candidates backed by a Schumer establishment.