Scandal-plagued Graham Platner clinches Dem Maine Senate primary: ‘I’ve made mistakes’

Valletta · 2026-06-09T21:27:35-0500

Controversial oyster farmer and Marine veteran Graham Platner easily won Maine’s Democratic Senate primary Tuesday night despite a string of scandals, including sporting a Nazi tattoo on his chest.
Platner was projected the winner by the Associated Press at 9:23 pm ET, and jumped to an early lead with 73.3% of the vote with about a fifth of the ballots counted, beating Gov. Janet Mills, who stopped campaigning in April.

Scandal-plagued Graham Platner clinches Dem Maine Senate primary: ‘I’ve made mistakes’

Scandal-plagued oyster farmer Graham Platner easily won his Maine Democratic primary, but saw troubling defections from primary voters to Gov. Janet Mills (D), who stopped campaigning in April, and…

nypost.com

It's all about seeking more power and control.

GoldenBoy89 · 2026-06-09T22:00:17-0500

They’re not electing a pastor.

Bradskii · 2026-06-09T22:47:42-0500

I've been following his rise. And I accepted his statements that yes, he'd made some mistakes in the past, but...he'd learned from them. We've all done things that show us in a bad light. But...there's been more. This from an Australian ABC programme which reports on US politics.

The programme is a little tongue in cheek at times, a little irreverent and tends to the left of centre, mostly because of who is in charge and pulling levers and all the problems associated with Trump - politically and morally. They reported on Platner before and were generally positive. But now...there seems to be more to it than originally thought. So they've dug a little deeper. And maybe there's more to come.

In passing, this is the way politics is meant to work. Get the facts from a reliable source and base your opinions of various the politicians, or wannabe politicians, on those facts. My position of the guy is now on hold. I want to know more. And I want to emphasise that I'm not saying 'Hey, look what I do. Why can't you guys on the right do the same'. This is par for the course where I'm from. If someone does something wrong then they are called out for it. Whichever party they represent. We expect repercussions. We expect a head or two to roll.

Guess things are different in the US.

Desk trauma · 2026-06-10T07:35:07-0500

GoldenBoy89 said:
They’re not electing a pastor.

It’s just locker room tattoos.

ThatRobGuy · 2026-06-10T08:12:15-0500

Bradskii said:
In passing, this is the way politics is meant to work. Get the facts from a reliable source and base your opinions of various the politicians, or wannabe politicians, on those facts. My position of the guy is now on hold. I want to know more. And I want to emphasise that I'm not saying 'Hey, look what I do. Why can't you guys on the right do the same'. This is par for the course where I'm from. If someone does something wrong then they are called out for it. Whichever party they represent. We expect repercussions. We expect a head or two to roll.

Guess things are different in the US.

The reason why it's a much more "hostile" political environment in the US on this kind of stuff is because of "conditional standards" for lack of a better way of putting it.

Certain personality/character flaws are propped up as deal-breakers and "red lines" when it's a candidate from the opposing team, but when it's a person from one's own team, they're willing to overlook just about anything.

Like with this Platner guy, if this was a republican candidate who was found to have gotten a racially charged tattoo, history of abusive behavior, and messaging women on sex apps behind his wife's back, would it be a casual "well, everyone makes mistakes and has a past, but the past is the past" type of editorializing that some have been espousing?

Just this one alone:
- The Washington Post reported that he had responded dismissively to sexual assault in the military and separately said women should “take some responsibility for themselves” by not drinking excessively, to avoid being raped. In another post, he referred to rural White Mainers as stupid.

If the GOP ran anyone with these kinds of skeletons in the closet, it'd be leveraged as "this is the reason why this person is evil and unfit for office"

What this shows is that people are willing to rationalize and overlook just about anything if they think it'll get them some of the things they want, or they think the person will "stick it" to another group they don't like. (which, in Platner's case, that means "he'll stick to those rich people we hate, so we'll overlook all that other stuff")

Desk trauma · 2026-06-10T09:03:53-0500

The dems aren’t holding candidates to unattainable purity standards to their electoral detriment? Oh no.

durangodawood · 2026-06-10T09:07:32-0500

Valletta said:
It's all about seeking more power and control.

More than not holding the white house, not holding the congress, and not holding the supreme court like the other party does. Is that the "more power" you mean?

essentialsaltes · 2026-06-10T09:12:48-0500

Valletta said:
It's all about seeking more power and control.

Isn't this more or less what all politicians are in it for? What's your point, specifically about this guy?

ThatRobGuy · 2026-06-10T11:07:43-0500

Desk trauma said:
The dems aren’t holding candidates to unattainable purity standards to their electoral detriment? Oh no.

Sure they do, those purity standards just happen to center around a different set of issues.

Can you name any democrats in the house or senate who are pro-life, oppose LGBTQ initiatives, or hold a conservative viewpoint on immigration laws? Or is that a "dealbreaker"?

If someone ran as a democrat and proposed a perfectly progressive economic policy package, but deviated from the party on one of those aforementioned issues, they'd get weeded out, or if they already held the office, they'd get primaried.

Dan Lipinski of Illinois is an example of that.

Rep. Daniel Lipinski | AFL-CIO

aflcio.org

Despite having a strong pro-Labor record (indicated by his high scores from the AFL-CIO)

And a good environmental record:

Dan Lipinski

www.lcv.org

And rated pretty strongly by the NAACP

He got primaried because he didn't hold the "correct" positions on some of the aforementioned social issues.

Stopped_lurking · 2026-06-10T11:16:48-0500

ThatRobGuy said:
Sure they do, those purity standards just happen to center around a different set of issues.

Can you name any democrats in the house or senate who are pro-life, oppose LGBTQ initiatives, or hold a conservative viewpoint on immigration laws? Or is that a "dealbreaker"?

If someone ran as a democrat and proposed a perfectly progressive economic policy package, but deviated from the party on one of those aforementioned issues, they'd get weeded out, or if they already held the office, they'd get primaried.

Dan Lipinski of Illinois is an example of that.

Rep. Daniel Lipinski | AFL-CIO

aflcio.org

Despite having a strong pro-Labor record (indicated by his high scores from the AFL-CIO)

I don't even know what a AFL-CIO score is, but more years than not his score have been less than the average house democrat (I just went through them quickly, don't quote me on that).

ETA:

He had a higher score than the average house democrat in 2009, 2014 and 2020. He was in congress for 12 years, so in 9 years he had a lower score than the average house democrat.

ThatRobGuy said:
And a good environmental record:

Dan Lipinski

www.lcv.org

And rated pretty strongly by the NAACP

He got primaried because he didn't hold the "correct" positions on some of the aforementioned social issues.

Desk trauma · 2026-06-10T11:16:56-0500

ThatRobGuy said:
Sure they do, those purity standards just happen to center around a different set of issues.

Can you name any democrats in the house or senate who are pro-life, oppose LGBTQ initiatives, or hold a conservative viewpoint on immigration laws? Or is that a "dealbreaker"?

If someone ran as a democrat and proposed a perfectly progressive economic policy package, but deviated from the party on one of those aforementioned issues, they'd get weeded out, or if they already held the office, they'd get primaried.

Dan Lipinski of Illinois is an example of that.

Rep. Daniel Lipinski | AFL-CIO

aflcio.org

Despite having a strong pro-Labor record (indicated by his high scores from the AFL-CIO)

And a good environmental record:

Dan Lipinski

www.lcv.org

And rated pretty strongly by the NAACP

He got primaried because he didn't hold the "correct" positions on some of the aforementioned social issues.

Odd, thought this was about that guy in Maine.

Hans Blaster · 2026-06-10T13:05:21-0500

ThatRobGuy said:
Sure they do, those purity standards just happen to center around a different set of issues.

Can you name any democrats in the house or senate who are pro-life, oppose LGBTQ initiatives, or hold a conservative viewpoint on immigration laws? Or is that a "dealbreaker"?

If someone ran as a democrat and proposed a perfectly progressive economic policy package, but deviated from the party on one of those aforementioned issues, they'd get weeded out, or if they already held the office, they'd get primaried.

Dan Lipinski of Illinois is an example of that.

Rep. Daniel Lipinski | AFL-CIO

aflcio.org

Despite having a strong pro-Labor record (indicated by his high scores from the AFL-CIO)

And a good environmental record:

Dan Lipinski

www.lcv.org

And rated pretty strongly by the NAACP

He got primaried because he didn't hold the "correct" positions on some of the aforementioned social issues.

Rob, the question was on his *MORAL* character and whether the Dems should support him in spite of apparent moral failings. It was not about political position purity tests. We don't care if you like it or not but the Democratic party is a pro-abortion rights party that is on the 60% side of a 60-40 issue.

ThatRobGuy · 2026-06-10T14:51:56-0500

Hans Blaster said:
Rob, the question was on his *MORAL* character and whether the Dems should support him in spite of apparent moral failings. It was not about political position purity tests. We don't care if you like it or not but the Democratic party is a pro-abortion rights party that is on the 60% side of a 60-40 issue.

If the want moral failings to be off the table and, then perhaps they shouldn't defer to that kind of stuff when critiquing their opponents.

I seem to recall Pete Hegseth's Tattoo and drinking and Trump's comments about women and social media trash talk to be "gasp" moments for Democrats and say that such matters made someone unfit for office, but I guess those aren't dealbreakers so long as the person is willing to espouse some commie gobbledygook

And it being a 60-40 issue is largely irrelevant, the progressive position on immigration and Trans issues certainly weren't 60-40 in their favor, those were more like 70-30 in their opponents favor, but candidates still had to espouse the progressive position on those else get primaried. They were willing to lose a presidential election over it because it was evidently a hill worth dying on.

Aldebaran · 2026-06-10T14:53:57-0500

Desk trauma said:
The dems aren’t holding candidates to unattainable purity standards to their electoral detriment? Oh no.

And no one is surprised by this one bit.

Chaplain Jim · 2026-06-10T14:55:54-0500

Valletta said:
It's all about seeking more power and control.

True that.

Aldebaran · 2026-06-10T14:56:27-0500

essentialsaltes said:
Isn't this more or less what all politicians are in it for? What's your point, specifically about this guy?

I am curious as to why Democrats ignore Democratic candidate wrongdoing.

essentialsaltes · 2026-06-10T15:00:32-0500

Aldebaran said:
I am curious as to why Democrats ignore Democratic candidate wrongdoing.

The people of the great state of California got rid of Swalwell. I can't speak for the people of Maine, but I wouldn't micturate upon Platner if he were on fire.

Hans Blaster · 2026-06-10T15:47:52-0500

ThatRobGuy said:
If the want moral failings to be off the table and, then perhaps they shouldn't defer to that kind of stuff when critiquing their opponents.

Rob, I wasn't commenting on Platner or the hypocricy or whatever, just about *you* complaining about something (ideological purity) that wasn't the question at hand (moral suitability). I'm not a Maine voter and I'm glad I don't have to make this choice.

ThatRobGuy said:
I seem to recall Pete Hegseth's Tattoo and drinking and Trump's comments about women and social media trash talk to be "gasp" moments for Democrats and say that such matters made someone unfit for office, but I guess those aren't dealbreakers so long as the person is willing to espouse some commie gobbledygook

That would have been actually "on topic" for doing some proper what-about-ism on the candidate moral questions. If you want to ask anyone discussing Platner about it, go ahead. I won't care. I'm not debating Platner.

ThatRobGuy said:
And it being a 60-40 issue is largely irrelevant, the progressive position on immigration and Trans issues certainly weren't 60-40 in their favor, those were more like 70-30 in their opponents favor, but candidates still had to espouse the progressive position on those else get primaried. They were willing to lose a presidential election over it because it was evidently a hill worth dying on.

I thought you might be able to understand this, but oh, well. The Dems can get away with being "purist" because they have the 60% position on abortion and holding a strong position on the 60% side can pull in otherwise "centrist" people on other issues from the majority, while the GOP can hold the 40% position need some of the 60% people on their side, so they can't be purist about it (see Collins and Murkowski).

Bradskii · 2026-06-10T17:26:30-0500

ThatRobGuy said:
The reason why it's a much more "hostile" political environment in the US on this kind of stuff is because of "conditional standards" for lack of a better way of putting it.

You're telling me what the problem is. But you're not explaining why it's a broken system.

ThatRobGuy said:
Certain personality/character flaws are propped up as deal-breakers and "red lines" when it's a candidate from the opposing team, but when it's a person from one's own team, they're willing to overlook just about anything.

This generally doesn't happen in Australia. Platner is a case in point. Even if he was standing as our equivalent of a Democrat then there would be serious doubts from the left as to whether he was a suitable candidate. My position last week was that he's said some idiotic things in the past, but that's not the man he is now. If you had met my younger self and heard what I said about women, gay people and immigrants then you'd think I was someone you'd rather not associate with. But I'm not that same man now (compare that to Trump. Yes, he said and did a lot of bad things in the past. But he still does them. He hasn't changed).

My position on Platner is on hold at the moment until I know more. But then again, if he does get elected and it has turned that, in my opinion, he's not the type of guy that should have be standing, let alone elected, then I'll still support his politics. I just wouldn't have voted for him.

Say it aint so · 2026-06-10T17:52:25-0500

Aldebaran said:
I am curious as to why Democrats ignore Democratic candidate wrongdoing.

I don't know much about this guy in Maine. I have heard "Democrats" as in the party shied away from him, but what was the wrong doing?

Scandal-plagued Graham Platner clinches Dem Maine Senate primary: ‘I’ve made mistakes’

Well-Known Member

Abolish ICE

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

[redacted]

Part of the IT crowd

[redacted]

re Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

[redacted]

Reconstruction 3 will come

Part of the IT crowd

NCC-1701-A

Well-Known Member

NCC-1701-A

Fact-Based Lifeform

Reconstruction 3 will come

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Well-Known Member