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

Say it aint so said:

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?

Click to expand...

See the linked video, post #3.

Aldebaran said:

Just a portion of a Politico article sheds some light on that. The real question is whether democrats as a party will vote whatever their values are, or if it's enough to win a Senate seat.

"The New York Times released a report Thursday with disturbing accounts from several of Platner’s ex-girlfriends, just days before he is set to win the Democratic nomination to face GOP Sen. Susan Collins in Maine, a critical Senate battleground. One woman described Platner grabbing her in ways that left marks and once locking her in a room. She also claimed he knew that his tattoo resembled a Nazi symbol when he got it — something he has repeatedly denied.

Click to expand...

Politico could have filled in some additional information from the NYT that people might consider pertinent. From here:

'The New York Times said its report was based on interviews with more than two dozen people including Lyndsey Fifield, 40, whom the paper described as “a Virginia conservative who has worked for right-leaning groups and Republican campaigns”.

'Fifield previously worked for the Heritage Foundation, a rightwing thinktank in Washington that produced Project 2025, a blueprint for the second Donald Trump administration, and spent a brief spell on Republican Nikki Haley’s 2024 presidential election campaign. She is now a visiting fellow at a conservative group called Independent Women.'

Fifield is the person described as the 'one woman' by Politico. You can decide yourself if you think it's relevant.

Valletta said:

What in the world do they think they were doing by actually interviewing an alleged conservative? There was no reason to interview one when they interviewed just two dozen plus people!

Click to expand...

Yes, they interviewed quite a few. But the main accusations detailed were by someone who was:

...a Virginia conservative who had worked for right-leaning groups and Republican campaigns.
...had previously worked for the Heritage Foundation, a rightwing thinktank in Washington that produced Project 2025, a blueprint for the second Donald Trump administration.
...had spent a brief spell on Republican Nikki Haley’s 2024 presidential election campaign.
...and is now a visiting fellow at a conservative group called Independent Women.

Now why would they omit those details? I don't need to tell you because you already know. You might note that I posted the original video of the complaints against Platner so I'm not exactly hiding from what's been said about him. But the claims by Fifield I'm discounting because they were somewhat thin to start with and worded in a way that put them in the worst possible light and could very well be biased. A dyed in the wool right wing conservative ex-girlfriend? Let's just say that it would be comprehensively dismantled in a court of law by any junior barrister.

I'm more interested in the dodgy text messages he is claimed to have posted to different women after he was married. That would carry more weight as far as I am concerned.

Aldebaran said:

Just a portion of a Politico article sheds some light on that. The real question is whether democrats as a party will vote whatever their values are, or if it's enough to win a Senate seat.

"The New York Times released a report Thursday with disturbing accounts from several of Platner’s ex-girlfriends, just days before he is set to win the Democratic nomination to face GOP Sen. Susan Collins in Maine, a critical Senate battleground. One woman described Platner grabbing her in ways that left marks and once locking her in a room. She also claimed he knew that his tattoo resembled a Nazi symbol when he got it — something he has repeatedly denied.
The report — on the heels of last week’s news that Platner had sexted other women while married — left Democrats torn. Some view Platner, whose campaign has persisted despite a series of scandals, as their only chance to take down Collins. He continuously led Democratic Gov. Janet Mills in primary polling before she suspended her campaign in April, and has led the Republican senator in public head-to-head polls.

“Several donors I know are still all-in for Platner because he’s not Susan Collins and he’s a Democrat,” said Alex Hoffman, a Democratic strategist and donor adviser."

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/04/platner-democrats-furious-new-york-times-report-00951496

Click to expand...

""Just a portion of a Politico article sheds some light on that. The real question is whether democrats as a party will vote whatever their values are, or if it's enough to win a Senate seat.""

Given what is valuable to Democrats, I think what has been screamed from the mountain top for them is a functioning checks and balances democracy here in the USofA. Just read about this fellow, while I know about Susan Collins. They will vote the value of checks and balances and a functioning democracy. What's that saying about holding one's nose and pulling the voting machine lever. It may be a case of that, as juxtaposed to knowing the alternative is a vote for more of this:

For some reason Platner put down another veteran Teddy Daniels.

Bradskii said:

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

Click to expand...

I think a big problem right now is the primary system. This topic is about Graham Platner, but let's not ignore the fact that Ken Paxton got the Republican nomination over in Texas despite having plenty of past scandals himself. And speaking of Texas, Paxton is a weak enough candidate that Democrats might actually have a shot at picking up Texas... except their nomination, James Talarico, has a lot of his own baggage (though not so much "scandals" as it is saying some kind of dumb-sounding stuff and a history of positions that are very unlikely to be popular in Texas). When a Democrat managed to win a Senate seat in Alabama, while part of the reason was the Republican candidate (Roy Moore) being extremely weak, another important factor was that the Democratic candidate (Doug Jones) was reasonably moderate and thus better able to appeal to conservatives repulsed by Moore. Not having a candidate you can at least reasonably try to portray as moderate as the opponent may cost the Democrats a winnable seat here. Maybe Talarico wins anyway, but he makes it harder.

Anyone whose goal was to try to win an election with someone reasonably faithful to the party's platform would have looked at these guys and said "yeah, no" and looked for someone else (granted, if they had gone with the other main candidate for the Democratic nominee over Talarico, they still would've had an uphill climb given I think she was more liberal, but there presumably would ahve been more people to look at if it wasn't a primary). But that's not how primaries work. While the following was specifically written presidential primaries, it really applies rather well to smaller ones also:

...In order to succeed in caucuses, candidates have to make a strong, deep case why they’re the right candidate to carry the party banner, and they need to command a loyal, competent organization.

Primaries are a lot simpler. To win a primary you need only two things: high name recognition and massive amounts of money. You aren’t trying to persuade deep, thoughtful, experienced partisans that your positions are right on the merits and that they can win over a general electorate. In a primary, you’re trying to excite/infuriate low-knowledge, low-interest voters so much that they’re willing to go stand in a booth for 12 seconds to fill out a ballot for you. Just like in the general election, primaries are more often decided by gaffes and memes than by actual substance. In a primary, the soundbite is king. Also: money. Gobs of money. You need to plaster your face on every gas pump ad screen from Dixville Notch to Seabrook Beach so those couch potatoes know who to vote when they roll themselves to the polling station.

And that's exactly the problem. A primary isn't about persuading people who are actually strongly committed to winning elections for the party, it's to get out the more extreme people to come out and vote for you to who the desire to actually win the general election is secondary. And a lot of people just sit out on primaries! Guys like Platner, Paxton, and Talarico would have immense difficulties winning in a convention or caucus system where you have to actually persuade people who have a vested interest in the party and winning to vote for you, but primaries lets weak candidates go forward.

Regrettably, I don't know what the right fix is. Once you give voting rights, it's hard to take them away and switch back to the older and more restrictive ways of choosing candidates. Maybe more states should just set up something like Alaska's (relatively new) system of letting as many people run at once regardless of their political affiliation in the primary, then have the top 4 winners go to the general election and have it decided by instant runoff voting. While I don't think that's perfect either, it seems to at least address this issue. If we're going to have the nominees for parties decided by popular election, at least put the entire process by popular election so that the people who only vote in the general election--which is most voters--can have some sort of say in which Republican or which Democrat wins.

JSRG said:

I think a big problem right now is the primary system. This topic is about Graham Platner, but let's not ignore the fact that Ken Paxton got the Republican nomination over in Texas despite having plenty of past scandals himself. And speaking of Texas, Paxton is a weak enough candidate that Democrats might actually have a shot at picking up Texas... except their nomination, James Talarico, has a lot of his own baggage (though not so much "scandals" as it is saying some kind of dumb-sounding stuff and a history of positions that are very unlikely to be popular in Texas).

Click to expand...

The primary system can be both good or bad depending on what part of the country one is in and what their rules are regarding whether it's open or closed.

In the past, New England states (despite going blue in presidential elections) have produced moderate Republican governors and senators that are very popular among the people they represent. The "tone" of the state's culture forces the opposition party to moderate some of their positions, leaving them with a non-threatening, generally likeable candidate that sort of embodies the best of both teams (like a Larry Hogan or a Charlie Baker).

That's why I typically find blue state republicans, and red state democrats to be some of the most tolerable political figures. They have to "cut the crap" if they want to be electable in those states.

A few of these recent ones have sort of "busted" my theory on that to a degree.

If you told me that a guy with a death head tattoo who said "women should make sure not to drink too much if they don't want to worry about being raped" in Maine, or a guy who said "I think God is nonbinary" would even have a snowball's chance in Texas, I wouldn't have believed it.

ThatRobGuy said:

If you told me that a guy...who said "women should make sure not to drink too much if they don't want to worry about being raped" in Maine...would even have a snowball's chance in Texas, I wouldn't have believed it.

Click to expand...

From wiki:

'Trump significantly outperformed his polling averages in the state and became the first presidential candidate to win Texas by double digits since 2012.'

ThatRobGuy said:

The primary system can be both good or bad depending on what part of the country one is in and what their rules are regarding whether it's open or closed.

In the past, New England states (despite going blue in presidential elections) have produced moderate Republican governors and senators that are very popular among the people they represent. The "tone" of the state's culture forces the opposition party to moderate some of their positions, leaving them with a non-threatening, generally likeable candidate that sort of embodies the best of both teams (like a Larry Hogan or a Charlie Baker).

That's why I typically find blue state republicans, and red state democrats to be some of the most tolerable political figures. They have to "cut the crap" if they want to be electable in those states.

A few of these recent ones have sort of "busted" my theory on that to a degree.

If you told me that a guy with a death head tattoo who said "women should make sure not to drink too much if they don't want to worry about being raped" in Maine, or a guy who said "I think God is nonbinary" would even have a snowball's chance in Texas, I wouldn't have believed it.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm confused as to why that "God is non-binary" statement gets so much attention. What seems to be more problematic politically is the context in which he said it, which was when he was objecting to a bill that would require sports teams in schools to be separated by birth sex. Polling indicates this is a 70/30 issue in favor of keeping them apart in sports, and I'm sure it'd be even more extreme in Texas. That's a stronger attack to hammer him on, it seems to me.

That said, Talarico's main competition in the primary was Jasmine Crockett, who might have been an even weaker candidate. So unlike the case with the Republicans--where you had a perfectly respectable Republican (Cornyn) who lose to someone as scandal-ridden as Paxton, turning what should have been an easy victory for Republicans into one much less certain--I'm not going to say "why in the world did primary voters choose Talarico?". Talarico probably does have a better chance of winning than Crockett did. I am going to ask "why in the world did it get to the point where the main two Democrats in the race are both people who don't seem great picks to try to win Texas?"

Bradskii said:

From wiki:

'Trump significantly outperformed his polling averages in the state and became the first presidential candidate to win Texas by double digits since 2012.'

Click to expand...

You snipped out part of my post there perhaps accidentally.

My full post
If you told me that a guy with a death head tattoo who said "women should make sure not to drink too much if they don't want to worry about being raped" in Maine, or a guy who said "I think God is nonbinary" would even have a snowball's chance in Texas, I wouldn't have believed it.

The rape comment was referring to the Maine candidate, the "God is nonbinary" was in reference to the Texas candidate

Both seem like uncharacteristic primary victories for their respective states.

Aldebaran said:

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

Click to expand...

Who's ignoring it? It's all over mainstream media.

The tattoo thing was, at the time, easy enough to dismiss as something stupid 20yo marines do without appreciating the significance of. The rest of the stuff didn't come out until the primary was a foregone conclusion or over entirely.

ThatRobGuy said:

You snipped out part of my post there perhaps accidentally.

Click to expand...

Hardly. It was on purpose. I just wanted to highlight Platner's alleged attitude to women he had when he wore a younger man's clothes and compare it to someone else. Whose attitude to women is not alleged. It's well known.

I don't know If Trump has any tattoos, so that wasn't relevant.

Bradskii said:

Hardly. It was on purpose. I just wanted to highlight Platner's alleged attitude to women he had when he wore a younger man's clothes and compare it to someone else. Whose attitude to women is not alleged. It's well known.

I don't know If Trump has any tattoos, so that wasn't relevant.

Click to expand...

Pete Hegseth's tattoos seemed to be something of a sticking point, and those were just Catholic symbolism if memory serves.

(and I'm pretty sure Trump has a Big Mac Tramp Stamp)


That aside, Democratic voters have had no issues drudging up "past sins" and using them against people years later. Was there a rule change for the statute of limitations?

Or is it possible, even in the slightest, that democratic voters are employing a bit of "MAGA logic"... where things that would be unforgiveable if someone from the other team did it, get a bit of a pass because he "goes hard" on the people they hate the most?

ThatRobGuy said:

That aside, Democratic voters have had no issues drudging up "past sins" and using them against people years later. Was there a rule change for the statute of limitations?

Click to expand...

As @iluvatar5150 has pointed out, the tattoo was done in his early twenties when he was a marine. And perhaps after a few beers. I'm accepting his explanation that he didn't know it had connections with the Nazis. If you'd shown it to me a couple of months back then I'd have no idea either.

As he has admitted, he's done and said some stupid things but he's repented and is trying to be a better person. As opposed to someone who might say '"Why do I have to repent or ask for forgiveness, if I am not making mistakes?" I think you'll be able to attribute that quote...

As I've already said, I'm holding on any decision as to his suitability for office until the dust settles and we have a better idea of the type of man he is. Whereas I most definitely have an excellent idea on other politicians' character. As do you.

Bradskii said:

As @iluvatar5150 has pointed out, the tattoo was done in his early twenties when he was a marine. And perhaps after a few beers. I'm accepting his explanation that he didn't know it had connections with the Nazis. If you'd shown it to me a couple of months back then I'd have no idea either.

As he has admitted, he's done and said some stupid things but he's repented and is trying to be a better person. As opposed to someone who might say '"Why do I have to repent or ask for forgiveness, if I am not making mistakes?" I think you'll be able to attribute that quote...

As I've already said, I'm holding on any decision as to his suitability for office until the dust settles and we have a better idea of the type of man he is. Whereas I most definitely have an excellent idea on other politicians' character. As do you.

Click to expand...

The tattoo may have been a while back, but his "interesting commentaries" on social media happened more recently




And the sexually explicit texts he was sending to other women were happening in 2023.

So he's done a lot of soul searching and is a reformed man over the past 3 years, is that what I'm hearing?

Or, more likely, he's a Bernie bro who trash talks the rich so he'll be given a lot more grace than a republican would.

Bradskii said:

As @iluvatar5150 has pointed out, the tattoo was done in his early twenties when he was a marine. And perhaps after a few beers. I'm accepting his explanation that he didn't know it had connections with the Nazis. If you'd shown it to me a couple of months back then I'd have no idea either.

Click to expand...

To clarify - what I meant was that, at the time, the explanation was easy to buy. I don't know if the explanation was truthful and I'm more skeptical of the claim that he only learned of its significance recently.

Bradskii said:

As he has admitted, he's done and said some stupid things but he's repented and is trying to be a better person. As opposed to someone who might say '"Why do I have to repent or ask for forgiveness, if I am not making mistakes?" I think you'll be able to attribute that quote...

As I've already said, I'm holding on any decision as to his suitability for office until the dust settles and we have a better idea of the type of man he is. Whereas I most definitely have an excellent idea on other politicians' character. As do you.

Click to expand...

Most of the claims I've seen were from 10+ years ago, but the womanizing has continued until more recently.

ThatRobGuy said:

The tattoo may have been a while back, but his "interesting commentaries" on social media happened more recently

Click to expand...

If they are found to be genuine, then they'll indeed be a problem.

What will be interesting will be the prospect of a fair chunk of hypocrisy from sections of the MAGA crowd. They'll really be in no position at all to criticise any support for Platner.

iluvatar5150 said:

Most of the claims I've seen were from 10+ years ago, but the womanizing has continued until more recently.

Click to expand...

And yeah, that would be a problem. I don't get the mindset of some people who stand up to be counted, who make a play for office on the fact that they can be trusted, that they are (in this case) an honest, straight talking, working class Joe, a real salt-of-the-earth type, when there are very recent skeletons in the social media cupboard and they must surely know that his life is going to be examined in the greatest of detail.

I guess that if you have people telling you that you're the next big thing for the Dems then these problems become buried somewhere in your psyche.