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

Bradskii said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's because "trash talking" and "they really agitate the people who annoy me" have become replacements for actual political prowess.

Although, if the Epstein saga has taught us anything, it's that people with actual political prowess are just as capable of having some nasty skeletons in the closet.

The events of the past 5 years have made me strongly consider going back to the Libertarian Party.

People used to razz me for supporting Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. They're far more decent human beings than what the two main parties have been offering up as their "rising stars"

Their positions aren't at all pragmatic or feasible in a modern world, but that's quickly become the lesser of the evils given that at least they're liberty-oriented in spirit and don't associate with commies, nazis, and/or kid diddlers.

Bernie's support for Platner has particularly disappointed me. While I disagree with Bernie on a great number of issues, I still respected him for sticking to his guns and being consistent and principled and would've loved to have a beer with him. When I vacationed to Burlington VT last year, he was in town, and I was hoping I'd bump into him for a pic and quick chat (to add to my album)... No such luck. But if he hates capitalism so much that he'll celebrate a person like Platner (rather than chalking it up to a miss, and waiting for someone better to come around), that's lowered my opinion of him.

ThatRobGuy said:

People used to razz me for supporting Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. They're far more decent human beings than what the two main parties have been offering up as their "rising stars"

Click to expand...

Graham Platner is one guy, who has most of the party cringing themselves into migraines. Who are the other "rising stars" who aren't decent people? James Talarico? Pete Buttigieg?

ThatRobGuy said:

Bernie's support for Platner has particularly disappointed me.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming that Sanders has been and is being given any relevant information about Platner in the same time frames as we are.

And as I said, the jury is still out as it stands.

This may become a new “norm” for candidates; not being squeaky-clean.
This could encourage people only interested in power since, if this Platner guy has a shot at getting into the Senate, (a job so cushy, that stroke victims can do it, after sufficient recovery), “why not me!?”

In such times, we almost never see the best Statesmanship.
This will burn itself out, after, oh, say, a decade?

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). 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.

Click to expand...

[Kudos to that third sentence, truly artful prose, thank you]
The “primary system” isn’t set in stone.
State Parties could go back to a convention system to nominate candidates, this could eliminate some of the more “populist-ness” of the current “nomination by election”. Extremism could be curtailed.

While it’s true that “you can fool some of the people all of the time”, they don’t tend to be the same ones running political parties.

Pommer said:

This may become a new “norm” for candidates; not being squeaky-clean.

Click to expand...

But none of us are. There will always be something we regret doing or saying. I really don't get why people like Platner don't start any campaign by thinking about what they did in the past and lead with that.

'Hey, I'm a normal guy. I did some dumb things in my past that I'm not proud of. I guess we all have at some point. I've done X and Y. There are things on social media that I said when I was younger that I haven't deleted because they show who I was. Not the person I am now. But I don't want you to vote for that young idiot who didn't know any better. I want you to vote for this guy, standing in front of you. We learn by our mistakes. And gee, I've learnt a lot over the years.'

From that point onwards, you're on the front foot. Anyone you're running against then has to come clean as well. They can't risk being found out.

Bradskii said:

But none of us are. There will always be something we regret doing or saying. I really don't get why people like Platner don't start any campaign by thinking about what they did in the past and lead with that.

'Hey, I'm a normal guy. I did some dumb things in my past that I'm not proud of. I guess we all have at some point. I've done X and Y. There are things on social media that I said when I was younger that I haven't deleted because they show who I was. Not the person I am now. But I don't want you to vote for that young idiot who didn't know any better. I want you to vote for this guy, standing in front of you. We learn by our mistakes. And gee, I've learnt a lot over the years.'

From that point onwards, you're on the front foot. Anyone you're running against then has to come clean as well. They can't risk being found out.

Click to expand...

Right the politics game has always been understood by the public, (nearly any public in any halfway functional democracy) as something along the lines of “we know you’re crooked, but please do us the courtesy of trying to hide it.”

Another norm crushed under the mighty boot of MAGA-era political “thought”.

iluvatar5150 said:

Graham Platner is one guy, who has most of the party cringing themselves into migraines. Who are the other "rising stars" who aren't decent people? James Talarico? Pete Buttigieg?

Click to expand...

For the right half of the spectrum, they've propped up a series of a questionable choices based on criteria that appears to be no deeper than simply who's willing to "kiss the ring of the Don".

On the left half, they have literal socialists rising through the ranks.

ThatRobGuy said:

For the right half of the spectrum, they've propped up a series of a questionable choices based on criteria that appears to be no deeper than simply who's willing to "kiss the ring of the Don".

On the left half, they have literal socialists rising through the ranks.

Click to expand...

Zohran Mamdani? Is he not a decent guy?

Pommer said:

[Kudos to that third sentence, truly artful prose, thank you]
The “primary system” isn’t set in stone.
State Parties could go back to a convention system to nominate candidates, this could eliminate some of the more “populist-ness” of the current “nomination by election”. Extremism could be curtailed.

While it’s true that “you can fool some of the people all of the time”, they don’t tend to be the same ones running political parties.

Click to expand...

State parties could go back to a convention system to nominate candidates... but that's unlikely. One thing that's been fairly consistent in American history, and probably democratic history in general, is that it's really hard to pull back direct political power from The People™ once you've given it to them because it's so unpopular to do so. So once you have primaries, it's hard to claw back to a system where The People™ have less of a voice. Usually the only time you can convince the general populace to deliberately give up direct political power is when there's some kind of major crisis where people will take efficiency over democracy.

In the House, one might be able to pull this off that if you could get a mixed member proportional representation system going. Primaries could be retained for those elected by districts, and the parties themselves could choose themselves the members for the proportional representation. This is a method I could see the population coming around to; its problem seems more that politicians seem resistant to the idea. But at least in regards to winning over the general populace, I could see that work. However, you can't do that for the Senate without a constitutional amendment, and the Senate is being discussed here.

iluvatar5150 said:

Zohran Mamdani? Is he not a decent guy?

Click to expand...

Originally I viewed him in the same way I viewed Bernie (that being, some dumb economic ideas, but not someone I'd mind hanging out with)

However, it wasn't long before he employed quite the "selective" approach with regards to his response to certain types of crimes. (or lack of)

His selective comments regarding the Gracie Mansion bombing incident demonstrated some partisan hackery in my opinion.

He also gave a rather wishy washy responses when being asked about his wife supporting social media content praising the Oct 7th attacks. Maybe in a perfect world, one could simply dismiss it as "she's not a public figure, that's her opinion", but he'd have to be naive to think it's not politically damaging. Plus, I think it calls some of his own ethics into question. As the saying goes "people get judged by the company they keep". If my S.O. started praising terrorist attacks, I'd have to seriously consider parting ways.

...and with regards to other "Democratic Pop Culture figures", I've made my stances on "The Squad" well-known before.

He's sexual pervert/pedofile, that may have raped teenagers girls. He admitted to sexting them. Like it's no big deal. I thought sexting underage girls was against the law. Sexting means sex talking, touching private parts, encouraging the teenager to do the same thing. And exchanging pictures of each other. Usually private parts. Taking pictures of underage kids and teens is against the law. I hope his victims come forward. So he can be prosecuted.