Jun.09

electoral-vote.com

Dem 47

   

GOP 53

Oh, Graham!, Part I: General Thoughts

We received something like 50,000 words of reader comments on would-be U.S. Senator from Maine Graham Platner (D). Because this could well be the Senate race that determines control of the upper chamber, and because our readership is probably a pretty good reflection of the Democratic base, we're going to run three sets—some of them today, some tomorrow, and a final set on Friday. We will admit that, by and large, the general tone and tenor was not at all what we expected.

We will begin with a lengthy commentary from one of our most popular correspondents, and follow that with a few more general assessments:

• D.E. in Lancaster, PA: Yeah, I have some additional thoughts about the Graham Platner situation. Let me first get out of the way that I have watched a lot of Platner's videos and I like what he has to say a lot. If he was running for office in Pennsylvania, I would probably vote for him. With that said, the accusations have caused me to do some minor thought-wrestling. Actually, the accusations that I tussle with the most is none of the stuff that gets the media attention—it's the suggestion that he is just another Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), but this time on an oyster boat. They say, "once bitten, twice shy" but that doesn't mean you give up. With all that said up front, there are some areas about this latest accusation that I find concerning.
  
  First, I think a lot more could be added to the description of Lyndsey Fifield than just "she worked for Nikki Haley's campaign and the Heritage Foundation." During the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh to be a Supreme Court justice, and therefore after the incidents that took place when she was dating Platner, Fifield co-founded a group called "Ladies for Kavanaugh." Fifield said this about why she co-founded the group, "But in the wake of the baseless, 11th hour accusations (by Christine Blasey Ford) orchestrated to stop Kavanaugh's confirmation, we couldn't stay silent anymore." Ford's accusation against Kavanaugh was that a very intoxicated Kavanaugh and a friend pushed her into a locked room, held her down, Kavanaugh used his hand to cover her mouth while he groped her and tried to take off her clothes. Fifield's accusation against Platner is that a very intoxicated Platner grabbed her by the wrist and then locked her in a room and wouldn't let her out.
  
  I know we all process trauma differently. For me, I hate the smell of cut grass, and I know why. When I was 8, I was helping my father mow the grass and shortly after we entered the house to cool off, he flew into a rage and slammed my head in the oven door. If someone had accused Platner of that, there is no way I could form a group called "Kids for Platner" and declare the accuser was lying. Additionally, Platner has been in the news probably the most of any Senate candidate this cycle, yet Fifield did what she accused Ford of doing, waiting until the 11th hour to make her claims. I want to give her the benefit of the doubt, but all that just seems so very suspect. Additionally, Fifield, in trying to strengthen her case, is saying that calling her a Republican operative is misleading because she sometimes votes for Democrats for local offices. Now there, I know she's flat out lying because you are not involved in a Republican presidential campaign and working at the Heritage Foundation and then secretly voting Democrat on the sly. I would give more credence to her claims if she has just fessed up to being a Republican and voting that way. But like most Republicans, she has to be too cute by half. Another tendency of Republicans is base your accusations on the thing you are yourself most guilty of because you know the fools, meaning us voters, don't remember squat.
  
  The other observation I would like to make is that there is definitely a double—no, really a triple—standard at work here. Consider that of the two Democratic candidates that have a good chance of unseating Republican Senators, both are being attacked from basically the same position, just different angles. In Maine, we have Platner, who the Republicans are doing their best to portray as a savage beast, lecherous, cruel "Man." In other words, he's the ultimate in everything that is bad about a male. On the other hand, in Texas we have James Talarico, who they are desperate to portray as weak, effeminate, a freak who doesn't eat meat and such a non-man that he just might be transgendered. He's everything that makes a "real man" cringe in disgust.
  
  Both of these caricatures are ridiculous. When I look at those two cases juxtaposed, I can really see why so many young men are frustrated, because it seems to them no matter what they do they're either being accused of being a brute or they're not manly enough. For a party that has Donald Trump, Ken Paxton and Pete Hegseth—among many other sterling examples of how not to behave—as party leaders, they should not be lecturing the country on what it means to be a man. While I refuse to let Trump become the new measuring stick of acceptable behavior, at the same time, I realize that the Republicans are trying to play the Democrats like a fiddle appealing to our "wokeness" that we will be pressured shamed into abandoning Platner. While at the same time appealing to their base's reflexive "anti-wokeness" by painting Talarico as what the Democrats will make the "manly men" of Texas become if "he" should gain power. While at the same time holding corrupt, violent, misogynists with criminal backgrounds, adjudicated rapists and possible pedophiles as their heroes, leaders and God-Emperors. Funny how both of these attacks happened against two of the strongest Senate candidates since Barack Obama and two candidates who seem to want to lead us into a new era, one the Republicans most definitely do not want to see. Well, I've seen this movie before. I, for one, am sick and tired of letting the Republicans dictate the conversation and I will not let them dictate my values through their distortion lens. Clean up your own house before commenting on mine!
  
  Ultimately, it's a case of "she says, he says" and it has been my experience that it not only takes two to tango, it also takes two to disagree. No one is a saint in a relationship. I have certainly been a "bad boyfriend" as well as had my fair share of "bad boyfriends." As far as I can tell—and I'm certainly not a lawyer—nothing that Fifield accuses Platner of comes near a criminal offense. What Fifield describes would be called "bad behavior," but who among us has not indulged in bad behavior at some point in their lives, especially when it comes to personal relationship" I knew a sweet, kind lady, who in a fit of anger with her husband accidentally walloped him on the head with a pan. I had a relative who was married multiple times and with each marriage dissolving after the most frightful arguments; yet his final marriage was one of peace, harmony and respect. I loved my grandmother, who helped raise me and who helped form my values and outlook on life in so many positive ways, but yet once or twice a year we would have the most frightful yelling rows. She knew me so well that she could call forth the beast within, something I'm not proud to admit, but then I could do the same to her. It was a horrible thing to witness. Still after the yelling died down, we both loved each other deeply. We apologized and tried to do better. If there is any one of us who hasn't acted poorly, then there is a saint who walks among us.
  
  Which reminds me of a story about a young female political operative who went to work for her state's senator. Her immediate boss, for many years, was married to a woman who had been diagnosed with cancer. The young lady's boss subsequently divorced his cancer-stricken wife. This political operative, many years later, started dating her boss and they married a year after his ex-wife died from her cancer. There has been innuendo and chatter that this young female politician-to-be had set her sights on breaking up her boss's marriage, rumors that have only supposition to back them. So my question, should we be... "concerned" about this young politician's alleged bad behavior? My answer would be that's it's none of my damn business! Relationships are incredibly complex and somebody always gets hurt, in even the best situations. If the insinuated behavior occurred, there is no way I can know the pathways of the heart. Who am I to judge? Here's a little free advice to Little Donnie: I didn't care if you slept with hundreds of porn stars until you started lying about it and engaging in illegal money laundering to hide it. Then, your personal problems morphed into something else. To Sen. Susan "I'm Concerned" Collins (R-ME), your personal life is yours and rightly so. You don't owe anyone an explanation about how you live your life. Where it becomes my concern is when you pretend to "be concerned" about charges of attempted rape. but vote to confirm the alleged perp to a lifelong high position of power and influence. Then you want to smear your opponent for much-less-bad behavior. Now, hypocrisy is a personal habit I am very concerned about, especially when it is used as a tool to put you on your high Holier-Than-Thou horse. It's the hypocrisy, not that "sin," for which I will damn you. Just two words for you Collins: "Glass houses!"
  
  Fifield, in her accusations, admits that Platner never abused her physically, nor did he try to force himself upon her. There is a beast within us all, under the right situations, it is just lurking behind a thin layer of tissue, keeping it in check. To me, Fifield's accusation says that a situation or situations arose where that beast in Platner raised its ugly head, but that Platner still had the decency not to give the beast free reign. My father certainly had his ugly beast inside, as do I, but the difference is he never saw letting that beast do what it wanted as being his fault. He was always justified in his actions and so he never ever ever ever learned from actions. As he got older, he just substituted mental abuse for the physical. Platner has certainly admitted to being a bad boyfriend and having his demons, but those demons were not out of control. Fessing up to your faults, even some of them, represents more humanity than those who worry with that mote in my eye while having an entire desert in their eyes. That's being human, and I want a human to be our political leader, not phony-baloneys pretending to be a saint and the dictionary definition of what a politician is supposed to be. I guess I need a third "A" to my mantra: Authenticity, Affordability and Accountability. And, with God as my witness, I'm not going to let any damn Republicans badger me into giving up in believing in the possibility of the best.
  
  
• A.R. in Los Angeles, CA: Republicans are clearly afraid of Graham Platner and they're pulling out all the stops to take him down, starting with a female operative, Lyndsey Fifield, who was given a huge platform in The New York Times to make her accusations, all uncorroborated and unchallenged by the publication. The Times has some experience with these types of hit pieces, starting with their persistent (and ultimately successful) attacks on Joe Biden to destroy his re-election bid (and usher in another Trump term).
  
  But let's be clear what this is not. This is not reporting by, for example, Jodi Kantor, who broke the Harvey Weinstein story that generated the "Me Too" movement. This story was written by political reporters with a political angle, and the only person to give an extensive interview was Fifield, who has spent her entire career working to get Republicans elected. This is also not her first attack on Platner—she started the rumor that he was aware of his tattoo's darker meaning. Because of this, the details she describes (details that no one else corroborates and that no other women interviewed experienced) must be taken with an enormous grain of salt. The timing of this piece is also inherently suspect—they waited to publish until after a former campaign aide leaked the private information about his text messages that dragged his wife and their marriage through the mud.
  
  Democratic officials have a tendency to immediately start the circular firing squad at even the hint of scandal in their candidates, which Republicans exploit to the hilt. They would be well-served to hold their fire here. Platner has admitted to bad behavior and struggles with alcohol addiction in coping with PTSD after his military service. Maine voters will ultimately decide if he has, indeed, changed and if this is a redemption story. Democrats outside of Maine should keep their focus on the man in the Oval Office, who was found liable for sexual assault by a jury and who still hasn't explained the accusations of rape against him by underage women trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein.
  
  
• W.D.M. in Denver, CO: I am not a Maine voter, but I have been very impressed by Graham Platner's stance on the issues and the way he backs them. For example, he's pro-Union and helped his campaign staff unionize. If the Democrats ever hope to create a new governing coalition that can deliver big results, they need to build a party more like their affiliated party in Minnesota—DFLs. Platner is in that mold, and whether or not he CAME from the working class, he clearly is a workingman now and cares about the biggest issue of our time for anyone below the Top 10%—affordability (and its friend, wealth inequality). I think the electorate that exists, as opposed to the one that exists online, is not gonna care about his past personal failings. He holds tons of events to meet people and lets them ask questions and the people of Maine seem to really like him for it.
  
  A final thought—if every ex-lover of mine was able to weigh in on me during a job interview, it would be a mudslinging sh**show. Especially if one of them worked for a rival of the company I was applying to. How that would allow a future employer to determine if I could do a good job (assuming I wasn't applying to be a boyfriend) is beyond me.
  
  
• M.S. in Raleigh, NC: Sigh. Mr. Platner is certainly trying my patience. Here's my thinking on this. Regarding the Nazi tattoo, I have to be honest: I've never seen that symbol before and I certainly would not have known it is somehow related to Nazism. And, since tattoos are often done while one is drunk and being crazy, I can absolutely believe his excuse. DO I believe it? Eh... maybe. I certainly don't think it's obviously false enough to warrant concern.
  
  As for the former girlfriends, the woman you mentioned, Lyndsey Fifield, is someone who has absolutely no credibility in my eyes. None. Zero. Zilch. I wouldn't believe her if she told me water was wet. If there is one thing that I've learned over the past 10 years or so, it is that hardcore Republicans will do and say anything to get what they want. They don't care about lying, they don't care about morality, they don't care about anything except getting what they want. They will gerrymander to steal an election without batting an eye. In her case specifically, Platner is definitely presumed to be innocent. To put this another way: I see her trying to do exactly what Leeann Tweeden did to Al Franken, and I've learned my lesson.
  
  Then you have the other ex-girlfriends; I think there are two. But there are also three ex-girlfriends who contradict the other two. And Platner's wife contradicts them. Every one of them could have motives for lying. The wife's is obvious; she wants her husband to become a senator. The other two ex-girlfriends might just hate him, maybe he cheated on them, maybe he dumped them for someone else and they were angry/hurt, or maybe they are MAGA. The three ex-girlfriends on his "side" could all be Democrats, or hate Trump, etc., and could also be lying, though I think of the three groups they are the least likely to have a motive to lie. Bottom line here is that I think he's probably been a jerk at least sometimes in his past. How much of a jerk I don't know. Is he still a jerk? I don't know, but I don't think he is. He's worse than the public image his campaign presents, but then again, so is every person on the planet.
  
  Overall, compared to a confirmed felon and adjudicated rapist and serial liar, Platner looks like a saint. There is also the fact that anyone can Google and see Susan Collins in 1996 running for the Senate for the first time say "I have pledged that if I am elected, I will only serve two terms." She actually ran ads saying this. She is now running for her sixth term. She literally, very clearly and repeatedly, PROMISED Mainers that if they elected her, she would leave after 12 years. And 30 years later, she's still there. It's time for her to leave, even if it means the new person is Graham Platner, a man who seems like a decent person now, but clearly has a questionable past. I personally would vote for him a million times before I would vote for chronically concerned Collins even once.
  
  My friend from Maine says he believes most Mainers will not get too hung up on the past scandals and will see past most of the typical mudd slinging. He believes Platner is the type of guy to knock Collins off. Also, I wholeheartedly agree with your suggestion that Platner's campaign should have blamed the war service for his past, and not the media. Maybe (V) should work for political campaigns...
  
  
• S.O.F. in New York City, NY: I disagree with (V)'s assessment that Platner should not attack the media to defend himself. The Platner situation exposes two important dynamics of modern politics:
  
  
  1. The media spends a lot of time on scandals during their election coverage. Sensationalism sells.
     
     
  2. The political center and left care more about the personal character of their candidates than the political right. This dynamic is asymmetric.
  
  Because of these dynamics, the media spends a lot more time covering the personal scandals of Democrats than Republicans, and the right has learned that, because of this asymmetry, they can weaponize the Democrats' conscience against their opponents.
  
  No matter how much you value an independent press, punching back at the media seems like a useful way to defend against these dynamics. When it comes to personal scandals, at worst the media are willing participants in the right's attempt to consolidate oligarchic control over our election system. At best, they are useful idiots. I sense there is a growing exhaustion among the left and center of how asymmetric coverage of elections has become, as well as how obsessed we have become with personal "dirt." It is politically expedient for the Democrats to capitalize on this exhaustion in the same way the far right has under Trump.
  
  Where we are at right now: "240 years ago... a Vulcan ship crossed into Klingon space. The Klingons attacked immediately... From then on, whenever the Vulcans crossed paths with Klingons, the Vulcans fired first. They said 'hello' in a language the Klingons understood." - Michael Burnham, Star Trek: Discovery
  
  
• Z.L in Minneapolis, MN: Own goal (noun): When Democrats find a combat veteran, working-class outsider who can actually win a purple state and then torch him over sexting before he's even on the ballot.

Thanks to all who wrote in. Tomorrow's entry will be entirely messages from voters in Maine. If that describes you, we would be very happy to hear from you at comments@electoral-vote.com. (Z)