The Democrats must have made him an offer he couldn’t refuse – or a threat he couldn’t defy. Or both.

First, the threat

He argued the real threat was never the allegations themselves, but what the political establishment plans to do with them. Cut off his fundraising. Cut off his voter data. Starve the campaign of everything it needs simply to function. He made his read on their real preference painfully clear.

“They would rather see Susan Collins win than have me be the next senator from Maine,” he said.

No, I don’t think so. They would rather have a different candidate than you, one they think has a better chance of winning. They knew the GOP had the goods on you and was going to wait till after the point of no return, July 13, to reveal it. So they finessed the GOP and revealed it themselves in order to force you out. Believe me, they want to win. This isn’t about you.

He added, about his victory in the primary:

“We went toe-to-toe with one of the most entrenched political systems in the history of the world, and we won,” Platner said.

“We beat them on June 9th in overwhelming numbers.”

But to the best of my recollection, his main (Maine?) opponent, Janet Mills, had dropped out by then. His rise was also promoted by major backers such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, hardly outside of an “entrenched political system.”

Let’s see; what else?:

“And I just want to make it clear this is all false,” Platner said.

“The things that have been claimed did not happen; it’s not real.”

He described the past few days as an ordeal no regular person should have to survive, a normal guy suddenly thrust into a spotlight he says he never wanted. He accused the media and the political establishment of skipping the investigation entirely and jumping straight to a verdict.

“I learned about this through press inquiries with no time to truly respond, no time for investigations before a corporate media system and the political establishment got to act as judge, jury and executioner,” he said.

“Accusations are supposed to be the beginning of things, not the end.”

I don’t know whether he’s innocent or guilty, but I do know that apparently Politico saw emails in which his accuser made the Platner rape allegations to friends very close to the time the rape supposedly occurred. Back then, he was not a political figure at all, but merely her ex-boyfriend.

Now the Democrats get to do what they do best: undo the will of the people and replace one candidate with another, in the nick of time. I wonder what Biden might say to all of this.

Who might be the new nominee? Here’s a report on the process:

Earlier Wednesday evening, the state party said it had decided to hold a nominating convention to pick a replacement candidate and plans to “announce the full timeline,” as well as details and requirements for contenders. It promised transparency.

The possible candidates:

[Troy] Jackson, who was a Platner ally before calling on him to step aside Monday, swiftly launched his Senate bid after Platner suspended his campaign. …

A logger with long ties to organized labor, he’s quickly attracted attention from many of the oysterman’s progressive supporters. Our Revolution, a progressive organization founded by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), has already thrown its support behind Jackson.

But already, some votes from his 20-year history in the legislature are resurfacing, such as his 2009 state Senate vote against a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, giving Platner’s base a bit of pause. He later called that the “worst vote I ever took.” His closeness to Platner during the primary may also give pause to some Democrats as they choose their next nominee. …

[Dan] Kleban also announced his bid Wednesday. The 49-year-old founder of Maine Beer Company had dropped out of the Democratic Senate primary earlier this year and threw his weight behind establishment-backed Gov. Janet Mills. …

[Nirav] Shah, a former public health official, is “evaluating” whether he will mount a Senate bid, he told POLITICO Tuesday afternoon. But he was already positioning himself as a candidate before Platner’s announcement. …

Shah oversaw the state’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic. He mounted his first run for public office earlier this year, finishing second in Maine’s gubernatorial primary. He said in an interview that he is “very, very much aligned” with Platner’s politics. …

[Shenna] Bellows, who also ran unsuccessfully for governor, has been fielding calls about a potential run, according to a person familiar with her campaign, granted anonymity to speak about private conversations. The person pointed to her ideological alignment with Platner on progressive issues and compelling biography — she grew up poor in rural Maine and flipped a GOP-held state Senate district — providing an early glimpse of part of her pitch if she decides to enter the race.

There are a bunch of others, most of whom are previous Platner supporters.

The post Platner says buh-bye appeared first on The New Neo.

Micky Kaus pointed out that Platner “has the leverage. All he has to do to screw the Dem party is… nothing.” And my RedState colleague Bonchie described the Left’s “nuclear levels of cope” over their rapey Nazi: “He’s a mentally disturbed do-nothing who works for his mom. He doesn’t care about the party. Why would he? And there is no mechanism to forcibly remove him.”

You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

Platner seems like the kind of guy who likes to throw his weight around, and not just with women. Right now he’s the nominee, although the Democrats would like to forget that inconvenient truth.

From Devon Murphy-Anderson, the Executive Director of the Maine Democratic Party:

“We have repeatedly reiterated to Graham Platner’s team that they have no role in determining our next Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate, nor in determining what this process looks like,” she noted. “We have also reiterated that Graham Platner must drop out of this race so that Democrats in Maine can focus on defeating Susan Collins this November.”

No, neither Platner nor his “team” has a role in determining the next Democratic nominee from Maine for the US Senate. But he certainly as a role – a big one – in determining who is the present Democratic nominee from Maine for the US Senate, because at present he is that nominee and he can’t be forced out. Murphy-Anderson speaks of the “process” but acts as thought that process is that she will tell Platner what to do. But he’s not a party animal – that is, he’s not a Party animal. So he doesn’t need to do it – unless they make him an offer he doesn’t wish to refuse, whether it be money or status.

As I wrote yesterday:

… I think there’s at least a decent possibility that he’s such a narcissist, so tremendously full of himself and arrogant, that he might even refuse to drop out at all.

However, Platner doesn’t actually hold all the cards here. The Democrats have one huge card – at least, as far as I can tell – which is the threat of prosecution for rape. I looked up the statute of limitations in Maine for the crime, and although the law is fairly complex in that it depends on certain elements of the crime, it’s pretty clear that – since the incident is alleged to have occurred in 2021 – there is plenty of time to prosecute.

However, because this case rests almost entirely on the testimony of the alleged victim, she would have to agree to testify. That could be a stumbling block.

The post Will Platner stay or will he go? appeared first on The New Neo.

That would be quite something to see. After all, if you promote a scumbag, you have to deal with a scumbag.

So now I see this NY Post article. An excerpt:

Maine Democratic candidate Graham Platner appears to be holding the Democratic Party hostage — refusing to drop out after he was accused of rape unless he gets to approve his successor to run for the Senate, The Post has learned.

A source familiar with the campaign discussions said Platner, his campaign and political strategist Morris Katz are deliberating about the Maine Democrat dropping out but only if his replacement shares his left-wing values.

So the report is that he’s making demands and threatening not to drop out if they’re not met. Nice.

It certainly makes sense that the powers-that-be would like someone more moderate, in order to appeal to the somewhat purple state of Maine. Then again, Collins is pretty moderate herself. But my point is that Platner knows he has some power here and is loathe to give it up.

Needless to say, there’s been a ton of coverage of Platner in the last 24 hours, much of it about how the Democrats supported him till the current revelations about rape. Not date-rape, but what Whoopi Goldberg might or might not refer to as “rape-rape.”

Ace has a good summary of how the NY Times did a limited modified hang-out a while back by trying to get ahead of the rape and assault allegations without actually covering them truthfully. Rather, they mostly covered them up. It’s a long and involved post, but here’s some of it to give you the flavor:

The New York Times Knew All About Graham Platner’s Rape Allegation But Deliberately Buried It …

They also buried the allegations of non-rape abuse by Lyndsey Fifield — and she says she gave them the names of five friends who would corroborate the story (at least as far as her telling the same story contemporaneously).

Two of those friends, she told them, didn’t know about the abuse, but could corroborate the dates of their relationship. The other three could corroborate the abuse.

The New York Times chose to only contact the two friends Fifield expressly told them could not corroborate the abuse. They didn’t contact the three who could corroborate the abuse, deliberately.

Then the Times wrote that they contacted two friends “who could not corroborate” Fifield’s claims of abuse.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you that the people who write at the Times are stupid. They may be both knaves and fools in the classic sense, but they are not stupid and they know how to write exactly what they want to write.

There’s also a good piece in National Review in terms of a summary of what went wrong with Platner. But it has a flaw that I’ve noticed is present in just about every article I’ve read from the right about Platner, an omission that puzzles me.

For example, here’s a quote from that link:

If Platner fooled you [he’s addressing reporters on the left], maybe you should find something to do with your life besides writing columns about politics. Because the U.S. political landscape is full of creeps, cretins, con artists, crooks, and cads of every kind, and it always will be. If the media has any useful role to play in our system, it is to look beyond the spin and the campaign-crafted image and to tell the world who these candidates really are, warts and all, so the electorate can make an informed choice.

Talk about an idealistic vision! The point is that Platner did not fool them, not for a single moment. Nor will they ever “look beyond the spin.” They proudly create the spin. There is no devotion to the principle of truth. It’s about winning, period.

What’s more, this story did not come out now in the interests of truth. It came out now because Democrats and the MSM (redundancy, I know) realized Platner almost certainly would lose. So they had to torpedo him. They had held back the rape story not only to protect him till now, but to use in case they needed it in the future. Now they need it, so it’s printed. I think it’s just as simple as that.

And so you have a flood of people (take a look here) suddenly saying he has to go, people who defended him mightily till now. I repeat: it’s not the result of the story itself. The story being revealed is the result of the polls. The outrage at Platner’s behavior is the result of the polls. That’s all it is. Now, maybe they were outraged and worried even earlier, but they had to keep their mouths shut and pretend to defend him, all in the interests of winning. Once he no longer was a winner, they’re free to suddenly virtue-signal about him.

[ADDENDUM: The allegations have gotten worse.

How could that be, you ask? Here’s how:

One of Graham Platner’s ex-girlfriends alleged Tuesday that the embattled Maine Democrat repeatedly removed his condom during sex without asking permission.

“He would pull condoms off,” Lyndsey Fifield said in an interview with the Washington Post. “He would do it in a sneaky way. He wouldn’t tell me.”

“I confronted him both during and after [sex] because he knew that I was not on birth control and how dangerous that was,” Fifield added. “He would act like cute about it, like ‘Oh sneaky me.’”

Actually, I’m not sure that’s worse than breaking and entering and rape. Then again, it’s pretty bad.

However, a caveat the left will no doubt point out is that this allegation is by the Republican ex-girlfriend, not the “progressive” one. So it’s more suspect, as far as they’re concerned.

My own question is why, after he did this, would anyone continue to see him or sleep with him? She said it happened six times. And he’s not so compelling a specimen; he’s a pretty repellent guy even without this kind of sleazy conduct, as far as I can see.

Then again, Sylvia Plath may have had it right – at least, about some women but certainly not all:

… I have always been scared of you,
With your Luftwaffe, your gobbledygoo.
And your neat mustache
And your Aryan eye, bright blue.
Panzer-man, panzer-man, O You——

Not God but a swastika
So black no sky could squeak through.
Every woman adores a Fascist,
The boot in the face, the brute
Brute heart of a brute like you.]

The post The Platner rape story: all in the timing appeared first on The New Neo.

Now there is a new allegation about sexual assault in 2021, from a woman he used to date. In a way, I wish they’d held it back until after the 13th, but I think it came out now due to pressure from Democrats rather than Republicans. For the moment, Platner seems to be mulling it over. Maybe it’s a case of finding out what the Democrat powers-that-be will be offering him to leave the race:

Democratic Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner on Monday said he’s taking “time to reflect” on his campaign’s path forward after a woman accused him of sexually assaulting her in 2021.

Platner, 41, and his campaign denied the accusations made by 41-year-old Maine resident Jenny Racicot in a Politico article published Monday. Politico reported that she accused Platner of sexual assault.

Note that the accusation was published in Politico, so you can be pretty sure this was pushed by Democrats. In a way, too bad. If he’s such a terrible candidate I would hope he would run and lose handily. But my guess is that the pressure, and the incentive (whatever is offered), will be enough to get him to drop out.

The Democrats who endorsed him have already disgraced themselves. Perhaps they’ve even sullied their brand in Maine, at least among Independents there. One can hope, anyway.

Who will replace him if he does drop out? They will need to name someone by July 27, according to the article. I suppose they could revert back to the safe-but-unexciting and elderly Janet Mills, who had originally opposed Platner but suspended her candidacy a while back due to lack of funds (and probably bad polls). They may not turn to Mills; I’m pretty sure there are younger Democrats who’d love the opportunity, but I don’t know who they are.

[ADDENDUM: Ace notes that apparently for the NY Times article that listed some of the sexual allegations against Platner, the current accuser had spoken to them while asking that her name be kept quiet, but the Times didn’t really report on the seriousness of her allegations. She says this made her come out now, and that she also is on the same side as Platner politically.

But the Times piece was published only one month ago. Platner has been a candidate since August of 2025 with huge visibility almost from the start, and became the Democrat nominee in late April. Why did the accuser wait so long? Politico quotes her as saying this:

“One of the reasons I didn’t come forward sooner was, the huge moral conflict that I had between supporting his politics, but not supporting him as a person,” she said. “I just want the truth out there. I just want people to have a whole scope of who he is as a person.”

I say that’s hogwash. I think she was willing to remain silent as long as the polls showed him in the lead, and she spoke out when it seemed like he would lose and wouldn’t drop out unless he was forced to do so.]

The post Will Graham Platner drop out? appeared first on The New Neo.

Ace describes some of the claims thusly:

NYT: “Ex GF of Platner Says He Knew All About “My Totenkopf,” Used Physical Force Against Her, Bragged That He Would Rape His Male Enemies, “Not in a Gay Way,” But to Show “I’m Dominant” …

Most of the Democrats refused to address this except to say that Platner’s reformed, and that he needs to beat Collins and is poised to beat Collins and that this will give them a Senate majority, as though that would justify anything. And of course, in their eyes it would.

Fetterman was one exception, however (although here he’s addressing some previously-revealed offenses of Platner’s):

“[Platner] is a guy that had a problem with me, how I dress, but he seemed to have no problem posing in a towel at a disgusting website that consistently had serious problems about that kinds of depravity,” Fetterman told Fox News host Sean Hannity. …

“Let me make a deal. I’ll tell P-Hustle, I’ll wear a suit every day, if he releases all those texts and messages that he’s had,” Fetterman said. P-Hustle is a reference to the account name Platner reportedly had on his Kik account. …

Fetterman replied [when asked if there were more lies to come from Platner], “Well, he lied to everybody. He said that there wasn’t any after his Nazi tattoo situation. And now there’s more and more of the things. So he’s already lied about that.”

Fetterman added, “So I assume, you know, it’s like they say, for every ranch you see in Texas, there’s 50 that you haven’t seen. So I’m sure there’s plenty, a lot of more ranches in P-Hustle’s life.”

I think the Democrats actually would like to rid themselves of Fetterman, or at least muzzle him. But he’s not up for re-election until 2028, and they won’t replace him then unless they find someone they think can win in Pennsylvania.

But I digress.

The story behind the Times story about Platner’s girlfriends actually seems to have been even more Byzantine than I originally suspected. Take a look:

But these allegations [of girlfriend abuse] are buried [in the Times story] under mountains of campaign flack bullshit and then packaged as “intimidating” and “unsettling.” Normal people have another phrase for it: domestic abuse.

That characterization is by design.

Let me be clear: the New York Times story was not journalism. It was a soft catch-and-kill operation. It was a favor to Platner’s campaign, a disservice to readers, and an insult to the women who say they were hurt by him.

One of those victims, Lyndsey Fifield, is my friend.

Fifield has been attacked by the left as not credible because she’s on the right politically – therefore, of course, lying. Believe all women – if they’re Democrats.

More:

The term ‘catch and kill‘ refers to a shady practice where a public relations firm or consultant works with a friendly news outlet that was pitched or ‘stumbled’ upon a negative story about a client to effectively ‘catch’ and then ‘kill’ the story — or delay it until it no longer has impact.

A ‘soft catch and kill’ works similarly, though it mostly involves the publication still running the story in a timely manner, but the details are softened or buried deep in the narrative to soften the bite. …

In fact, for the first third of the New York Times expose, they focused on women provided to the newspaper by the Platner campaign — who, of course, sang the degenerate former bartender’s praises. And frankly, that is all many readers will come away with, because that is about as far as their attention span lets them get into the narrative. Which is, again, the point.

I didn’t know that “catch and kill” terminology, but that’s the sort of thing I meant by “getting ahead of the story.” In other words, the friendly outlet shapes it before an unfriendly one does.

This is the part that wasn’t apparent from the story itself:

Prior to publication, I’m told that the Times spoke to two women who had credibly accused Platner of sexual assault. This detail was revealed to Fifield — likely in an effort to encourage her to divulge more of her story. Those women’s allegations never made it into the story. They were effectively ‘killed’ by the Times’s editors and by Platner’s attorneys, I’m told. …

Even more telling, and perhaps a tip of the hat to the nature of this soft catch and kill, is the fact that numerous Democrat aligned influencers and operatives were essentially flooding the zone on social media in the hours before the story was published. Somehow, they knew that one of the women was an activist in the conservative movement — a detail that surmisably came from the New York Times or from the Platner campaign, or both, ahead of publication. Others appear to have known details that were cut from the story.

Then there’s Fifield herself (see this describing and quoting a series of tweets of hers on X) [my emphasis]:

Fifield explained that in early April, the New York Times contacted her and she told them she was not interested in discussing her story. The reporter told her there are other women coming forward about Platner’s conduct. “ They said but wait—there are other women. Women terrified to tell their stories, too, and you need to band together. WE will help you. We will protect you. Men can’t keep getting away with this,” she wrote.

You could say that the Times was another abusive, lying boyfriend. Don’t ever believe what they promise [my emphasis]:

After seeing former Rep. Eric Swalwell’s downfall, she reversed course. She told them her story and even “let them take pictures of my diary pages.” She sent screenshots of her message exchanges with Platner.

“I explained very clearly that, like many women abused by their partners, I had not told anyone about his violence at the time—I had covered for and defended it. I accepted his earnest apologies. They said that’s fine because the diary entries and my on the record story was enough,” Fifield wrote.

The reporters connected her to other victims and she told them they were “doing the right thing” even though they had misgivings. Fifield also realized that Platner was in a relationship with one of the other victims while she was dating him.

She further explained that she felt guilty about having remained silent for so long, but at some point, she decided she couldn’t continue to keep this under wraps. “I couldn’t stay silent as he continued to lie and lie and lie. I want my daughters to boldly speak out if they’re ever abused as I was,” she wrote. …

“After the story went up I began to ask them … wait, where are the stories from the other women? Where are their accusations of sexual assault? Why am I the focus? Why are there 11 paragraphs dedicated to detailing my work history (more than has been published about Graham’s by far)?

“Why does it say “nobody could corroborate” when I offered them sources that COULD corroborate?”

The piece was obviously written in a way that would discredit her and/or make it easy for the left to attack her. She was naive, but it makes sense that she wanted to tell her story. It was a mistake to tell it to the Times – but then again, if it had appeared in an outlet on the right, it would also have been discredited because the only true “truth” appears in the leftist MSM.

ADDENDUM:

More here, including this from Fifield:

It dawned on me that this really was a set up all along. The journalists I trusted who convinced me to share a story I never wanted to tell methodically delayed and twisted this into a gift to the Platner campaign. Violating the trust of his victims. Shattering the trust I placed in them with the most vulnerable story of my life.

As Fetterman said, there are probably “a lot more ranches in P-Hustle’s life.”

The post Think the <i>NY Times</i> story about Platner’s ex-girlfriend’s complaints was an anti-Platner hit piece? Think again. appeared first on The New Neo.

Platner claims that Susan Collins voted to send him to Iraq; he says that explicitly in the video at the link. He also says the US “destroyed” Iraq, but when I last checked, Iraq was still a functioning country and doing at least somewhat better than it was before the war. As for Afghanistan – which he also says the US “destroyed,” it’s about the same as it was before the war, with the Taliban in charge.

But about Collins:

Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner said Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins made a mistake when she voted to “send him to Iraq.”

“We destroyed Iraq and we destroyed Afghanistan, and all the suffering, all the killing, all the dying, all the displacement — we, the United States, did that. And that I’m ashamed of.”

“The anger that I feel is for the people that sent me,” he said.

Sounds a bit John Kerry-esque, doesn’t he?

Collins replies:

“The fact is, that was Platner’s decision to serve,” Collins told The Maine Wire on Thursday, adding, “He was not drafted.”

Additionally, the GOP senator cited Platner’s decision to work for the security company Blackwater, which was investigated by the U.S. government over allegations that it violated international law.

He signed up after the war began, and he re-upped. It was entirely voluntary.

His reply? She made me do it anyway:

Now all these years later, instead of acknowledging that she was wrong, she’s decided that she’s going to blame all of us who — in our late teens and early twenties — signed up to serve our country,” he continued. “That somehow it’s our fault that she and establishment politicians like her, wanted to abuse our willingness to serve, to go send us off to fight in stupid wars that did nothing but make some people very, very rich at the expense of American taxpayer dollars.”

Some facts on Platner’s service – and recall that the Iraq War began in March of 2003:

Platner enlisted in the Marine Corps shortly after graduating from high school in 2003. He attended the Marine Corps School of Infantry, then deployed to Iraq in 2005. He served a total of eight years in the military, including three combat tours in Iraq, in areas including Ramadi and Fallujah. Asked why he served in the Iraq War after protesting it, Platner said, “I thought I could do some good. And I wanted to play soldier. I might have read too much Hemingway.”

After four years in the military, Platner enrolled at George Washington University, funded by the G.I. Bill. Shortly after starting school, he enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard and served an additional tour of duty in the war in Afghanistan. He returned to Washington in 2011, resuming classes at GWU and working as a bartender at the Tune Inn on Capitol Hill. From 2011 to 2016 he alternated between living in DC and military deployments, before withdrawing from GWU and returning to Maine in 2016 for treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder and other military-related injuries.

In 2018, Platner returned to Kabul, Afghanistan, for about six months as a State Department security contractor with Constellis, where he provided diplomatic security to the US Ambassador to Afghanistan.

By 2016 Platner would have been 31-32 years old.

NOTE: Here’s one of my previous posts about Platner.

See also this post by Ace about Platner.

The post Graham Platner: Susan Collins made me do it! appeared first on The New Neo.

Mills is 78, and I think her heart wasn’t in it, but she also ran out of money. New York Magazine refers to her campaign as “lackluster,” and that’s a fitting description.

More:

Senate Democrats had touted Mills as a top recruit to take on Collins, who is the only Republican senator representing a state that President Donald Trump lost last year. Maine is practically a must-win if Democrats are to net the four seats they need to take control of the chamber in the 2026 midterm election. But Collins has proven a tough opponent in previous elections.

After launching her Senate campaign in October, Mills struggled to gain traction against Platner, who burst onto the scene as a brash political newcomer and quickly built a loyal following. Platner notched endorsements from high-profile progressive leaders including Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

Most importantly, he built major support among Maine Democrats, leading by double digits in recent polls of the primary. Platner’s rise — and the governor’s struggles — came despite top Democrats’ preference for Mills, turning this campaign into a rare rebuke of party leaders in a top-tier race.

Mills was kind of the Jeb Bush in the race, except for the lack of money. Note the NBC piece linked and quoted there doesn’t mention Platner’s most salient characteristic, the Nazi tatoo, early on. You have to get very deep into the article – paragraph fourteen – before it’s mentioned, and then it’s described as classic “Republicans POUNCE!”:

Republicans have already begun to attack Platner, as he pulled ahead in the primary. The GOP super PAC Pine Tree Results PAC launched an ad Monday highlighting those controversial social media posts and Platner having a tattoo that resembled a Nazi symbol. Platner has said he was not aware of the Nazi connection and has since covered up the tattoo.

Well, doesn’t everybody get a Totenkopf tattoo and not know what it is? Could happen to anyone. More, from Platner’s Wiki page:

While acknowledging the resemblance, he said he had not been aware of it until reporters and political operatives from DC contacted him during his campaign. He said he had recently gotten it covered up. CNN and Jewish Insider reported that an anonymous former acquaintance of Platner’s claimed that Platner was aware of the tattoo’s meaning and had previously called it “my Totenkopf”. Maine governor Janet Mills, one of Platner’s opponents in the Democratic primary, called the tattoo “abhorrent”.

Ah, but that’s really the least of it. There’s this:

In October 2025, various news outlets reported on Reddit posts Platner made between 2013 and 2021 in which he called himself a “communist”, wrote that all cops are bastards, and agreed with a post calling rural white Americans “racist and stupid”. In an interview with CNN, Platner said of those comments, “That was very much me fucking around the internet … I don’t think any of that is indicative of who I am today”. In a 2013 Reddit discussion about anti-rape underwear, Platner wrote that people worried about assault should “take some responsibility for themselves and not get so fucked up they wind up having sex with someone they don’t mean to”.

Platner also referenced political violence in multiple posts; in 2018, he wrote: “Fight until you get tired of fighting with words and then fight with signs, and fists, and guns if need be.” He also wrote that “an armed working class is a requirement for economic justice” and urged readers to “Get Armed, Get Organized. The Other Side Sure As Hell Is.” He has said that many of the comments do not represent his current political beliefs, and that they were the product of disillusionment after his military discharge and struggles with PTSD.

Collins called Platner’s internet history “terrible” and “offensive”. Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said that while he did not approve of Platner’s comments, he did not consider them “disqualifying”. Platner said in an interview with Semafor, “How do you expect to win young people? How do you expect to win back men when you go back through somebody’s Reddit history and just pull it all out and say: ‘Oh my God, this person has no right to ever be in politics?’ Good luck with that. Good luck winning over those demographics.”

Of course Martin doesn’t consider them “disqualifying.” Au contraire; they match the mood of the party and its up-and-coming younger candidates. Platner is 41, by the way, born in 1984. You do the math; we’re not talking about posts or comments he made in high school. He was 29 years old in 2013 and 37 in 2021, the years in which the posts were made. Hardly an impressionable child, and not that long ago.

From Platner’s Wiki page:

[Platner says in an early campaign video] “I did four infantry tours in the Marine Corps and the Army. I’m not afraid to name an enemy. And the enemy is the oligarchy. It’s the billionaires who pay for it, and the politicians who sell us out. And yeah, that means politicians like Susan Collins.”

This video received 2.5 million views in its first 24 hours, sparking national media attention. The campaign raised $1 million in its first nine days, and reported amassing over 2,700 volunteers.

Senator Bernie Sanders endorsed Platner on August 30, ahead of a Fighting Oligarchy tour appearance in Portland with Platner and Maine gubernatorial candidate Troy Jackson. The event had originally been scheduled to be held in an auditorium but had to be moved to a much larger arena due to high public interest. Platner has also been endorsed by former United States Secretary of Labor Robert Reich; Senators Ruben Gallego, Martin Heinrich, and Elizabeth Warren; and Representative Ro Khanna. He has also been endorsed by the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Maine State Nurses Association, and United Auto Workers.

You get the picture. He also is running as a working-class Joe, but it seems to me – from his Wiki page – that he had a very comfortable family situation growing up: restaurant owner (in resort area) and lawyer parents, private high school in Connecticut, architect grandfather of some renown (grandpa designed the interior of the restaurant at the top of the World Trade Center, Windows On the World).

Graham seems to be hiding the extent of his leftism, another common theme among Democrat candidates these days. From Wiki again:

Before running for office, Platner described himself on Reddit as a member of the Democratic Socialists of America who was “pretty radically left” and a “vegetable growing, psychedelics taking socialist” (in 2017) and “rabidly anti-Hillary [Clinton]” (in 2016 Democratic presidential primaries). In a December 2025 interview with The New Yorker, he declined to call himself a socialist and described his political involvement before his campaign as “organizing around mostly local economic justice issues or social justice issues”.

Blahbity blah.

Does Platner have a chance of winning? Yes, especially if you believe polls:

RealClearPolitics’ polling aggregate shows Platner with an average 7.6-point lead over Collins as of Thursday morning. Collins held a 0.2 point lead over Mills in polling average.

Maine backed former Vice President Kamala Harris by about 7 points in the 2024 presidential election and is generally viewed as Democratic-leaning but with an independent streak. Collins, a popular Republican in the state, has been able to win thanks to bipartisan credentials. Democrats believe she may be in for her toughest race yet, given President Donald Trump’s declining nationwide popularity.

I think it’s way too early to tell, and the polls aren’t especially meaningful. But Collins is definitely threatened. And no, a more conservative Republican wouldn’t have a chance in Maine. Collins has carefully positioned herself for years to be carefully calibrated to Maine’s basically blue/purple tastes.

The post Maine’s governor drops out of the Democrats’ Senate primary …. appeared first on The New Neo.