"What unites these reactions isn’t so much the defense of Platner as the staunch denial that there’s anything wrong here at all."
Sure. And also what unites these reactions is hatred of people like me, highly educated competent women who think that candidates for office should at least know what the fucking job entails and show some ability to do it, people who were terribly unimpressed by Bernie Sanders screaming about "what the government should do" and accomplishing absolutely fucking nothing as part of "the government", people who enthusiastically voted for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama not because they, like us, went to Ivy League schools but because they seemed like real people who actually know what the fuck they are supposed to be doing when elected.
And speaking of Clintons, Bill Clinton managed to get himself elected and re-elected, and enjoy a reasonably successful presidency despite his personal failings and indiscretions, because he was an accomplished politician who projected competence-and delivered-and because he could connect with and persuade the people that he needed to vote for him. But his personal failings and indiscretions were a constant problem for him, for his family, for the democrats, and for the fucking country. I'll take a lot of baggage (not everything, but a lot) if it comes with someone who takes leadership and governing seriously, especially if they don't waste a lot of words casting people who have generally followed rules and, you know, accomplished something as the real losers, but everything is better when there is not a lot of baggage we have to take. But I'm not super interested in rallying behind someone who is an actual real fucking loser from an affluent background who has accomplished very little and who seems to have so much baggage that one could conclude that this is all he has.
I don't live in Maine. If I did I would be torn about whether to cast a very unenthusiastic vote for this arrogant ignorant prick to get Collins out, or, like, move to another state. But damn, Democrats, do better. Just. Do. Better. This is a winnable state. It would have been great if the choices had not been between an octogenarian friend of Schumer (no matter how competently she governed) and this guy.
Amen. The defense of Platner here is that moral rule-followers are ninnies and losers. Where have we heard that before? It's just disgraceful BS from the Platner apologists right now.
I mean, it almost boils down to "real people are the people who ignorantly make unfortunate tattoo choices and drunk post and drunk sext and if you haven't done that you aren't real people so shut up"
Dig this comment. Voting on vibes rather than demonstrated competence is a tell that you have enough resources to not really care whether government delivers.
They could've recruited Jared Golden for this. Instead, the activists hated on him, and the establishment ignored him, and now he's not even running to retain his House seat, which will almost certainly go red.
I have to say, the gratuitous swipe at Bernie Sanders, who isn't part of the article and doesn't have any scandals, makes me think your comment is about something other than just Platner.
Well said. In so many ways Platner feels like the end stage of this long, unfolding resentment of competence on the left (the right of course arrived there more than a decade ago). In a lot of ways I suppose this is just what populism is, but this current flavor feels so much more specifically loathsome of what should be straightforwardly good things.
E.g. I'm glad Jerusalem mentioned the Klippenstein snark. Now sure, we can argue about it's role in capitalism, but being a "McKinsey type" is a good thing dammit! I want my children to be so brilliant and successful that they too are one day qualified to work there.
The problem with not voting for Platner because he’s a putzhead is that you’re not really voting for Susan Collins, you’re voting for John Thune. Likewise when you vote for Platner you’re actually voting for Chuck Schumer. Individual senators mean nothing next to the party leadership. Thus, for legislative elections, “vote blue no matter who”. Executive branch positions are a very different matter.
The leftist complaints about non-cheaters being a bunch of goody goodies who went to Harvard is bizarre. These same people a week ago would accuse elites of being out-of-touch freaks, but now they're all perfect little angels who get off on judging the working class for not living up to their lived standards. This entire moral framework is based around stereotyping the working class as our of control. There's something to be said for the fact that the Stoller/Piker types are heavily driven by cultural resentment against people who make good life choices.
Pretty much the entire motivating drive behind both MAGA and the latest toxic brand of progressivism is "cultural resentment against people who make good life choices."
It feels very obvious to me the way people who are losers, posers, frauds, insincere about their identity, and third-tier in gravitate towards the two extremes in very similar ways, and then grift onto their followings like a parasite to advance themselves. It's one of those things you can't unsee once you see it.
I think a lot of our toxic politics is just that social media gave a platform to C+ d-bags who maybe not have great job or personal skills, but can sit at home and manipulate people into being paying "followers" from a computer by mirroring their resentments.
"It's one of those things you can't unsee once you see it." this exact sensation related to the social media plague and people it wills into power makes me feel like I'm losing my mind. In the past I would be so frustrated with friends and family who claimed there's no difference between the parties, and now I find that I'm becoming blind to the distinction between "eat the rich" and "blood and soil" types. I know intellectually there is more to fear from one than the other but they all start to look like vampires debating how to best manage their food supply.
I don't understand this comment. Like, grammatically. But a lot of people liked it. Does everyone else understand this?
Are leftists in particular defending Platner? I've seen that guy who hosts Pod Save America defending Platner. I don't think he's particularly leftist.
I think I'M pretty left wing in a lot of ways. I care a lot about feminism and I think we should tax the rich. But I'm not really a Platner fan.... I've written about him being completely inexperienced, for example. And I don't like that he sexted multiple women while married. That rings my misogyny alarm bells.
Platner has been the candidate the left rallied around in the primary. His staunchest defenders in the article are all from the left of the Democratic Party.
"Real people and manly men cheat on their wives, get over it, lib" is an astonishingly shitty retort. This is how the left is going to win back working class men? A bunch of pundits sitting around saying no guys you softhands don't understand, real men are shitheads?
Sadly, I believe this is an effective strategy. One frustration Bill Clinton presented the right was that his “masculinity” was unimpeachable unlike other “effete” male Democratic politicians. What made Bill Clinton’s masculinity so unimpeachable? His reputation as a womanizer.
Barack Obama was fortunate because though he checked all the boxes of any other effete male Democratic politician (educated, stable family life, cares about people, prefers diplomacy), he is Black. White supremacist propaganda had spent centuries portraying Black men as hyper masculine.
Most of our political issues today start and end with insecure masculinity. It has always been strange to me that this fundamental conflict for America gets so little attention.
I don’t understand why someone would expect a Texas Republican to vote for Talarico instead of Paxton yet not expect a Maine Democrat to vote for Collins instead of Platner. Isn’t the idea that being more/equally concerned with character vs policy is a *good* thing (especially when it comes to candidates who, despite being on the “wrong side of the aisle,” are still pretty moderate at the end of the day)? Isn’t “Ken Paxton is a scumbag Texans should vote for” the same perspective from the other ideological side?
I'm fine with Platner losing for this exact reason (and his remarkably poor judgment), but I think Paxton has a lot more going on than mere adultery (which is very bad and contemptible!). Both Collins and Paxton have plenty of bad *in-office* behavior on which to judge them. Someone's personal life is very informative of their personal integrity, but if you're hiring them from a job and you've seen them perform that job very well (or poorly), then their personal life is less relevant.
She voted to impeach Trunp when she knew she wasn't the deciding vote for it. Which is how she always votes- she "bucks the party" either when Republicans know they have enough votes or when they have so few that the Democrats are getting their way with or without her. She's always with the Republican caucus if they need her vote.
Almost all those other people were in states where they could be really threatened by a Republican primary. Collins knew she was safe because she's a Republican in a blue state and therefore the impeachment vote could only shore up her bona fides with independents and Democrats who've voted for her. She just didn't have the same circumstances as Ben Sasse or Mitt Romney, who definitely went against the mood in their states.
Collins might be in a blue state. But she is still facing Republican primary voters.
It's quite clear that Republican primary voters in many cases idiots. Often voting for MAGA idiots who will then go on to loose in the general election.
In fact Democrats have spent money boosting those MAGA idiots.
The left cannot win in the United States by combining the right's "I'm a shameless asshole but I'm YOUR shameless asshole vibes again THEM" with left leaning politics and rhetoric. I think the reason it doesn't work is twofold:
a) The premise of the left is that "They are going to run things for the good of all," but then they often use rhetoric that demonizes a "Rich, Propertied, Selfish THEM" against the "Poor, Renting, Unselfish US." In a nation where a supermajority of adults are homeowners in the stock market with private health insurance, that kind of rhetoric is going to make a lot of middle class voters think they are THEM, and that makes people who might otherwise support sensible progressive policies feel viscerally threatened, both materially and morally.
b) When your premise is "we are going to run the government for the good of all" you have to actually be good, because you are asking people to vote for you so you can have legal authority over managing their lives. When your premise is "You let me do what I want and I'll let you do what you want," which is the inherent promise of MAGA, then you don't have to be good, you just can't let gas prices get too high.
Democrats and Progressives can complain to high heaven about the "unfairness" of it but, I'm sorry, your mother should have prepared you better for adult life.
Democrats and Progressives need to actually understand why so many Americans hate them enough to vote for Trump.
It's so frustrating to watch as an American that would like real progress and a real opposition to Trump.
I would like to state (bravely) that I am a tattooed Marine veteran who has never cheated on my wife (or any girlfriend). Not sure whether that makes me a smoothgroin ninny or a virile hard-charger.
I want more people to get their positions on the table pre-election, because the Platner and Talarico races are interesting to watch as a pair and could make a good test of DSA politics.
Maine has been consistently blue in presidential elections, and Collins does an impressive trick by overcoming party alignment through a moderate image. All Platner needs to do is recover the ticket-splitters who voted for Harris and Collins. I watched DSA Dems push Platner and if he loses they need to sincerely reflect on whether a moderate would have done better.
Texas is consistently red, and Talarico gets zero love from the DSA. But if he is the guy who finally flips Texas, that would be a really impressive accomplishment and really good for the party (& the country, IMHO - especially versus Paxton).
So as an unrepentant neoliberal, if November brings a Talarico win and a Platner loss, I want the Democrats to seriously get on the moderation bandwagon and tell the DSA to f*** off. I already think it's the right move, but this would seal the deal in my opinion.
Is Talarico actually practicing moderation? To me, he seems more or less like a generic Democrat who has the good fortune of running in a great cycle against a terrible opponent, and maybe he wins anyway for those reasons. He's made some moves to the middle (recent comments about oil and gas being important industries, trying to reach out to Cornyn supporters), but he doesn't break with the national party nearly as much as Jared Golden, MGP, or Joe Manchin.
I mean, fair question... I know that in the primary battle he was considered the moderate vs Crockett. He has a certain affective moderation, but I am not sure how much true policy moderation is in the mix.
But note my wording was a little subtle and tried to focus on the DSA and their role in the intraparty power struggle more than the Hard Truth of who is or isn't canonically moderate. That is also why I want people to put their markers down early, or this is going to be like the Harris debacle where after the fact everyone tries to link her to the other faction.
(For the record, there is a slight risk that my view of the DSA's candidate preferences is overly influenced by my one relative who is a noisy Leftie! But I definitely expect our Thanksgiving conversation to be about what these two races have meant for the struggle within the Democratic party.)
I do not hope Platner wins the election in Maine. I also want Democrats to control the Senate, but not at the cost of sending Democrats the message that running a guy like Platner is acceptable. It is not, and Democrats need to learn this the hard way.
When challenging a highly competent and moderate Senator, Democrats need to put forth someone even more competent and inoffensive, not someone with the history of hate that Platner has.
Plus Collins is a responsible Senator who is a protector of democracy, not a threat to it.
well, the thing about the nazi tattoo and the cheating is that this is a guy who has not been in public life long at all. these things tell you he has an awful character and awful judgment. of course we're not gonna know all the bad things he's done like we did for trump in 2015 because he hasn't been a celebrity, or even alive, for 50 years. but dems have been (rightly) criticizing every republican who makes a weird hand gesture, every tweet, every dog whistle. but now all of a sudden this dirtbag is their savior. it's pretty pathetic coming from the high horse left.
This was an excellent piece all around but perhaps my favorite observation involves the compulsion of commentators to define ‘realness’ in a certain way. I would vote for Platner in this election even though I like Collins, because I mean it when I advocate ‘Blue No Matter Who’ in all directions. But it just isn’t the case that he’s especially representative of the median American man. To take just one example, most men aren’t veterans! The whole exercise is a ritual of conflating authenticity with aspiration.
The best outcome is Collins beating Platner and Talarico beating Paxton. It’s gross the level to which democrats are defending this guy, who isn’t even the nominee yet! The Flight 93 logic needs to stop
Cards on the table - I hate unrepentant cheaters. Infidelity is bad and those who commit it often have other bad character traits. With Platner, his brazen infidelity is only one of his ever growing list of scandalous revelations piled on top of his Nazi tattoo, misogyny, etc.
I’d be more inclined to believe his disavowal of the Totenkopf tattoo if his initial apparent apology weren’t followed up with his more recent attacks on Susan Collins being funded by AIPAC.
Platner is at best a hothead with a penchant for making bad decisions but he could also be a soulless opportunist who might very well do a Fetterman after winning the election.
I desperately want the Dems to flip the Senate but I fear that the well of Platner oppo runs quite deep and the cumulative weight of his scandals might rob the Dems of an easily flippable state that they so desperately need to win.
Actually, I just listened to yesterday's Bulwark and only now do I realize that there is actually another Democrat still in the primary that Mainers could vote for! Why aren't people advocating that people vote David Costello? He seems like a totally normal, boring Democrat, and that seems much safer than Platner at this point.
"What unites these reactions isn’t so much the defense of Platner as the staunch denial that there’s anything wrong here at all."
Sure. And also what unites these reactions is hatred of people like me, highly educated competent women who think that candidates for office should at least know what the fucking job entails and show some ability to do it, people who were terribly unimpressed by Bernie Sanders screaming about "what the government should do" and accomplishing absolutely fucking nothing as part of "the government", people who enthusiastically voted for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama not because they, like us, went to Ivy League schools but because they seemed like real people who actually know what the fuck they are supposed to be doing when elected.
And speaking of Clintons, Bill Clinton managed to get himself elected and re-elected, and enjoy a reasonably successful presidency despite his personal failings and indiscretions, because he was an accomplished politician who projected competence-and delivered-and because he could connect with and persuade the people that he needed to vote for him. But his personal failings and indiscretions were a constant problem for him, for his family, for the democrats, and for the fucking country. I'll take a lot of baggage (not everything, but a lot) if it comes with someone who takes leadership and governing seriously, especially if they don't waste a lot of words casting people who have generally followed rules and, you know, accomplished something as the real losers, but everything is better when there is not a lot of baggage we have to take. But I'm not super interested in rallying behind someone who is an actual real fucking loser from an affluent background who has accomplished very little and who seems to have so much baggage that one could conclude that this is all he has.
I don't live in Maine. If I did I would be torn about whether to cast a very unenthusiastic vote for this arrogant ignorant prick to get Collins out, or, like, move to another state. But damn, Democrats, do better. Just. Do. Better. This is a winnable state. It would have been great if the choices had not been between an octogenarian friend of Schumer (no matter how competently she governed) and this guy.
Amen. The defense of Platner here is that moral rule-followers are ninnies and losers. Where have we heard that before? It's just disgraceful BS from the Platner apologists right now.
I mean, it almost boils down to "real people are the people who ignorantly make unfortunate tattoo choices and drunk post and drunk sext and if you haven't done that you aren't real people so shut up"
Dig this comment. Voting on vibes rather than demonstrated competence is a tell that you have enough resources to not really care whether government delivers.
I dig your comment right back. Yep.
They could've recruited Jared Golden for this. Instead, the activists hated on him, and the establishment ignored him, and now he's not even running to retain his House seat, which will almost certainly go red.
THIS! Absolute lunacy he was primaried! Why primary the Democrat holding the reddest house district? It's like primarying Joe Manchin.
I have to say, the gratuitous swipe at Bernie Sanders, who isn't part of the article and doesn't have any scandals, makes me think your comment is about something other than just Platner.
You are correct. Not a big leap.
Well said. In so many ways Platner feels like the end stage of this long, unfolding resentment of competence on the left (the right of course arrived there more than a decade ago). In a lot of ways I suppose this is just what populism is, but this current flavor feels so much more specifically loathsome of what should be straightforwardly good things.
E.g. I'm glad Jerusalem mentioned the Klippenstein snark. Now sure, we can argue about it's role in capitalism, but being a "McKinsey type" is a good thing dammit! I want my children to be so brilliant and successful that they too are one day qualified to work there.
The problem with not voting for Platner because he’s a putzhead is that you’re not really voting for Susan Collins, you’re voting for John Thune. Likewise when you vote for Platner you’re actually voting for Chuck Schumer. Individual senators mean nothing next to the party leadership. Thus, for legislative elections, “vote blue no matter who”. Executive branch positions are a very different matter.
I wasn’t advising anyone how to vote.
The leftist complaints about non-cheaters being a bunch of goody goodies who went to Harvard is bizarre. These same people a week ago would accuse elites of being out-of-touch freaks, but now they're all perfect little angels who get off on judging the working class for not living up to their lived standards. This entire moral framework is based around stereotyping the working class as our of control. There's something to be said for the fact that the Stoller/Piker types are heavily driven by cultural resentment against people who make good life choices.
Pretty much the entire motivating drive behind both MAGA and the latest toxic brand of progressivism is "cultural resentment against people who make good life choices."
It feels very obvious to me the way people who are losers, posers, frauds, insincere about their identity, and third-tier in gravitate towards the two extremes in very similar ways, and then grift onto their followings like a parasite to advance themselves. It's one of those things you can't unsee once you see it.
I think a lot of our toxic politics is just that social media gave a platform to C+ d-bags who maybe not have great job or personal skills, but can sit at home and manipulate people into being paying "followers" from a computer by mirroring their resentments.
"It's one of those things you can't unsee once you see it." this exact sensation related to the social media plague and people it wills into power makes me feel like I'm losing my mind. In the past I would be so frustrated with friends and family who claimed there's no difference between the parties, and now I find that I'm becoming blind to the distinction between "eat the rich" and "blood and soil" types. I know intellectually there is more to fear from one than the other but they all start to look like vampires debating how to best manage their food supply.
I don't understand this comment. Like, grammatically. But a lot of people liked it. Does everyone else understand this?
Are leftists in particular defending Platner? I've seen that guy who hosts Pod Save America defending Platner. I don't think he's particularly leftist.
I think I'M pretty left wing in a lot of ways. I care a lot about feminism and I think we should tax the rich. But I'm not really a Platner fan.... I've written about him being completely inexperienced, for example. And I don't like that he sexted multiple women while married. That rings my misogyny alarm bells.
Platner has been the candidate the left rallied around in the primary. His staunchest defenders in the article are all from the left of the Democratic Party.
I think it's more that a lot of vocal left-wing commentators are staunchly behind Platner
"Real people and manly men cheat on their wives, get over it, lib" is an astonishingly shitty retort. This is how the left is going to win back working class men? A bunch of pundits sitting around saying no guys you softhands don't understand, real men are shitheads?
Sadly, I believe this is an effective strategy. One frustration Bill Clinton presented the right was that his “masculinity” was unimpeachable unlike other “effete” male Democratic politicians. What made Bill Clinton’s masculinity so unimpeachable? His reputation as a womanizer.
Barack Obama was fortunate because though he checked all the boxes of any other effete male Democratic politician (educated, stable family life, cares about people, prefers diplomacy), he is Black. White supremacist propaganda had spent centuries portraying Black men as hyper masculine.
Most of our political issues today start and end with insecure masculinity. It has always been strange to me that this fundamental conflict for America gets so little attention.
I don’t understand why someone would expect a Texas Republican to vote for Talarico instead of Paxton yet not expect a Maine Democrat to vote for Collins instead of Platner. Isn’t the idea that being more/equally concerned with character vs policy is a *good* thing (especially when it comes to candidates who, despite being on the “wrong side of the aisle,” are still pretty moderate at the end of the day)? Isn’t “Ken Paxton is a scumbag Texans should vote for” the same perspective from the other ideological side?
I'm fine with Platner losing for this exact reason (and his remarkably poor judgment), but I think Paxton has a lot more going on than mere adultery (which is very bad and contemptible!). Both Collins and Paxton have plenty of bad *in-office* behavior on which to judge them. Someone's personal life is very informative of their personal integrity, but if you're hiring them from a job and you've seen them perform that job very well (or poorly), then their personal life is less relevant.
Collins literally voted to impeach Trump.
She voted to impeach Trunp when she knew she wasn't the deciding vote for it. Which is how she always votes- she "bucks the party" either when Republicans know they have enough votes or when they have so few that the Democrats are getting their way with or without her. She's always with the Republican caucus if they need her vote.
How many people that voted to impeach are now still in congress?
Voting to impeach was a hard choice.
Almost all those other people were in states where they could be really threatened by a Republican primary. Collins knew she was safe because she's a Republican in a blue state and therefore the impeachment vote could only shore up her bona fides with independents and Democrats who've voted for her. She just didn't have the same circumstances as Ben Sasse or Mitt Romney, who definitely went against the mood in their states.
Collins might be in a blue state. But she is still facing Republican primary voters.
It's quite clear that Republican primary voters in many cases idiots. Often voting for MAGA idiots who will then go on to loose in the general election.
In fact Democrats have spent money boosting those MAGA idiots.
And to confirm RFK, Gabbard, etc.
The left cannot win in the United States by combining the right's "I'm a shameless asshole but I'm YOUR shameless asshole vibes again THEM" with left leaning politics and rhetoric. I think the reason it doesn't work is twofold:
a) The premise of the left is that "They are going to run things for the good of all," but then they often use rhetoric that demonizes a "Rich, Propertied, Selfish THEM" against the "Poor, Renting, Unselfish US." In a nation where a supermajority of adults are homeowners in the stock market with private health insurance, that kind of rhetoric is going to make a lot of middle class voters think they are THEM, and that makes people who might otherwise support sensible progressive policies feel viscerally threatened, both materially and morally.
b) When your premise is "we are going to run the government for the good of all" you have to actually be good, because you are asking people to vote for you so you can have legal authority over managing their lives. When your premise is "You let me do what I want and I'll let you do what you want," which is the inherent promise of MAGA, then you don't have to be good, you just can't let gas prices get too high.
Democrats and Progressives can complain to high heaven about the "unfairness" of it but, I'm sorry, your mother should have prepared you better for adult life.
Democrats and Progressives need to actually understand why so many Americans hate them enough to vote for Trump.
It's so frustrating to watch as an American that would like real progress and a real opposition to Trump.
I would like to state (bravely) that I am a tattooed Marine veteran who has never cheated on my wife (or any girlfriend). Not sure whether that makes me a smoothgroin ninny or a virile hard-charger.
ok but do you have a nazi tattoo
Just a Celtic cross, smoothgroin it is :'(
I want more people to get their positions on the table pre-election, because the Platner and Talarico races are interesting to watch as a pair and could make a good test of DSA politics.
Maine has been consistently blue in presidential elections, and Collins does an impressive trick by overcoming party alignment through a moderate image. All Platner needs to do is recover the ticket-splitters who voted for Harris and Collins. I watched DSA Dems push Platner and if he loses they need to sincerely reflect on whether a moderate would have done better.
Texas is consistently red, and Talarico gets zero love from the DSA. But if he is the guy who finally flips Texas, that would be a really impressive accomplishment and really good for the party (& the country, IMHO - especially versus Paxton).
So as an unrepentant neoliberal, if November brings a Talarico win and a Platner loss, I want the Democrats to seriously get on the moderation bandwagon and tell the DSA to f*** off. I already think it's the right move, but this would seal the deal in my opinion.
Is Talarico actually practicing moderation? To me, he seems more or less like a generic Democrat who has the good fortune of running in a great cycle against a terrible opponent, and maybe he wins anyway for those reasons. He's made some moves to the middle (recent comments about oil and gas being important industries, trying to reach out to Cornyn supporters), but he doesn't break with the national party nearly as much as Jared Golden, MGP, or Joe Manchin.
I mean, fair question... I know that in the primary battle he was considered the moderate vs Crockett. He has a certain affective moderation, but I am not sure how much true policy moderation is in the mix.
But note my wording was a little subtle and tried to focus on the DSA and their role in the intraparty power struggle more than the Hard Truth of who is or isn't canonically moderate. That is also why I want people to put their markers down early, or this is going to be like the Harris debacle where after the fact everyone tries to link her to the other faction.
(For the record, there is a slight risk that my view of the DSA's candidate preferences is overly influenced by my one relative who is a noisy Leftie! But I definitely expect our Thanksgiving conversation to be about what these two races have meant for the struggle within the Democratic party.)
I do not hope Platner wins the election in Maine. I also want Democrats to control the Senate, but not at the cost of sending Democrats the message that running a guy like Platner is acceptable. It is not, and Democrats need to learn this the hard way.
When challenging a highly competent and moderate Senator, Democrats need to put forth someone even more competent and inoffensive, not someone with the history of hate that Platner has.
Plus Collins is a responsible Senator who is a protector of democracy, not a threat to it.
Susan Collins voted to confirm RFK.
I never said I agreed with everything that Susan Collins has ever done.
I disagree with your characterization of her as a moderate.
"France, duh" is some perfect writing. Legit snorted into my coffee
well, the thing about the nazi tattoo and the cheating is that this is a guy who has not been in public life long at all. these things tell you he has an awful character and awful judgment. of course we're not gonna know all the bad things he's done like we did for trump in 2015 because he hasn't been a celebrity, or even alive, for 50 years. but dems have been (rightly) criticizing every republican who makes a weird hand gesture, every tweet, every dog whistle. but now all of a sudden this dirtbag is their savior. it's pretty pathetic coming from the high horse left.
Most of the democrats will all line themselves up behind Platner because power is important. Control of the senate might be on the line
Meanwhile, most republicans will do the same behind ken paxton. For the exact same reason
" We can't let democrats have control over the senate do you know what they will do"
BOTH parties have sold their soul in the hopes of temporary power.
And you see what type of politicians we get. Worse, you see what type of voters we get
This was an excellent piece all around but perhaps my favorite observation involves the compulsion of commentators to define ‘realness’ in a certain way. I would vote for Platner in this election even though I like Collins, because I mean it when I advocate ‘Blue No Matter Who’ in all directions. But it just isn’t the case that he’s especially representative of the median American man. To take just one example, most men aren’t veterans! The whole exercise is a ritual of conflating authenticity with aspiration.
The best outcome is Collins beating Platner and Talarico beating Paxton. It’s gross the level to which democrats are defending this guy, who isn’t even the nominee yet! The Flight 93 logic needs to stop
Cards on the table - I hate unrepentant cheaters. Infidelity is bad and those who commit it often have other bad character traits. With Platner, his brazen infidelity is only one of his ever growing list of scandalous revelations piled on top of his Nazi tattoo, misogyny, etc.
I’d be more inclined to believe his disavowal of the Totenkopf tattoo if his initial apparent apology weren’t followed up with his more recent attacks on Susan Collins being funded by AIPAC.
Platner is at best a hothead with a penchant for making bad decisions but he could also be a soulless opportunist who might very well do a Fetterman after winning the election.
I desperately want the Dems to flip the Senate but I fear that the well of Platner oppo runs quite deep and the cumulative weight of his scandals might rob the Dems of an easily flippable state that they so desperately need to win.
This is such a wise essay. The last paragraph in particular is a masterclass of political analysis and words I will think about for a long time.
Actually, I just listened to yesterday's Bulwark and only now do I realize that there is actually another Democrat still in the primary that Mainers could vote for! Why aren't people advocating that people vote David Costello? He seems like a totally normal, boring Democrat, and that seems much safer than Platner at this point.