What Happened When I Asked About Graham Platner
I got called a propagandist, an AIPAC shill and "a walking mortadella." The reaction was revealing.
Welcome back to The Red Letter.
In the past 48 hours, I’ve been accused of taking money from AIPAC, running a Swift Boat campaign, serving up propaganda, accepting money from foreign governments, and—my personal favorite—being compared to “a walking mortadella.” (Ironically, my dog’s name is Pancetta.)
I was also warned that I was about to lose my audience.
They don't understand who I am. I'm not for sale. I've spent my career asking uncomfortable questions. The party on the receiving end just changes from story to story.
And it’s all because I dared to ask a fairly simple question: At what point does a political party decide winning matters more than the principles it claims to stand for?
That question has become unavoidable in Maine, where Democrats have rallied behind Senate candidate Graham Platner despite a growing list of controversies that, under different circumstances, they would argue are disqualifying.
Consider just a few of the issues that have surfaced during the campaign:
Allegations from former partners
Past Reddit comments about sexual assault victims
Platner likes to describe himself as “a random guy.”
He’s not.
He was discovered by Democratic operatives who loved the profile: tattooed veteran, oyster farmer, working-class aesthetic, outsider energy.
In other words, he was cast.
Democrats spent years watching President Trump understand something many of them missed: politics is increasingly about narrative and authenticity.
So they went searching for authenticity. They found a compelling story.
The problem is that authenticity isn’t a costume.
And once voters start looking closely, the carefully constructed story can begin to unravel. Platner attended the elite boarding school Hotchkiss that costs roughly $80,000 a year, received a substantial mortgage from his attorney father, and has defined "working class" so broadly that it includes anyone who works for a living.
What’s fascinating isn’t just Platner himself. It’s what the reaction to him reveals about the Democratic Party.
For years Democrats have argued that politics isn’t simply about winning elections. It’s about character. It’s about accountability. It’s about standards.
Now they’re confronting a candidate whose own history tests those claims—and many seem willing to look the other way.
Part of the reason is obvious: Democrats need this seat.
This edition of the The Red Letter is free thanks to our sponsor Ground News
One of the things I like about Ground News is that it lets you compare headlines from across the political spectrum covering the exact same story. The differences can be striking.
Whether it’s Alabama’s redistricting fight or the latest Washington controversy, Ground News helps you see how outlets frame the news differently, while also showing ownership information, bias ratings, and factuality scores. For example The Federalist frames the Supreme Court’s ruling as a win for Republicans with the headline “SCOTUS Greenlights Alabama’s Congressional Map” and Mother Jones frames it as another example of gerrymandering with the headline “In Alabama, the Roberts Court hands Republicans yet another shocking gerrymandering win.” The same story, with completely different coverage.
Get outside the media bubble and make up your own mind, subscribe to Ground News at groundnews.com/red to get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan and unlock world- wide perspectives on today’s biggest news stories.
Republican Senator Susan Collins has never looked more vulnerable. Control of the Senate could hinge on races like this one. The urgency would be easier to understand if Platner were running away with it. He’s not. New polling shows him essentially tied with Collins, suggesting Democrats are accepting significant political risk without any guarantee of reward.
That raises another question: How did Democrats end up in a position where Platner became the best available option?
The answer, according to several Democratic operatives I’ve spoken with, is simple: they failed to build a bench.
One longtime Democratic strategist and donor adviser put it bluntly:
“How is my only choice a seventy-something candidate [Governor Janet Mills] or a crazy person to take on arguably the most vulnerable senator in the country? That’s a systemic Democratic problem.”
Maine Democrats head to the polls tonight, and barring a major surprise, Platner is expected to win the nomination—a reflection not just of his appeal, but of the alternatives voters were given.
Platner’s appeal is rooted in redemption and Americans are remarkably forgiving. Voters forgive addiction, infidelity, personal failures and public humiliation. What they struggle to forgive is a pattern that continues after the lesson is supposedly learned.
The challenge for Platner is that many of the controversies surrounding him aren’t decades old.
Some are recent, like last year. As Charlie Sykes noted last week, the question isn’t whether someone can be redeemed. It’s whether the behavior actually stopped.
And that’s where the stakes become larger than one Senate race.
It’s whether someone who openly acknowledges struggles with impulse control, fidelity, anger, PTSD and self-destructive behavior — and refuses to apologize for recent lapses — should be handed one of the most tempting environments in American politics.
As I’ve reported in detail, Washington is full of flattery, attention, power, alcohol, lobbyists and people looking to get close to elected officials. It tests even disciplined people. Democrats are asking voters to believe that a man who is still publicly wrestling with some of those demons is ready for one of the most powerful jobs in the country.
“If you can’t control yourself in rural Maine in your LL Bean town, it’s going to be hard in Washington,” John McCain’s former Campaign Manager Steve Schmidt said.
“Wait until you see the ladies in their evening gowns.”
His former political director, former Maine State Representative Genevieve McDonald, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that concerns she raised internally were repeatedly dismissed until they became impossible to ignore.
McDonald said the campaign offered her $15,000 in exchange for signing a non-disclosure agreement when she wanted to leave. In any other context, Democrats would likely view that as a red flag. After years of arguing that secrecy agreements silence whistleblowers and protect powerful people, it’s fair to ask why they’re suddenly less troubled when the NDA is attached to a candidate they desperately need.
Three women have publicly described what they say was a pattern of psychologically abusive behavior.
Defenders note that one of the women, who accused him of physical abuse, is a Republican operative and argue that fact should affect how voters evaluate her claims.
Reasonable people can debate individual allegations.
What becomes harder to dismiss is the pattern.
And if Democrats think the scrutiny surrounding Platner will disappear after the primary, they’re fooling themselves.
Everything currently being debated in Maine will face far greater scrutiny in a general election. Republicans will spend millions defining him, and national media organizations will start asking questions. The allegations, the Nazi tattoo controversy, the Reddit posts, the sexting allegations, the NDA dispute—none of it is going away.
The real gamble Democrats are making isn’t simply that Platner can win. It’s that none of these issues become more damaging once the spotlight gets brighter.
What makes this moment so uncomfortable for Democrats isn’t that Republicans are being hypocritical.
Republicans have largely stopped pretending character is the central test for office.
Democrats haven’t.
That’s why the anger directed at anyone asking questions about Platner feels so revealing.
If character matters, then it has to matter when the candidate has a D next to his name.
If accountability matters, it can’t be reserved exclusively for political opponents.
The Democratic Party built much of its argument against Donald Trump around the idea that standards matter.
Now voters are watching to see whether those standards apply universally—or only when they’re convenient.
That’s the real story here.
It’s bigger than Graham Platner.
The question is whether Democrats still believe their own argument.
Tara, you have the knack of asking the correct questions and you don’t take any flannel. Keep up the good work.
Tara, This is why we need more Talaricos and fewer Platners. And more women in leadership positions. Good work. Linda S. Clare at The Deep End