All normal signs point to a massive blue wave in the midterms, especially since Trump himself is not on the ballot, but his polices are. Maine should be part of that.

I'm with KGB, though, and have given up on forecasting American voter behavior. 77 million Americans thought January 6th was fine enough, presumably for many of them because of "Biden's inflation." Well, costs have only gone up, so we'll see.

- No text -

...it makes me more concerned that the Democratic Party doesn't do its own research and lets guys like him - Nazi tattoo, sexting, mooching off his folks well into his 40s - get far down the field with the ball before they try to deal with them.

--
The 2007 ND-UCLA game was a once in a lifetime experience, I hope

I don't believe any populist seeking federal office believes what they say.

Call me a cynic.

--
The 2007 ND-UCLA game was a once in a lifetime experience, I hope

that the worst allegations were made by a GOP operative who has worked for multiple PACs, including was instrumental in convincing Susan Collins to vote for Kavanaugh?

It would, of course, be wonderful if she were disturbed enough by Platner's behavior that she had come out early enough to ensure that he wouldn't be elected. But apparently Platner's actions weren't that bad, it was only bad enough to try to sink his campaign after he was (de facto) nominated. That's a pretty narrow morality window. And good on the New York Times to wait until there was no going back to start to report on this.

Righteousness as always, all around. I wonder what the lego people would say.

I just didn’t follow your contention that he doesn’t believe in the positions he’s taking.

- No text -

And no, I think populists in 2026 are inherently unreliable.

--
The 2007 ND-UCLA game was a once in a lifetime experience, I hope

Whatever you think about his personal character, his agenda doesn’t seem disingenuous.

Both of them later in the race once his "progressive populist" approach appeared to be winning in the polling. Instead of standing up for a sober, conscientious, responsible human being with a good record of governance, they - and the party in general because nobody else came flying to her rescue - apparently decided that his parroting of progressive talking points was more important than her principled stances. Which is so, so very unlike the Republicans who want to believe that Trump reads the Bible regularly just because he tells them so.

--
The 2007 ND-UCLA game was a once in a lifetime experience, I hope

An interesting move. She and Mills must have serious beef. The Democratic party in Maine supported Mills but she couldn’t gain traction.

for their preferred candidate running a lazy, disinterested campaign that got her bounced by an outsider.

I prefer to blame all of the incompetent criminal dirtbags who are actually in office fucking shit up and the dupes who voted for them, having at least a sneaking suspicion that they would do literally nothing to improve their lives.

I agree with what you're saying and I think there a lot between the lines.

If there were a candidate for Senate somewhere that had built the grassroots popularity of Platner without the baggage of entitlement, machismo and racism (like maybe James Talarico) I would love to support him instead.

I think looking at Platner vs. Talarico offers some insight. They're both voices I'm excited to support for similar and different reasons.

Platner is blunter. He's direct in his criticism of Israel. He's direct in his criticism of billionaires and the concentration of money and power that disadvantages 99% of people. I'm not spending all day listening to his stuff, but he's willing to take stances that remain unorthodox for the leadership of the major parties and make consistent, clear, popular arguments for them. That's really appealing.

Does that "authenticity" of having his own opinions go along with some type of self-centeredness that would make him more likely to be a racist or flirt with women not his wife? I can see how it might.

Talarico appears to be of extremely high character and I love that about him, but his careful political positioning give me less confidence he's going to push for a ton of change. It is also possible his careful clean image will holding back his electability. Will it hurt his electability because he's not the "real American man" who is racist in private or is it just because people suspect someone who uses words carefully is less trustworthy. Probably a little bit of both.

I can't really get behind all the hand-wringing about Platner because he's got political opinions and arguments I wish a lot more politicians were making. If he can win saying the important stuff, I think that's good. If he can win saying that stuff despite having a lot of skeletons, maybe it means those arguments are just really popular.

Still I kind of appreciate the criticism from within the party because I think it does remind us that he's a flawed guy who is just a vehicle for the political arguments and not a hero. Having character is of its own value in politics, and I think it makes the party stronger to maintain our concern about character standards.

At the end of the day, if Platner gains popularity a la Trump for having been, at times, a racist and a misogynist, but he actually apologizes for it and tries to get better, then I think we can maintain a sufficient standard of behavior in our representatives.

According to this article, $3 million of $4.6 million raised at the time was from small donors ($<200). Who was funding Mills?

https://www.commondreams.org/news/graham-platner-fundraising

A better question might be, why was the party so inept at convincing people to vote for their preferred candidate? Or better yet, why are people across the political spectrum so angry at the establishment? And why do most great people not want to run for political office?

And it wasn't the "traditional establishment", as you note.

Who in the Party was it, and why?

--
The 2007 ND-UCLA game was a once in a lifetime experience, I hope

- No text -

- No text -

It just took time to find it out:

Other than his military service, has mooched off his family for basically his whole adult life;
Nazi tattoo;
Cheating, misogyny, etc.;
General lack of accountability or responsibility.

One wonders what led to his endorsements and general acceptance by the Democratic Party in the first place? It's almost as though the Party has as much of a screwed-up process in vetting candidates as the Cult of Trump Party does.

All of which is another way to say that maybe it's not the candidates, it's the party.

--
The 2007 ND-UCLA game was a once in a lifetime experience, I hope

If you squint a certain way, the un-representativeness of the state legislatures is a foundational problem for this country. It arguably was the fundamental issue that precipitated the move from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. At least that's the way some at the 1787 convention viewed it -- they argued that Congress under the AOC was rendered useless because state legislatures appointed representatives who would pursue the narrow priorities of the state legislatures rather than the interests of the people of the states. This is why some at the convention pushed for direct election of senators -- partly to prevent the states from meddling in the internal operation of the federal government, but also on the notion that the people of the several states better grasped the significant long-term benefits of an effective central government than their representatives in the state legislatures . This never was a majority position at the convention, but state legislatures appointing senators wasn't really either -- it was favored by some (Dickinson) but was viewed as a barely palatable compromise by many.

It'd be interesting to consider what the country would've looked like if it had direct popular election of senators from the outset. I kinda wonder how that would've shaped the slavery issue.

But think of it this way - with some of the state legislatures these days, they’d likely appoint plenty of buffoon populists.

- No text -

to the aspects of the Senate that insulated it from public pressure. Although of course that process of slowing things down- “the cooler” could be used for good or ill (Civil Rights most obviously as that’s the key issue in LBJ’s Senate career). It’s been a while since I read that chapter though.

I’ve mentioned Pappy O’Daniels as a comparison to Trump. He’s one of the many historical characters that Caro is so good at sketching out. And he’s an example of the kind of buffoon populist you can get as a U.S. Senator with direct election. But my subject title in the original post was somewhat tongue in cheek. As Publicola points out my issue is really with the primary system.

They were disclosed to the campaign by his wife, with whom Platner went through therapy together and apparently reconciled.

Or is it that they continue to uncover stuff from before he was running for office? My understanding is these sexts were from before he was a candidate. But I could very well be wrong.

I wouldn’t tar all of them with the Platner brush, before he’s even elected (if he’s even elected).

b) Read a history of the Senate before the 17th Amendment. It was full of cronies and hacks starting about 50 years after the ratification of the Constitution. After that, Daniel Webster was not the norm. He was the exception. An excellent short history of the Senate including that period is the opening chapter of Robert Caro’s “Master of the Senate” volume of his biography of LBJ.

The 17th Amendment was one of the best to ever come down the pike.

That if I candidate quality is a concern it’s the primary system not the 17th Amendment most likely implicated. And “Repeal the 17th” is not a serious policy.

Obviously most of the expansions in democracy in the U.S. have been clearly positive, but I have doubts about how we use the primary process in this country. For one thing, Trump would have had little or no chance to be President in the pre-1972 system.

I would defer to you on the history of Senatorial elections before the 17th Amendment. As far as Senator quality, that system seemed to produce a range of statesman from towering to mediocre to terrible. But maybe it was trending worse in the late 19th/ early 20th century, leading to the passage of the 17th? I am familiar with enough New Jersey politicians to know that state legislatures are hardly bastions of virtue.

Foibles and all, I'll also take him over Mills. We need to send a message to the political establishment that people pushing or above 80 should not be running for office anymore.

It's fair to wonder about the change in party primaries that made the rank-and-file more influential in the nomination process. But state legislatures appointing senators was a very bad thing. It made for such dysfunctional politics that many states effectively enacted a popular vote for senators before the 17th amendment was approved and ratified!

I can't imagine how much more insane our politics would be today if state legislatures still were charged with choosing senators, especially given the extreme nature of contemporary gerrymandering. Woof.

buy a plane ticket these days. My goodness.

- No text -

We’re still likely to be in a war with Iran in November, and even if we aren’t, gas prices will still be sky high for those people who only care about that.

But character matters. If not always in the election results, usually at some point down the line.

Republicans have gone from viewing vice and bad behavior as a factor that can be excused in exchange for policy benefits (the initial response by many to Trump) to an outright positive (Ken Paxton). Democrats should offer an alternative. Poor decision making and morals should not be a badge of authenticity.

None of this means that Platner is not the preferable candidate in a binary choice with Susan Collins.

considering that the American electorate has spent the past decade upending expectations. But the prevailing thought seems to be that voter mindset regarding the economy, inflation, etc, is typically locked in by the beginning of the summer prior to November elections. If that holds true, then the GOP is well and truly fucked. These shitgoblins keep crowing about the stock market, clearly oblivious to the fact that (1) most Americans don't have active brokerage accounts (nor do they have the information or freedom to frontrun certain trades like these goddamn dirtbags), (2) you can't pay for a tank of gas out of your 401K and (3) a strong S&P index didn't do jack-shit to save the Democrats in 2024.

And of course you’re not normal - you’re a Mainer!

- No text -

I've heard him do extended interviews on two podcasts, and I found him to be very impressive. The way he battered Mills was no fluke. He's inexperienced, obviously, but he has natural political instincts. He's not going to become a wanna-be aisle-switcher like Fetterman. He just has to get elected, and it pisses me off that he continues to do stuff that jeopardizes his chances in a state with very little margin for error.

I think there's a real chance that Platner will win, but there will be no lack of money to continue to dredge that shitshow harbor and sling it at him.

Maine is a blue state where people live, but a red state if land could vote.

A lot of people are excited about Platner for, what looks to me, roughly some of the same reasons some people were excited about Trump in 2016. It doesn't hurt that if he wins, he'll have stuck it to two septuagenarians.

But I think with just how flawed he is as a candidate and how much time and money the GOP will dedicate to this race, he will continue to give voters reasons not to vote for him.

But people are definitely tired of Trump's fuckmuppetry, and Collins wears it. Portland and Lewiston were invaded by ICE, and there was some evil shit there people got to see up close and personal. Most of those people were going to vote Dem anyway. Where will gas prices be in November? If things don't get sorted, that will be bad news for Collins. MAGA truck guy isn't going to vote for Platner, but he might not show up to vote. If gas is back to 3 and change, attention span challenged voters may still feel the need to turn out to stop the Nazi socialist. I have faith Trump will fuck more shit up between now and then, though.

So, yes, as mq says, who knows? What I can tell you with certainty is that I will not vote for Collins. I may not vote for another Republican in my lifetime. Burn the party to the ground and salt the earth. But I shouldn't be used as a gauge for anything; I am not normal.

would consider meeting the moment and curbing some of their worse impulses while the world is counting on them to, you know, save it.

Platner, Katie Porter, Judge Ross in Atlanta (SMH), Fani Willis ........

Just

Be

A

Grownup

- No text -

Why can’t the Democrats find a candidate with a moderate level of conscientiousness under the age of 70? Why follow the Republican model of irresponsibility and inexperience as a feature (“a real person!”) not a bug? I agree with those below that this will not necessarily sink him, If there are no more surprises. He’s not a reliable guy though. Who knows what else you’ll get out of him in the campaign and for that matter if he’s elected.

Where Collins has consistently over performed. Planter is a lesser version of Fetterman or a Democratic version of Trump so what happens is anyone’s guess.

- No text -

I think what the nation thinks Maine might do is at best a lucky guess if they get it right.

--
Sometimes I rhyme slow sometimes I rhyme quick.

A sexting scandal, after all the controversy he's weathered so far? What an idiot.