Survivors, Not the Establishment, Ended Platner's Campaign

We should be grateful to them.

Image credit: Jackalope, CC

—

This long post took a lot of time to write. If you value my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. It’s $50/yr, $5/month. You can also tip me at paypal.

—

Maine Senate Democratic nominee Graham Platner’s campaign has collapsed after Jenny Racicot, a progressive woman who dated him, credibly accused him of raping her in 2021.

Politico reported the accusations out carefully and found a good deal of corroborating evidence, including emails and testimony that she had spoken about the rape to her therapist, to another man she dated, and to an acquaintance who was thinking of becoming involved with Platner—all of this before Platner launched his Senate campaign.

Racicot’s revelations started a cascade. Virtually all Platner’s national and local endorsers have abandoned him; so have key fundraisers; Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, arguably his key initial booster, has called for him to step down. Platner has until July 13 to drop out if the Maine Democratic party is to choose a replacement; if he does not, he is effectively ceding the seat to Republican incumbent and disgusting fascist enabler Susan Collins. Either way, as I said eight months ago, he is not going to be a Senator.

Platner’s campaign has been one ugly revelation after another—from reddit posts sneering at women who reported sexual assault, to his Nazi tattoo, to the accusation of domestic violence, and even to the accusation of rape. But through it all Platner’s defenders—and Platner himself—have insisted that he is being targeted by the nebulous forces of reaction. “It’s really interesting to have this whole power structure essentially turn on to try to drag my name through the mud,” Platner whined in October, after the initial revelations about his reddit posts and Nazi tattoo.

Following the Politico piece this week, progressive journalist and commenter Wajahat Ali said (as all people of good faith have) that the Democrats need to choose a new candidate. But Ali also insisted, “the establishment did everything to bring [Platner] down.”

Platner did run on a progressive platform—he called for Medicare For All and was strongly against military aid to Israel. There are Democrats in positions of power who oppose those views, and who preferred and pushed for other candidates.

But to suggest that the establishment brought Platner down, or even tried in a concerted way to bring him down, is giving much too much credit to the establishment, and much too little to the people we actually have to thank for ending the campaign of an unelectable and unfit candidate in time for us, maybe, to choose someone better and still win this seat. Blaming the establishment is also a formula for delegitimizing future critics, at a moment when it is very clear that we in fact need those critics.

As a leftist who wants strong left candidates, and as a Democrat who thinks Democrats should not nominate people with Nazi tattoos, much less sexual abusers, I think it’s worth reminding ourselves how important candidate vetting is—and how important it is, therefore, not to motivate reasoning ourselves into toxic partisan antivetting.

The establishment barely fought

I want to make it clear that I am not arguing that centrists (much less Republicans) always operate in good faith and with high moral standards. They do not.

For confirmation, all you need to do is look at the 2025 New York mayoral contest, in which the centrist establishment went all out to defeat Zohran Mamdani, a qualified candidate with no scandals who also happened to be a Muslim who opposed Israel’s genocide. Said establishment preferred the disgraced former governor Andrew Cuomo, who had lied about nursing home deaths during Covid, who sexually harassed at least eleven women while in office, and whose campaign was bankrolled by Trump donors.

Cuomo was nonetheless endorsed by former president (and fellow perpetrator of sexual misconduct in office) Bill Clinton, by influential South Carolina Congressional representative Jim Clyburn, and by centrist NY reps Ritchie Torres and Tom Suozzi. Cuomo and much of mainstream media attempted to smear Mamdani as an antisemite because he opposed military aid to Israel and rejected Zionist shibboleths about Israel’s “right to exist” as a Jewish state (hello, I am a Jewish antizionist who also rejects those shibboleths.)

More, when Mamdani won the Democratic nomination, and Cuomo ran as an independent candidate, opposition in many respects increased. Cuomo’s big money donors spent more than $50 million on ads to defeat Mamdani.

Centrist Democratic politicians also opposed his candidacy to the bitter end. Hakeem Jeffries waited four months to endorse Mamdani, and appears to have been pushed reluctantly to do so by the threat that Mamdani might otherwise support a progressive primary challenger in Jeffries’ own New York district. Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer, also from New York, never endorsed Mamdani and probably refused to vote for him. It is almost unheard of for a Democratic national leader to refuse to back a Democratic candidate in this way.

This is what it looks like when the establishment goes all in on defeating someone; big spending, coordinated opposition, stubborn refusal to bow to the inevitable.

The dynamics were very different in the Maine Senate race. Platner certainly got a lot of support from progressive figures and orgs—again his first big endorsement was from Bernie Sanders, and he was boosted by many progressive groups. And Platner was opposed by centrists; Chuck Schumer recruited Maine Governor Janet Mills, who on many policy issues (including Israel) is to Platner’s right.

But the dynamics of the race were nowhere near as acrimonious as those in the New York Primary. From early on, Platner had a great deal of what sure looked like establishment support. New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich praised Platner and donated to his campaign in early October 2025; Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said nice things about him at the same time. A couple weeks later, when the Nazi tattoo scandal happened, Platner went on Pod Save America—a podcast run by former Obama aides—to do damage control and get a sympathetic hearing. Senator Ruben Gallego—a centrist—endorsed Platner enthusiastically in March 202. Chris Murphy, who is running a not very quiet campaign to replace Schumer as Senate leader, also vociferously and repeatedly boosted Platner’s campaign.

The biggest sign that the establishment wasn’t actually all that fussed about Platner, though, was the anemic campaign of Janet Mills. Mills seems to have not been especially fired up to run, (though she dithered about entering long enough to clear out other contenders, who all ran to replace her as governor instead). She also, though, struggled to raise funds. No mega-donors swooped in to bury her in cash; AIPAC did not rush to defeat the antizionist candidate. Instead, Mills suspended her campaign at the end of April because of lack of money, poor polling, and a general lack of enthusiasm from other leading Democrats.

Schumer endorsed Platner before the June 9 primary— a striking contrast to his approach to Mamdani, who, notably, did not have a Nazi tattoo and had never made homophobic, racist, and sexist comments on social media. For establishment Democrats, it seems pretty clear, flagrant bigotry from a white guy—and even eventually domestic violence from a white guy—was okay. It was a candidate daring to exist as a Muslim which really drew their ire.

(Many progressives were, of course, also, and unfortunately, fine with white guy bigotry and domestic violence.)

Platner’s survivors ended his campaign

The establishment does not deserve credit for fighting Graham Platner with any enthusiasm or commitment. Nonethless, Platner’s campaign collapsed. So who defeated him?

The most committed opponent of Graham Platner was obviously the man himself. Or as I said way back in October:

Graham Platner was viciously smeared by Graham Platner when Graham Platner posted bigoted shit under the name Graham Platner and tattooed a Nazi symbol onto poor Graham Platner.

This collusion of Graham Platner against Graham Platner is obviously a nefarious conspiracy.

Platner’s campaign was doomed because past Graham Platner spent decades doing ugly edgelord shit online, getting a Nazi tattoo, and (according to his accusers) abusing women. Just as importantly, while Platner insisted that he had overcome addiction, changed and grown, he was not honest about his past, disclosed little until forced t by journalists, and (again according to his accusers and reporting) frequently lied—about when he knew about the meaning of his Nazi tattoo, about his history of abuse, about infidelity, about his viability as a candidate. Platner’s campaign collapsed because Graham Platner sabotaged that campaign at every opportunity. He was unfit, and eventually the unfitness caught up to him.

Platner did need help in revealing the depths of his lack of character, though. That help came, first, from the courageous women who came forward to detail his abuse. As often when women come forward to speak against powerful men, the accusers here were very aware that, when they confronted Platner and his fanbase, they were likely to be greeted with dismissal, insults, harassment, and cruelty.

Lyndsey Fifield, a Republican who dated Platner from 2013 to 2015, detailed a string of abuses to New York Times reporters even as she painfully attempted to minimize them so as to not appear to be overly dramatic or unreasonable.

During one argument, she recalled, he twisted her arm behind her back, shoved her into a bedroom and held the door closed from the other side so she couldn’t get out, telling her to remain there until she was “calm.” Eventually, Ms. Fifield said, she fell asleep and left the next morning.

“It hurt,” she said. But she added: “It didn’t cause an injury, it didn’t break my arm.”

Platner didn’t manage to break her arm; he just kidnapped her and held her against her will by force. That’s domestic violence under absolutely any definition. (Platner has denied the allegations.)

The New York Times story was released shortly before the Maine primary, but—shamefully—did not prompt Democratic leaders, organizations, or voters to abandon Platner. Fifield blamed the New York Times for undermining her—in particular for failing to follow up with friends she said could corroborate the abuse, and for giving her a larger role in the article than they had promised. She was attacked relentlessly online by Platner supporters, who highlighted the fact that she was a Republican and insisted that meant she was untrustworthy. (Republican women can also be abused; survivors are not always going to be people you like, admire, or agree with.)

Jenny Racicot, a progressive who also dated Platner and who said in the NYT article that Platner was not always respectful to women, felt compelled to come forward with details of her own sexual assault after seeing the way Fifield was abused and dismissed. Platner, she said, forced his way into her home and raped her as she told him repeatedly to stop. (Platner has denied the allegations.)

Racicot said that speaking out was particularly difficult because she agreed with Platner’s politics.

“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…I just want the truth out there. I just want people to have a whole scope of who he is as a person.”

These women came forward at great personal cost because they had personal experiences that showed that Platner was unfit and a liar, and they believed that they had a responsibility to tell people who were planning to give him power over others—not least over women.

They also felt they had to show solidarity with each other. Racicot, again, spoke up to protect Fifield. Fifield yesterday told the Washington Post that Platner removed condoms while they were dating without her consent, because she wanted to support Racicot by affirming that Platner had sexually assaulted other women. Their sense of responsibility to each other and to the public is why we finally have a chance to remove this dangerous and unfit candidate. (Platner denied the allegations.)

Reporters helped

In addition to Fifield, Racicot, campaign staffer Genevieve McDonald (who spoke to reporters about Platner’s sexually explicit texts to women outside his marriage) and other people with knowledge of Platner’s misconduct, the people most responsible for the (necessary) defeat of his campaign are journalists.

Fifield, as mentioned above, was very critical of the NYT, and I do not doubt that they failed her. It’s also true that these kinds of stories are very difficult to report out, especially on a tight deadline. It seems clear that the Times was trying to get their report out before the primary because they believed that primary voters deserved to have the information. Similarly, Politico put together a very strong story this week in part because they wanted to alert party actors before the July 13 deadline for Platner to resign.

Various Platner supporters mutter about the timing of these releases, as if it’s suspicious that journalists would try to get stories out when they can still affect outcomes and inform the public on important decisions. But it is not suspicious. It is the job.

The New York Times and Politico are both right leaning outlets that often misuse their power for evil; the Times’ anti-trans coverage has been shameful and genocidal. Nonetheless, in this case, both outlets worked hard to give Democratic voters and leaders crucial information they needed to remove an unfit Senator—an unfit Senator who was already struggling in general election polls and who would almost certainly crumble under the weight of the steady drip of awful revelations in a general election campaign. Democrats are in a much better position to win the election in Maine than they were a week ago. That’s important since if Democrats lose Maine, Republican fascists are likely to hold the Senate, making the outlook for Democracy even bleaker than it already is.

Sanders, progressive Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren (who endorsed Platner also) and a ton of progressive orgs and commentators betrayed their ideals and failed their voters. Fifield, Racicot, and a bunch of those hated mainstream journalists are the ones who fought for left and Democratic values like equality, accountability, and transparency. They’re also the ones who have given us the possibility—not the certainty, but the possibility—of a less fascist future.

Why credit the establishment when they did diddly squat?

Again, many of Platner’s partisans do not see it this way. They may reluctantly admit that Platner has to go, but they insist that he was nonetheless treated badly by the establishment and mainstream journalists (despite the almost infinite number of Platner puff pieces in mainstream media). They argue no establishment candidate would face the kind of scrutiny Platner did. Yes, Platner is bad, they say. But aren’t his enemies worse?

This anti-anti formulation is a very typical form of toxic partisanship. You see it all the time with anti-anti-Trump Republicans. Many in the GOP will admit, Trump is horrible and rude and ignorant, and that he committed indiscretions and even crimes.

But the real indiscretion and crime, they know in their hearts, is when Democrats criticize Trump for those actions or try to hold him accountable. Trump should not have paid hush money to cover up infidelity; he should not have stolen top secret documents, he should not have staged an insurrection. But Democrats are the real bad guys for taking those crimes seriously and prosecuting them. This is why Trump raised huge amounts of money when he was indicted in 2023. Many Republicans don’t like Trump. But when Democrats attack him, they are reminded that he’s their guy.

The same dynamic held with Platner. Once people decided he was the progressive manly hope, they started to identify with him and see his struggles as theirs. People who under other circumstances would be disturbed at a candidate with a Nazi tattoo, or a background as a Blackwater mercenary in Iraq, decided that the real problem was that the “establishment” was pointing out that Platner had a Nazi tattoo and a background as a Blackwater mercenary.

The same people even convinced themselves, perhaps, that these flaws were signs of authenticity which made Platner a real working class progressive hero, just as Trump supporters convince themselves that his vile racism and flagrant cruelty make him honest and real. (It’s not a coincidence that in both cases supporters believe they are defending tough male masculinity from the carping criticisms of feminized scolds.)

The incentives here are easy to understand. It’s a lot easier to be angry at someone you consider an enemy than at the person you identify with; it’s a lot more comfortable to attack those people over there than it is to challenge the community you value and consider yourself a part of. Platner shares your ideas and goals; you know that bad people (like, say Andrew Cuomo) are determined to attack and undermine those ideals and goals. It makes sense to assume that the people attacking your ideals and goals are the bad guys to be shouted down and crushed.

And often those attacking my ideas and goals are bad people. Ken Paxton’s smears against James Talarico are not in good faith and should be greeted with derision and forceful pushback.

But in some cases—like, say, when you see a video of your candidate with a Nazi tattoo, or when your candidate is found to have said a series of horrific, bigoted things, or when women comes forward with accusations of assault—it’s important to try to step away from the motivated reasoning as best you can, and think about whether this is the person you want to be motivating your reason around.

Sometimes critics and opponents are in bad faith and should be ignored or hooted. But sometimes critics are your absolute best friends—the people who will tell you some hard truths about your candidate, and maybe about the community you are in and the self you have chosen to be.

Fighting fascism is hard; working towards a better world is hard. We all need to help each other. And that does not always mean reassuring each other that we are right and that those people over there are in a conspiracy against us. Sometimes it means being willing to listen when people like Jenny Racicot, or Lyndsey Fifield, or even Politico journalists, tell you things you don’t want to hear.

Because, though it can sometimes feel counterintuitive, you can’t overthrow the status quo by knee-jerk assuming that, no matter what you do, you are fighting the status quo. We live in a racist, patriarchal country. There’s nothing progressive, and nothing anti-establishment, about Nazi tattoos, and there’s nothing progressive, and nothing anti-establishment, about rape.