In my last article, I talked about the left’s move toward socialism and what it means for our country. The Graham Platner story is relevant to that discussion because it illustrates the lengths to which the progressives are willing to go to win a Senate or House seat. Until I heard the backstory, I assumed Plater’s was another case of poor candidate vetting. The rest of the story is more interesting.
According to early reports, a broader network of mostly millennial Democrats, labor leaders, Bernie Sanders veterans, and community activists had been scouting Maine for a candidate. One publicly identified member of that scouting effort was labor leader Jason Shedlock. After the group approached Platner, Morris Katz, and Dan Moraff, Democratic operatives became the public face of the effort to promote him.
Morris Katz had previously worked on the campaigns of John Fetterman, Dan Osborn, and Zohran Mamdani. Katz helped produce the viral campaign video that introduced Platner nationally and became one of his closest advisers.
Dan Moraff was Katz’s partner in the consulting firm that helped recruit and build Platner’s campaign. Together, they were searching for a working-class populist candidate who could challenge Senator Susan Collins and believed Platner fit that mold.
Graham Platner, a Marine veteran and Maine oyster farmer, emerged as an anti-establishment Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate. He ran as a working-class populist, criticizing both billionaires and the Democratic establishment. His campaign went viral, attracted national attention, and he won the Democratic nomination to challenge incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins.
Even before the nomination, several controversies surfaced: inflammatory old Reddit posts, a tattoo with Nazi-associated symbolism (which he said had been misunderstood or no longer reflected his views), reports of sexist behavior and inappropriate communications with women, and accounts from former romantic partners describing troubling behavior.
Many supporters argued that any shortcomings were outweighed by his message and military background. Then, the campaign collapsed after a former partner publicly accused Platner of sexually assaulting her in 2021. Platner has categorically denied the allegation. The accusation was accompanied by corroborating evidence that many Democratic leaders considered credible enough to make his candidacy untenable.
Almost immediately, national Democratic figures withdrew their endorsements. Party leaders concluded he could no longer be their nominee. Pressure mounted for him to step aside so another Democrat could run against Collins. Platner suspended his campaign in an 11-minute video.
Rather than apologizing or expressing regret, he denied wrongdoing and argued that Democratic insiders, the media, and political elites had forced him out. The tone of the video drew widespread criticism because many viewers felt it focused almost entirely on himself rather than the seriousness of the allegations.
Platner withdrew as the Democratic Senate nominee on July 10th. The Maine Democratic Party is now selecting a replacement to run against Susan Collins.
Platner is a symbol of the mindset of the Democratic Party’s Progressive/Socialist faction today. At a news conference late last week, after Platner suspended his campaign, the chairperson of the Democratic Party in Maine complained that Platner’s team was trying to influence the selection of his replacement.
She stated that they would have no influence over who the party chooses. The reason for the attempted influence is obvious. The Platner campaign and its progressive backers DO NOT want the party to select an establishment candidate. They were so desperate to find a “populist” candidate that they fast-tracked the vetting, leaving it incomplete.
The progressive wing, like MAGA, is anti-establishment. They want to field candidates with bona fide credentials, but they also want someone they can claim is a “man of the people.” They thought Platner met those requirements. In the eyes of the progressives, everyone currently in politics is ineligible because they must be establishment, and the establishment wants things to stay as they are. They are at war with those they feel cannot govern.
With Platner, they were trying to address their gender gap. Men in general don’t like the Democrats’ platform, which is why they moved to the other side in 2024. But the party doesn’t know how to fix that problem, so their solution is to find “a man’s man” to run. That will get more male voters. This concept was applied in a video of Tim Walz changing his oil during the 2024 campaign. “Look, viewers, a Democrat man can do man things.”
This strategy is not going to attract many men because the real problem is the gap between the progressive platform and how most men view the world. Still, they never give up.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.
Mayoral candidate Nithya Raman acknowledged she is using the same people who groomed Graham. I don't know if it is the same person you mention, but I assume so. She is gone from a fumbling persona to a confident candidate. While I fear her as a mayor, I have to give credit to the makeover.