It’s hard to know how voters will react to inexperienced candidates like Graham Platner. But that’s what makes them high-risk choices in must-win races.
It just seems like he is a shitty candidate that no one really knew anything about, and now the left is all in on him because they think he can appeal to the yokels (and because they are chronically incapable of backing down and admitting mistakes).
This is an incredibly hilarious statement, considering the absolute insanity of Trump's behavior over the last decade and at the same time MAGA has completely supplanted any coherent platform of the GOP.
The Democratic base badly wants people who "fight". And they probably need people who command attentional salience (on platforms that matter). Boring old Dems don't do this right now.
Maybe that's not Platner, but I believe they'll forgive a lot going for people that fit this mold.
To command this attentional salience IMO comes with a lot messier communication. You need to take risk to command this attention. So I think we'll see candidates that fit this style that turn out to possibly become unpalatable.
My only problem with Planter is his groveling apologies.
IMO, he has absolutely nothing to apologize for. He made some crude jokes. Reading what he actually wrote, I do not pick up on any actual animosity towards anyone. E.g., "I proudly withdrew our team on the grounds that one cannot play gay chicken if one is actually gay." Sorry not sorry, but that is fucking hilarious!
Too bad for the Ds, Collins will now cruise (wait, is that an anti-gay slur???) to another win.
Having a nazi tattoo is weird though? Like if my friend said hey I've met this great guy and he has a nazi tattoo I'd be EXTREMELY concerned. wouldn't you?
The SS-Totenkopfverbände were specifically the division that ran the concentration camps, so if anything, it should be *more* concerning than a swastika. It's like identifying with the Nazis isn't enough - you have to clarify that you specifically identify with the people directly responsible for active "final solution" participation.
Seems unlikely to be true given that (a) he's a military history buff according to his own (former) political director and (b) there's someone with a claim that he referred to it as "my Totenkopf".
From the WSJ's editorial on this yesterday:
[begin quote]
"But an acquaintance of Mr. Platner told the Jewish Insider news site that the candidate explained the tattoo’s Nazi connection to him “in a cutesy little way” at a Capitol Hill bar in 2012. “He said, ‘Oh, this is my Totenkopf.’” That’s German for the “death’s head” symbol of the SS unit that ran the concentration camps.
Also not buying Mr. Platner’s excuse is his former political director, who resigned last week. “Graham has an anti-Semitic tattoo on his chest. He’s not an idiot, he’s a military history buff,” she wrote Tuesday. “We cannot be this painfully stupid,” she wrote, referring to her fellow Democrats." "
[end quote]
Maybe the first part (the 'my Totenkopf') story isn't true or turns out not to be from a credible source, but when his own former key staff member notes he's a military history buff, I think we can say that it is unlikely he was unaware of the tattoo's meaning during the 18 years he's had it, however drunk he was when he got it.
Off topic but as a subscriber Nate can you PLEASE put up some post(s) about a scandal that involves (a) sports (b) gambling which I kind of feel you are better qualified to write about than anyone else
It's so commonsensical I'm not even sure it was worth commenting on....No one in his/her right mind, other than Bernie, thinks he's now a credible candidate...that is one who can win.
Maybe, but how I wish there were a moratorium on anything anyone said or posted or even did ten years or more before running for election. This opposition research has gotten way out of hand. So has #MeToo --- don't wait 30 years till the guy who behaved badly is running for Senate and then ruin him!! Bring charges that night, or it doesn't count. (Or at LEAST that year.)
IMO the leftists (and the Pod Bros) are sticking with Platner because the leftist obsession right now is Israel. Platner said he wouldn’t vote for funding Israel and Janet Mills is an enthusiastic Israel supporter. At the same time, it is also why Schumer is so opposed to Platner in the first place. Schumer once said his main purpose in life is “to keep Democratic party pro-Israel.” IMO also explains his reluctance to endorse Zohran. Both sides are crazy but I wonder if Janet Mills came out for blocking weapons shipment to Israel, will the leftists be ok about her then?
I wouldn’t call the Pod Save guys leftists, though. Their personal politics are pretty left, but their general orientation is towards the practical and what is needed to win elections. That they seem to think Platner is that is interesting.
They could be wrong, of course. But it’s interesting.
I think they’re to the left of Biden on foreign policy, they’ve been consistently critical of Dem establishment on Israel. It makes sense since Israel was probably one of the only issues Obama was to the left of how Biden governed.
Yes, generally to the left of establishment Dems on foreign policy. To me "leftist" connotes something other than just having some further leftward positions and more being someone who sits well outside of party politics and wouldn't stand for being called a liberal. Pod Save guys don't seem to fit that description.
I come back to: this is why competitive primaries are good, actually.
If Platner can convincingly explain his tattoos and Reddit posts and voters accept that, maybe he’ll win. If not, he won’t. Either way, you’ll find out about his political strength or weakness by testing it.
One problem with "authentic" candidates is that they are so often fake, as in this case. Platner is the grandson of a world famous architecture and son of a successful lawyer.
I do feel like "oops, I accidentally got an SS tattoo" doesn't give me a lot of confidence in his judgement. It takes a special kind of person to get a Nazi tattoo during a lapse in judgement - namely, one that has Nazi sympathies that might show up when inhibitions are dropped.
The issue is that Susan Collins has a strong history of winning and there aren’t that many statewide elected offices in Maine. So there’s not that many people with experience and the ones with it are not wiling to risk against a strong candidate.
So that’s how we get to this where the choices are the potential oldest freshman senator in history and someone with no electoral experience.
I have a question: Is all this opposition research and finding awful things years and years ago a function of the new AIs scraping the Internet? It seems to me a lot of scandal-mongering lately that is highly effective. Everything is AI these days, apparently, such as all the scams and criminal activity there have been articles about today. So opposition research may be more effective, too?
The Dems, who wish Chuck would hush and see Hakeem as the CIO whose small talk is all defense of Star Wars canon, do love a bad boy/girl they believe can commune with the rurals. Mostly until they turn troublesome. Fetterman’s the latest and greatest; Bernie the avuncular dean of it; Talarico, the hot newcomer. Surely, someone will be the one. The one to bring them to our side without that much effort, or God forbid, effect on our policies and priorities or lessening of our thunderous social media contempt. What’s needed here is the leader of the rurals, just like that of our other blocs
Isn’t there a tension between taking chances on new candidates and the depressing tendency for incumbents to automatically get renominated? Nominated rather than elected given so many safe, one-party seats. Term limits are one answer, but what else can parties do?
It just seems like he is a shitty candidate that no one really knew anything about, and now the left is all in on him because they think he can appeal to the yokels (and because they are chronically incapable of backing down and admitting mistakes).
People have known about him for months. He made (good) press early in his candidacy.
This is an incredibly hilarious statement, considering the absolute insanity of Trump's behavior over the last decade and at the same time MAGA has completely supplanted any coherent platform of the GOP.
The Democratic base badly wants people who "fight". And they probably need people who command attentional salience (on platforms that matter). Boring old Dems don't do this right now.
Maybe that's not Platner, but I believe they'll forgive a lot going for people that fit this mold.
To command this attentional salience IMO comes with a lot messier communication. You need to take risk to command this attention. So I think we'll see candidates that fit this style that turn out to possibly become unpalatable.
My only problem with Planter is his groveling apologies.
IMO, he has absolutely nothing to apologize for. He made some crude jokes. Reading what he actually wrote, I do not pick up on any actual animosity towards anyone. E.g., "I proudly withdrew our team on the grounds that one cannot play gay chicken if one is actually gay." Sorry not sorry, but that is fucking hilarious!
Too bad for the Ds, Collins will now cruise (wait, is that an anti-gay slur???) to another win.
Having a nazi tattoo is weird though? Like if my friend said hey I've met this great guy and he has a nazi tattoo I'd be EXTREMELY concerned. wouldn't you?
Naaaah, only a swastika would worry me. He said it was drunk Marine stuff, and of course it surely was.
The SS-Totenkopfverbände were specifically the division that ran the concentration camps, so if anything, it should be *more* concerning than a swastika. It's like identifying with the Nazis isn't enough - you have to clarify that you specifically identify with the people directly responsible for active "final solution" participation.
Yeah, the tattoo is weird. Planter’s story that he didn’t know its meaning when got it might be true though.
Seems unlikely to be true given that (a) he's a military history buff according to his own (former) political director and (b) there's someone with a claim that he referred to it as "my Totenkopf".
From the WSJ's editorial on this yesterday:
[begin quote]
"But an acquaintance of Mr. Platner told the Jewish Insider news site that the candidate explained the tattoo’s Nazi connection to him “in a cutesy little way” at a Capitol Hill bar in 2012. “He said, ‘Oh, this is my Totenkopf.’” That’s German for the “death’s head” symbol of the SS unit that ran the concentration camps.
Also not buying Mr. Platner’s excuse is his former political director, who resigned last week. “Graham has an anti-Semitic tattoo on his chest. He’s not an idiot, he’s a military history buff,” she wrote Tuesday. “We cannot be this painfully stupid,” she wrote, referring to her fellow Democrats." "
[end quote]
Maybe the first part (the 'my Totenkopf') story isn't true or turns out not to be from a credible source, but when his own former key staff member notes he's a military history buff, I think we can say that it is unlikely he was unaware of the tattoo's meaning during the 18 years he's had it, however drunk he was when he got it.
It doesn't matter, Planter is toast now whatever he says or does going forward.
Off topic but as a subscriber Nate can you PLEASE put up some post(s) about a scandal that involves (a) sports (b) gambling which I kind of feel you are better qualified to write about than anyone else
Plainly commonsensical
It's so commonsensical I'm not even sure it was worth commenting on....No one in his/her right mind, other than Bernie, thinks he's now a credible candidate...that is one who can win.
Maybe, but how I wish there were a moratorium on anything anyone said or posted or even did ten years or more before running for election. This opposition research has gotten way out of hand. So has #MeToo --- don't wait 30 years till the guy who behaved badly is running for Senate and then ruin him!! Bring charges that night, or it doesn't count. (Or at LEAST that year.)
IMO the leftists (and the Pod Bros) are sticking with Platner because the leftist obsession right now is Israel. Platner said he wouldn’t vote for funding Israel and Janet Mills is an enthusiastic Israel supporter. At the same time, it is also why Schumer is so opposed to Platner in the first place. Schumer once said his main purpose in life is “to keep Democratic party pro-Israel.” IMO also explains his reluctance to endorse Zohran. Both sides are crazy but I wonder if Janet Mills came out for blocking weapons shipment to Israel, will the leftists be ok about her then?
I wouldn’t call the Pod Save guys leftists, though. Their personal politics are pretty left, but their general orientation is towards the practical and what is needed to win elections. That they seem to think Platner is that is interesting.
They could be wrong, of course. But it’s interesting.
I think they’re to the left of Biden on foreign policy, they’ve been consistently critical of Dem establishment on Israel. It makes sense since Israel was probably one of the only issues Obama was to the left of how Biden governed.
Yes, generally to the left of establishment Dems on foreign policy. To me "leftist" connotes something other than just having some further leftward positions and more being someone who sits well outside of party politics and wouldn't stand for being called a liberal. Pod Save guys don't seem to fit that description.
I come back to: this is why competitive primaries are good, actually.
If Platner can convincingly explain his tattoos and Reddit posts and voters accept that, maybe he’ll win. If not, he won’t. Either way, you’ll find out about his political strength or weakness by testing it.
One problem with "authentic" candidates is that they are so often fake, as in this case. Platner is the grandson of a world famous architecture and son of a successful lawyer.
How does that make him fake?
THIS is what an authentic candidate looks like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i739SyCu9I
I do feel like "oops, I accidentally got an SS tattoo" doesn't give me a lot of confidence in his judgement. It takes a special kind of person to get a Nazi tattoo during a lapse in judgement - namely, one that has Nazi sympathies that might show up when inhibitions are dropped.
The issue is that Susan Collins has a strong history of winning and there aren’t that many statewide elected offices in Maine. So there’s not that many people with experience and the ones with it are not wiling to risk against a strong candidate.
So that’s how we get to this where the choices are the potential oldest freshman senator in history and someone with no electoral experience.
I have a question: Is all this opposition research and finding awful things years and years ago a function of the new AIs scraping the Internet? It seems to me a lot of scandal-mongering lately that is highly effective. Everything is AI these days, apparently, such as all the scams and criminal activity there have been articles about today. So opposition research may be more effective, too?
This is as old as politics itself.
The Dems, who wish Chuck would hush and see Hakeem as the CIO whose small talk is all defense of Star Wars canon, do love a bad boy/girl they believe can commune with the rurals. Mostly until they turn troublesome. Fetterman’s the latest and greatest; Bernie the avuncular dean of it; Talarico, the hot newcomer. Surely, someone will be the one. The one to bring them to our side without that much effort, or God forbid, effect on our policies and priorities or lessening of our thunderous social media contempt. What’s needed here is the leader of the rurals, just like that of our other blocs
Very fair piece overall
Isn’t there a tension between taking chances on new candidates and the depressing tendency for incumbents to automatically get renominated? Nominated rather than elected given so many safe, one-party seats. Term limits are one answer, but what else can parties do?