Hardkill

If he really died, then this is very sad news. That being said, like Leo, I too am not surprised. Bipolar must've got the best of him.

Ok, so then who do you think can inspire economic populism like TR or FDR could?

I’m not going to pretend this new Platner situation doesn’t change the race. It obviously does. A serious allegation that he denies, combined with major Democratic figures pulling support, is a major candidate-quality crisis. But I also don’t think this proves that the original pro-Platner argument was stupid or that Collins was always safe. The argument was that Maine is a blue-leaning state, Collins is vulnerable, and a working-class anti-corruption/economic-populist message could beat her. I still think that lane is real. What may have changed is whether Platner himself is still a viable messenger for that lane. There’s a difference between saying “Platner’s message could beat Collins” and saying “Platner can survive any scandal and still beat Collins.” Those are not the same claim. The first claim was based on real political fundamentals: Maine’s Democratic lean, Collins’s vulnerability, anti-billionaire/anti-corruption energy, and Democratic voters wanting fighters instead of safe technocrats. It’s also becoming more clear to me why this is not really the same as Trump, even though I initially thought that comparison was stronger. Trump survived worse scandals and crimes because the MAGA coalition treats scandal as persecution: “They’re only attacking him because he fights for us.” His voters often folded his corruption, legal problems, and personal misconduct into a broader anti-establishment identity. Trump could lose moderates nationally and still win because he had massive conservative consolidation and a national grievance machine behind him. Platner does not have that same shield. He is running as a Democrat in Maine, not as the leader of a cult-like national movement. He needs moderates, independents, ticket-splitters, liberal women, progressives, and anti-Collins voters. Democratic coalitions are also much more likely than MAGA coalitions to police their own candidates over sexual misconduct or character scandals. That may be unfair compared to Trump, but it is politically real. It’s also not really the same as Bill Clinton in 1992. Clinton had character and infidelity scandals before he first won the presidency, but the heavier public record of sexual harassment, assault, or rape allegations mostly came during his presidency, near the end of it, or afterward. In 1992, the public image was more “womanizer/infidelity/character problem” than a fully developed sexual-misconduct crisis before the general election. Platner’s crisis is happening before the general election, after he won the nomination, while the party still has to decide whether to support him, abandon him, or replace him. Maine makes this especially important. Maine is blue-leaning, but it has a lot of independents and a ticket-splitting tradition. Collins has survived before by winning voters who may dislike the national GOP but still see her as familiar, moderate, or safer. If enough independents decide Platner is too risky, and if enough Democrats/liberals/progressives feel demoralized or morally conflicted and stay home, that could absolutely hand Collins reelection. So the lesson should not be “economic populism cannot win.” That would be the wrong lesson. The lesson is that a must-win anti-oligarchy campaign cannot depend on a poorly vetted or personally damaged candidate. The message may still be powerful, but the messenger may have become fatally flawed. So if your point is “Platner had serious risk,” fair enough. But I hope your point isn't “this proves the whole economic-populist theory was wrong,” I don’t buy that. A candidate can collapse without the political lane collapsing. Dunking after a late-breaking scandal is not the same thing as disproving the original electoral theory.

Yeah, you know why Platner raised that much more than Mills and so far even more than Collins? It's bc he raised a lot through a grassroots/small-dollar style donor base, while Collins’ financial ecosystem is much more tied to major donors, national Republican money, super PACs, and outside spending. That is one of the strongest arguments for Platner’s real political strength. Platner is not raising Mills/Collins-style establishment money and calling it enthusiasm. This is much more evidence of grassroots energy, which fits with the poll showing his supporters are more enthusiastic than Collins’ supporters. Platner has been called a "communist" and at the same time he has been called "Nazi" which as Graham himself pointed out makes the whole thing a comical contradiction.

So what? The fact is that he's not. He's a very pro-labor New Deal Democrat and it won't just be DSA who will campaign and spend money for his general election campaign. So, will moderate Democrats and enough pro-business Democratic aligned sources will campaign and spend money for his general election. I wouldn't be surprise if Obama goes out to campaign for him in Maine. Besides, maybe it is better to be aligned with progressivism than to be a Republican like Susan Collins, who enabled the Republican Party and Trump to engage in authoritarianism and take away freedoms related to democracy, voting rights, abortion rights, and consumer protections. Susan Collins has greatly enabled corporate tyranny and has been highly complicit in allowing the rich to rob everyday people, including the working class, blind for their own benefit. Btw, can you believe this shit?

Why would you post something from a radical right-wing source like the NY Post? Also, why do keep saying that he's a communist or even DSA when I told you that he's neither one of those types of candidates? Furthermore, why didn't Janet Mills win the nomination if she wasn't the stronger candidate for the Senate general election in Maine? Again, "It's pretty hard to make the economic case against Trump when people think the economy in your state is so bad" under your watch as governor. Mills reminds me of Hillary Clinton, an eminently qualified leader for a state or for the whole country, but is perceived to be too much for the status quo and too associated with the stained reputation of how corrupt the establishment and Washington all is, which is not what the majority of voters want. Platner again, like Obama and Trump, stands for and inspires change and shows great credibility for fighting against the establishment.

According to Dan Pfieffer: Plattner is far from a perfect candidate, and he could definitely lose, but the polls suggest that Democrats would be slightly worse off with Janet Mills. She has a higher unfavorable rating than Plattner, and 85% of likely voters rate the Maine economy poorly, which is quite a burden for a two-term incumbent governor to overcome. It's pretty hard to make the economic case against Trump when people think the economy in your state is so bad. The big question is what, if anything, else comes out about Plattner between now and Election Day. I am not sure how many more bricks the load can sustain, but this poll shows that absent that, he can definitely win and is probably a slight favorite to do so.”

Platner isn't a DSA. He's a New Deal/pro-labor Democrat with Bill Clinton-like, Obama-like, or Trump-like charisma, but in the way of Teddy Roosevelt or FDR. Btw, dude. It isn't recent college grads disaffected by the 'American dream'. The working class and non-college workers feel betrayed over by the system. In fact, the working class folk and non-college workers are more anti-establishment/populist than college grads and post-grad people are. They, distrust corporations and hate rich people who come off as wealthy elite snobs. They want change with the system. How do you think Obama won in 2008 and in 2012? McCain was an old uninspiring GOP establishment who was tied to the unpopularity of the party in power (Bush and the Republicans) and how terrible the system was. Obama, is a truly one-in-a-generation charismatic candidate who inspired a bold liberal vision for country with Hope and Change. Mitt Romney was another uninspiring establishment GOP candidate tied to the unpopularity of the traditional Republicans and came off as an elitist wealthy financier/corporate oligarch who was for the status quo ante. Trump in 2016 and 2024, despite being born in raised in a super wealthy big business family and has always come off as "self-made billionaire businessman", unlike Romney, Trump was able to present himself as an outsider who's highly anti-establishment, alpha male, charismatic, and strong. People hate the fucking establishment and want bold change more than ever before without any identifying as a Democratic Socialist. Collins is one of the most status quo establishment Republicans with a terrible record of being pro-war while Platner is a patriotic military combat veteran who anti stupid fucking wars. Collins really sounds so out-of-touch, has no real charisma, seems out of element with the working class and rural America. Also, she's showing serious signs of cognitive or neurological decline including memory-related issues and essential tremor. Plus, this is the very first time that she'll be running for re-elaction during a year that's both very anti-Republican and doesn't have Trump or any GOP presidiential nominee on the ballot to help her with GOP voter turnout. Additionally, she has the worst approval rating she's ever had.

Janet Mills is an old uninspiring establishment candidate. She didn't run a bold vision for change. The country, especially Maine, hates the establishment more than ever before and demands greater change. Dan Pfieffer from Pod Save America said before she dropped out of the face for the nomination: "In a different era, Janet Mills would be a top-tier, A-plus recruit. She’s a two-term, popular governor with a history of winning statewide. She won reelection in 2022 by an impressive 13 points. She’s ideologically and temperamentally moderate — very much in line with Maine voters — and could not be more qualified for the job. But politics has changed dramatically in the last few years. The qualities that once made someone a winning candidate may now be weaknesses. A deep-seated anger and frustration with our political and economic system powers today’s politics. People have never been more cynical about politicians, and trust in institutions is at an all-time low. In the final New York Times/Siena poll before the 2024 election, 92% of likely voters said America’s political and economic system needed changes, and 51% said it needed major change. That helps explain why every election for the last decade has been a change election — why we went from Obama to Trump to Biden to Trump — and why the House and Senate have both flipped twice since 2016. In this tumultuous environment, the Democratic brand is faring poorly. A Wall Street Journal poll from July found that the Democratic Party’s approval rating was at its lowest level in 35 years. Democrats aren’t much happier with their leaders than the rest of the public. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 62% of Democrats want new leaders. There’s also a lot of gerontocracy at the top of the party. Concerns about Biden’s age dominated politics for years, and the debate over his ill-fated decision to seek reelection still rages. Given all of this, I have to question the political judgment of anyone who looks at the current landscape and concludes that the right answer is a 77-year-old establishment politician. At the end of her first Senate term, Mills would be in her mid-80s — several years older than Joe Biden was when he dropped out of the presidential race. According to Politico, the DSCC has never even reached out to Platner. In 2020, Democrats ran an establishment politician against Collins and got their asses kicked. Mills would likely run a better campaign than Sara Gideon, but at a time when voters hate politicians, are down on Democrats, and are yearning for younger leaders, is a 77-year-old, two-term incumbent governor really the best choice? The fact that Senate Democratic leadership is so sure she is concerns the hell out of me. The establishment picking Mills over Platner illustrates one of my biggest concerns about their approach to politics in recent years. Democrats are incredibly risk-averse. We optimize for the candidate least likely to lose by a lot — preferring high-floor, low-ceiling candidates over low-floor, high-ceiling ones. There are some races where all you need is a competent, generic Democrat — someone disciplined enough not to self-immolate. That works when the Republican is an extremist like Herschel Walker in Georgia or Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania, or when running against a generic Republican in a deep-blue state. The Maine Senate race is not one of those. Susan Collins is very hard to beat. She won reelection in 2020 by nearly nine points in a state Biden won by 11 — a stunning number of crossover votes in this era. She’s done a lot to enable Trump’s worst impulses, but the size of the Republican majority has allowed her to distance herself from him. Because the GOP didn’t need her vote, Collins was able to oppose the “One Big Beautiful Bill” and some of Trump’s most toxic nominees. To beat someone like Collins, Democrats need to take risks and think outside the box. Mills is the safe choice, but she may not be the right choice. Platner could blow up — or he could win back a bunch of working-class Trump voters. He has a lower floor but a higher ceiling. In a tough race against a tough opponent, that’s the kind of candidate Democrats should at least be open to. Mills isn’t the only “safe” candidate backed by the DSCC. In Michigan, they’re supporting centrist Rep. Haley Stevens over less proven but more exciting options like state Sen. Mallory McMorrow or Abdul El-Sayed. I have met all three candidates. I like all of them, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out why the DSCC is getting involved in this race. If Mills (and Stevens) want to run for Senate, they absolutely should — but voters in those states should pick their nominees, not Beltway Democrats. The DSCC doesn’t have to endorse anyone — and usually doesn’t. Democratic elites imposing their judgment on voters is how we ended up with Joe Biden running for reelection against the wishes of most Democrats. The fact that the DSCC is intervening so aggressively against younger, outsider, and talented candidates is deeply concerning. It suggests a failure to learn anything from 2024." The Siena poll and Fox News could very well be underestimating Platner's strength as a charismatic populist for change. Also, Gideon ran a terrible elite consultant class campaign in 2020 and when Trump was on the ballot to help with Republican voter turnout.

Janet Mills did win a state wide election in Maine, but she’s become an old uninspiring establishment favored candidate. Graham Platner has already shown such talent in being able to beat an establishment favored candidate without going too far to the left, without running on any authoritarian or unpopular policies and ideas. He also won the nomination while withstanding such scandals. He’s also running on ideas and policies and a vision that are all broadly popular with Maine and the rest of America. I think that he has the charisma of Trump or Bill Clinton, but in a more Teddy Roosevelt anti-oligarch manner. If he wins this race, then he might very well be one of the truly few men who can lead our country into a war against Trumpism/MAGA.

Platner is not a DSA candidate. He’s a pro labor progressive capitalist. Also, we don’t know how accurate that poll is.

Yeah, and cronyism is probably the most disgusting form of charity. It's a real mockery of true charity.

I still find the Google search engine to have a lot of use for me. I think that it can at times still find me a lot of high quality sources more easily than any AI chat program can, imo. It just depends on what I am looking for.

I think the wrong kind of charity are lavish gifts from the government including major tax cuts for the rich and corporations, deregulation of big businesses or of any part of the financial system, excessive amounts of government contracts for big defense contracting companies, PACs/SuperPACs, all kinds of tax loopholes for all corporations, excessive allowance for forming too many monopolies, allowing big businesses to crush the working class and unions, allowing Big Pharma and private health insurance companies to rip off and suck the life out of consumers, etc.

Consider yourself lucky, OP. It's now $6.12 a gallon here in the land of Reagan (State of CA), especially in LA County and the OC. Trump and the Israeli lobby really did it this time! Oh, believe me, and my parents, when we say that this is something that we've thought about for many years now. Our country really has too many greedy people, too many stupid people, and way too many people brainwashed by the brain-rotting content from the right-wing media, TikTok, and all kinds of slopulism online and the rest of social media. My parents, who were born in the 1940s, have said that Trump is by far the worst president our country has ever had. They've always been much smarter, much more well-educated, significantly more well-read, definitely more informed about the news and politics than most Americans. My dad's older brother, who is a lawyer and really follows politics, is truly dismayed and disgusted by Trumpism. So, that is really telling you how upsetting it has been for my family and for me.