Somehow I unwittingly got roped into doing four separate podcast/TV appearances today, so that’s dominated my itinerary. I figured I would re-post to Substack the livestream I did earlier this evening on the Platner affair. You’ve likely heard that he announced he “intends” to withdraw his Senate candidacy — although as of this afternoon, he had not yet formally done so. And who knows, “intentions” can be fickle. But should the coerced withdrawal be finalized, this will go down as perhaps the most ruthless (and shameless) defenestration in recent US political history.
Why do I say the hit has been manufactured? Why use that particular word? Because literally, it’s been openly divulged that the “rape accusation” rollout was facilitated by a specific individual, Cheyenne Hunt, who had openly declared her mission to take out Platner, following what she boasts was her integral role in vaporizing Eric Swalwell several months before. After which, she had joined with Democratic House members, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Debbie Dingell, Rashida Tlaib, and Becca Balint, to announce the formation of a new pressure outfit, “Reckoning Action,” and likewise announce that the next target on her list was Graham Platner. She then made good on these threats, and was openly credited for engineering the POLITICO article that spurred the denunciatory mob this week, in concert with a CNN interview of the alleged victim. It would defy reason to not also suspect that she could have been “behind” the accuser’s accusations escalating so radically since June 4, when the accuser had merely told the New York Times that she perceived Platner’s behavior to be “reckless” and “unsettling.” Then by July 6, the allegation morphs into full-blown rape. Go figure. “Rape” — the magic word everyone knows would send the Democratic Party hurtling into a frantic tailspin. So there’s just no question Platner’s neutralization was manufactured. It’s not being hidden! It doesn’t require any wild speculation. It’s being openly bragged about!
“Manufactured” is also an apt word because the initial POLITICO article was clearly framed to convey to casual news consumers — the vast majority of whom will not forensically read it, of course, and only absorb the headline takeaway — that rock-solid corroboration had been uncovered that made the accusation supremely credible, and should be assumed unassailably true. But… there is no corroboration whatsoever presented in the article for the claim that Graham Platner raped Jenny Racicot in 2021. None. And yet, even news consumers whom you’d think might be a bit more sophisticated, like Nate Silver, falsely described the article as containing precisely the corroborative evidence it did not contain. The literal opening sentences of Nate’s post on the matter featured two egregious falsehoods. I wrote a Substack Note yesterday (tagging Nate) that explained these errors in detail, and never received a response, nor has there been any correction made to Nate’s post:
So if this “rape accusation” rollout could have succeeded at getting Nate Silver to falsely proclaim “corroborating materials” had been produced — and thus every right-minded citizen should agree it’s been proven that Platner committed rape — that’s a phenomenal PR masterstroke. Bravo. Even though Nate himself was already primed to believe any “accusation” that might be flung Platner’s way, since he’d already been arguing for weeks/months that Platner was a big political liability for Dems, and Maine primary voters were extremely un-savvy to support him. Sensing vindication for his thesis had arrived, Nate confirmation-biased his way to the most damning interpretation of a single POLITICO article — that’s all it took — and announced the rape claim was “well-supported,” because the accuser provided “corroborating materials” such as “communications about the assault with her therapist and with a friend.” Yet it’s 100% false that any “communications” provided to POLITICO had “corroborated” that an assault or rape took place in 2021. The “communications” POLITICO cites, with both the therapist and the “friend,” corroborate no such thing. See the Substack Note for further details. The point here is that someone such as Nate, who styles himself a highly discerning media aficionado, bought into the idea that dispositive proof of Platner’s raping had been revealed — a testament to the shrewdness of the PR-manufactured initiative.
I was asked on the stream tonight how I would theoretically advise Platner to proceed. Well, I know what I wouldn’t do — I wouldn’t pull a Morris Katz, the boy-wonder strategist reputed to be some brilliant political thinker, and tell Platner he ought to instantly capitulate to a raving mob, which had formed its implacable consensus in a matter of minutes on Monday. PLATNER MUST GO. Because if there’s anything we can be reasonably certain of with mobs, it’s that the furious insta-verdicts they proclaim do not tend to reflect a rational evaluation of the facts and evidence. It would therefore be foolish for Platner to bow to the mob, as a hostage to the moment, because it’s reasonably likely the fire-and-brimstone uproar will subside soon enough, and perhaps at least a smidgeon of rational thinking can eventually be introduced.
What’s the alternative? Bowing to the mob is functionally the same as Platner agreeing to be branded “rapist.” Because 99% of people who ever hear about this story will never hear about any exculpatory facts or evidence that might emerge weeks, months, or years down the line. They will instead have heard that Platner was accused of rape, and that he seemingly validated this accusation by withdrawing on the spot. Even though he had just received more Democratic primary votes than any Maine senate candidate in history. So for him to terminate his candidacy even under those circumstances must mean he really did do something horrible and rapey. Purely from the standpoint of his own personal self-interest, and self-preservation, I can’t imagine telling Platner to assist in the nuking of his own reputation.
But on top of that, anyone who’d claim they know for certain that Platner couldn’t possibly win in November is blowing smoke out their ass. You absolutely do not know, one way or another. Have people really not gotten wise to the folly of over-confident pundit-like projections of future electoral outcomes? Almost certainly, 2026 is going to be a sizable pro-Democrat wave year — which means even “flawed” Dem candidates will be lifted to victory by national trends. Dems and Dem-aligned independents are inevitably going to consolidate around the Dem nominee to some extent, as always happens in October/November when most people’s minds get concentrated on the general election stakes. Unlike in, say, July.
But even if we stipulate that Platner’s chances of beating Susan Collins have diminished by virtue of the latest “accusations” — regardless of whether they’re credible or true — how far could his odds have really fallen? Let’s go with a harsh estimate and say he’s now only got a 30% chance of winning. That’s… not so bad? Plenty of candidates have contested plenty of elections facing far longer odds, and a 30% chance of becoming the junior Senator from Maine is a gamble plenty of political operators wouldn’t think twice about taking. Plus, I doubt the odds have even gotten that low. Sure, you can imagine some subset of voters now saying they won’t vote for Platner who otherwise would have — a percentage of older liberal women, perhaps. But I don’t buy that hardcore Democratic partisans in Maine are going to decide en masse that they’d rather have Republicans control the Senate for the second half of Trump’s term, than have a Democratic senator with some “accusations” trailing him — however appalled these voters might now purport to be in the immediate wake of the Accusation Train leaving the station.
Further, Platner is adamant that the accusations are not just false, but blatantly fabricated. Why preclude that he could be vindicated on this score? The rape claim has already fallen apart to a large extent, and it’s only been like three days. Who’s to say it couldn’t be wholly disproven, or at least widely discounted for non-credibility, in the next several months? This could be accomplished, for instance, by demanding that if rape is going to be alleged, let the alleging party go and file a police report, since a rape offense that allegedly took place in 2021 is well within the Maine statute of limitations. It’s not a crazily far-fetched proposition that the claim could soon be investigated through some official government channel, and be found to lack merit. Again: what’s the alternative? Just comply with your own destruction? That would pretty much be Platner raping himself.
Part of the reasoning Platner cited in the video he put out yesterday for why he “intends” to withdraw — despite maintaining that the accusations are patently, 100% false — is that national Democratic power-brokers were going to deprive him of the resources necessary to mount his campaign. Meaning, they were going to cut off his funding from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and also deny him access to the DNC voter file. So in light of these newly-imposed roadblocks, he needed to withdraw.
But hold up a sec. Sure, those would be legitimate hindrances. But he could still raise money on his own, through his own campaign organization. No national entity controls that. He doesn’t have to rely on infusions from any national party vehicles to stay afloat. And he could probably raise a lot of money on his own, were he to actually be defiant, and refuse to back down in the face of what he’s declaring (with good reason) is a manufactured political and media class snowjob. He could still hold rallies, he could still hold town halls. Maine isn’t a huge state, so he could probably even run plenty of TV ads.
In addition to all the stuff he could continue doing on his own, when these Dem bigwigs dramatically claim they’re going to withhold national funding, or prevent him from accessing the voter file… yeah, OK, that’s what they’re saying in July. How much you wanna bet they’d have a miraculous change of heart by the fall? (What are they gonna do — forfeit the race to Collins?) This is what they’re threatening right now in order to force Platner out. I’d wager it’s actually more likely than not they would conveniently forget about all these boisterous threats by the time September/October rolls around, and unlock the national resources as though nothing happened.
So that’s what I would advise Platner. But I’m not an overhyped, overrated, and overpaid consultant, so what do I know.
