In the course of drafting this morning’s newsletter, I’ve had occasion to consider many possible descriptors for disgraced Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner. A train wreck? A liability? A cautionary tale? A red flag wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma?
But Amanda Litman put it simplest and best: “What a fucking disappointment,” she said, in a new interview with my colleague Andrew Prokop. Litman is the co-founder of Run for Something, a progressive organization that recruits promising first-time candidates for down-ballot races. Yesterday, she and Andrew spoke about the latest sexual assault allegations against Platner and what, exactly, Democrats should do next.
I loved Litman’s candor and moral clarity here. Her sharp articulation of both the moral choice that Democrats face in Maine — and the potentially scary and profound stakes of failing to retake the Senate — cut through a lot of noise for me. So this morning, I’m delighted to share a bit of her interview with Andrew. This excerpt has been edited for length and clarity.
|
|
|
|
|
Caitlin Dewey, senior writer |
|
|
|
|
Caitlin Dewey, senior writer
|
|
|
|
What could Democrats have done differently with Graham Platner? |
|
|
|
|
Andrew Prokop
Can you describe the trajectory of what you thought about Platner’s candidacy from when he jumped in, through the various waves of scandal revelations to now?
|
|
|
|
|
Amanda Litman
When he launched, I thought the launch video was compelling. I thought: It is good that someone is challenging Janet Mills, because I do not believe that she is well-suited for this moment. I thought he gave off the bro vibes — that aren't my favorite, personally, from a candidate — but I thought, this is an interesting generational challenge.
The tattoo gave me some pause, as a Jewish American. His story about being drunk as a Marine and not knowing what it meant — I could buy that, sure. He got it covered up.
And the Reddit stuff, I think any 20- or 30-something who's grown up on the internet has had some stuff online. I have seen this with candidates that I’ve worked with where they have posted stuff on social, and then you can see, 15 years later, they’re not that person. There was no indication [in the Reddit posts] that he was antisemitic or a white supremacist. It seemed he was kind of like an edgelord, that he liked to be countercultural.
The fundamental challenge of all of this [is] that Maine is so fucking important. If we do not flip Maine, it is much, much harder to imagine a world where we flip the Senate. And then, Trump gets his Supreme Court nominees. That's what's at stake.
Then, the Times story dropped [in June], and I was like, "No, I don't like him. I don't like people who are shitty to women, I don't like people who assault women." But, if it is him against Susan Collins, and that’s the choice, I would prefer him.
Then the most recent story came out, and this is not someone who can beat Susan Collins anymore, and it’s someone who so clearly should not be a United States senator.
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Prokop
Platner survived the initial reports about the tattoo and the Reddit posts last year, and he also weathered last month’s Times story, which focused on allegations that he was verbally abusive and physically rough.
My sense is that a lot of Democrats looked at that and thought, oh, we don’t love this. But the consensus that emerged was: A credible accusation or rape or sexual assault is the red line. Was the red line in the right place, in hindsight?
|
|
|
|
|
Amanda Litman
There is no good outcome here. That's what makes this so hard.
Which is the more morally right thing to do there? Is it more moral to say, at that moment, people should have called for him to step down — knowing that, more likely than not, whoever replaced him might lose? And this is still true. They're not going to have money, they're not going to have support. They're going to have to build a campaign from scratch. It’s going to be very hard.
And then, if Susan Collins wins, Trump gets to basically rip away LGBTQ equality and further destroy women's rights and essentially codify the further destruction of democracy. Which is better — even specifically, which is better for women? Which is better morally? I don’t know. This sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Prokop
Does being an outsider candidate like Platner — someone with little or no political experience or establishment ties — come with unique risks in terms of background or behavior?
|
|
|
|
|
Amanda Litman
It is absolutely true that when you are seeking people outside the normal traditional candidates, they are not going to be perfect. They will have histories. That does not mean you have to accept someone who has credibly raped a woman, who has sexual assault allegations — like, there's actually a spectrum here of what’s acceptable.
Run for Something has worked with candidates who have shit in their past. The difference, I think, for a lot of them is that they can talk about how what they've done has shaped their leadership. You can make mistakes and, then, run for office. You have to own them and talk about them and grow from them.
More broadly, I was looking back at the interview that [the Wall Street Journal] did with the guy who recruited Platner, [Daniel] Moraff. There is a temptation to put together a Mad Libs style candidate recruitment: “We are seeking X kind of person from Y community to run for Z office, because that's who we believe can win.” That is a fundamentally unserious way of thinking about who should be a leader.
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Prokop
How do you think they should go about replacing Platner if he withdraws? Is there a fair way to do it, some kind of process?
|
|
|
|
|
Amanda Litman
I would try as much as possible to find a way to give Maine voters — or at least Maine Democratic Party members — a voice. And I think there's a bunch of different ways you could go about it, from a rapid fire convention to a firehouse primary.
But allow the voters of Maine — or at least the engaged people who you're going to need — to be participatory. In order to beat Susan Collins, you want to make sure that they feel like they have some buy-in here.
|
|
|
|
⮕ Keep tabs
AI windfall: As Anthropic and other AI companies go public, causes like animal welfare, global poverty, and AI safety expect to see billions of dollars in new donations from tech founders and employees linked to the effective altruism movement. [Intelligencer]
"Flamingo Revolution": Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump wanted to build a luxury resort in Albania. But opposition to the project has grown into a full-blown protest movement — the country's largest since the fall of communism there. [Vox]
Heat deaths: When we say a death is "heat-related" or a heat wave has a "death toll," what exactly do we mean by that? Most victims don't die of literal heatstroke. Instead, the weather exacerbates an underlying condition, like diabetes or infection. [Our World in Data]
How to get to know your neighbors: Start small and grow the relationship through mutual favors. [Vox]
|
|
|
|
|
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has been blocking military promotions — especially if you're a woman, Black, or perceived as disloyal. |
|
|
|
Today’s edition was produced and edited by me, Caitlin Dewey. Thanks for reading! |
|
|
|
Are you enjoying the Today, Explained newsletter? Forward it to a friend; they can sign up here. And as always, we want to know what you think. Let us know by filling out this form or just replying to this email.
|
|
|
|
