You shouldn't have to apologize for being right

 So....some house candidate in Michigan came out and basically said that a lot of black political leaders "defang the white left", and that this is a "big problem for left politics in this country." He's being pressured to apologize and walk back the comments. 

I see no falsehoods there. Again, I got nothing against most black voters, but let's be honest, a lot of the congressional black caucus tends to be very much in bed with the democratic establishment, and democrats LOVE to weaponize these guys against white progressives. We saw it in 2016 with the "Bernie Bro" narratives. "You see, you white progressives, you dont understand the black vote!" and crap like that. Told Sanders doesnt appeal to black people, told by really annoying centristy types we can't cater to white working class voters without alienating african American voters, blah blah blah. The democrats use race as a wedge issue to split up the left. They did it as recently as 2024 by making South Carolina the first primary state specifically because they knew the old, conservative, black voters there would back Biden, crushing a potential primary challenge.

I mean, I hate this crap we're we're just expected to apologize for everything. We saw this recently with Platner, where it's like we're just supposed to apologize for supporting him in the first place just because he turned out to be a sex pest. I mean, yeah, he is a sex pest, and yeah, his political career is over at this point, but a lot of us male progressives are getting put through the wringer because OMG HOW COULD WE SUPPORT SOMEONE LIKE THAT, along side weird discussions about rape culture and crap. Easy, the dude wanted to give us universal healthcare and his opponents didn't. Believe it or not, ideas like medicare for all, or in my case, UBI, are very important to us, and that's what really motivates us to support the left. but when the left wavers on those topics, and even worse, starts delving into toxic idpol to shame us for daring to hold reasonable opinions, then a lot of us are alienated from the movement, and then we're scratching our heads like we were in 2024-2025 wondering why we're losing young white males. It's because not only are the democrats not offering coherent, effective solutions to improve their lives, but they're hostile to their very existence. It's like they WANNA repel these guys. Because everything is a shame fest about how we need to STFU, they dont' care about our issues, and we gotta care more about POC and women and THEIR issues. And let's not forget LGBT+ too. Gotta drop everything for that 0.6% of the population that's trans and if we dont make their issues front and center we're "throwing them under the bus." 

Again, I have nothing against racial minorities, women, or the LGBT+ community. And I dont even see their issues as inherent opposed to mine. BUT...the democrats tend to use these issues to drive a wedge in potential progressive coalition to keep us infighting amongst ourselves. And quite frankly, that's all this guy pointed out. he wasn't wrong, he shouldn't have to apologize, and I'm sick of this weird moral shaming we're doing. So....just as I'm not sorry for backing Platner, I'm not sorry over comments like this. Sometimes we need people to be blunt and to say the thing, and while I understand it may offend some, I really REALLY don't care. I'm so fricking done with trying to contort my opinion and fit within their overton window. Again, I got nothing against any identity groups on a personal level, quite frankly, I only care when idpol is weaponized against my own interests. And yeah, maybe I'm a crass, stereotypical bernie bro. Oh well, boo hoo, that's who I am. I ain't apologizing for who I am, what I stand for, and calling BS out when I see it. Sick and tired of the moral policing on this side of the political aisle. 

I make no apologies for my former Platner support

 I know this is kinda edgy, but given the obsession on the left with regretting supporting Platner, and the desire to be "right", and all the oneupsmanship over who is more moral and who noticed the red flags first, I just wanna say, I don't care. I mean, this should be obvious, I already blasted the center with their obsession with respectability politics, but the far left is also doing this stuff, going on about how flawed he is, with some pointing out that they never liked him and how they were vindicated, blah blah.

Again. I don't care. I REALLY don't care. I supported Platner. he was a solid candidate until the rape accusations came out. Susan Collins is a republican. Janet Mills is an establishment centrist. Platner is a progressive. Am I supposed to apologize for backing a progressive? I know on the hard left a lot of this morality and virtue stuff is tied to this weird pharasaic culture of appearing moral and signalling the right virtues, and a lot of it is also driven, quite frankly, by idpol. There's all this talk about feminism and how we need to "believe all women" and how we look like chuds supporting the guy. We got some going on about how it looks bad with the international left because it makes us white male bernie bro types like we'd sell out any group at a moment's notice and uh...what kind of insular fudge is this?! Leftists have such weird ideological brainworms, man.

I'm simple. You run on a progressive platform vs a centrist and a republican, and I support you, period. And Platner was a progressive. I make no apologies for doing this. He was a solid candidate at the time. Do I support him NOW? No. I do believe he should be recalled, and replaced with another progressive. I do believe the accusations are credible, and let's leave it at that. I'm willing to change my mind in light of new evidence, and I DO change my mind in the light of new evidence. And that's how I square this whole circle. Based on the evidence that I had, Platner was the best candidate, period. Hell, you could technically argue he still is given the alternatives, but let's face it, he's so radioactive, no one wants to touch him, not even me. 

Still, if anything, I'll be looking back on this a few months from now asking if it was worth it to abandon him. And I think this is something that we should ask ourselves. Tensions are high right now, but given these accusations are pushed to basically "shock" us out of supporting our nominee and giving a rival faction the opportunity to push their preferred candidate on us, was it worth it? Was it worth it standing on principle to abandon our best chance at a progressive in the seat because he sucks on character issues? If anything, that's how I look at this. At the end of the day, our options are: Susan Collins, a moderate democrat, platner, or another progressive. If we get another progressive, then cool, but I suspect the democrats are gonna push Mills or some moderate on us who is morally compromised in other ways. And we should ask ourselves, is it worth it? Is it worth standing on this vague sense of moral purity and get screwed out of our goals?

That's the real question I'm gonna be asking long term. I mean, as you guys can tell, I kinda agree with the idea that Platner is too morally compromised to continue as nominee, the behaviors uncovered arent just immoral, they're egregiously criminal. BUT...at the end of the day, politics is about power. And us giving up our power to a rival faction that has a vested interest in stabbing us in the back doesn't sit right with me either. Do we see MAGA abandoning Trump because of these kinds of accusations? And sure, you can say that us having standards is what separates us from MAGA, but dang it, I don't wanna simply be "better than" MAGA, I wanna WIN. And if we can't win, we'll be governed by our lessers anyway. There is no value in politics in going down with the ship on principle. I know people kind of think that perspective is morally disgusting, it's slimy, but hey, that's how I see it. If we dont stick to our guns, we end up losing and being ruled by those who ARE willing to go all the way.

Basically, we're screwed. If we do support the guy, we go down with the ship with him. He can't win an election now. Not in his state. He's too compromised and tainted. The public will never got for it. Him staying in the race is the equivalent of handing the seat over to Collins while looking like a total POS in the process. But again, doing the "right" thing also hurts us too. We lose what could have been a decent progressive in the senate in favor of someone who is IMO morally compromised as well, just in another way. 

Honestly, I think we should talk about who is ultimately responsible for this conundrum. It's Platner himself. Platner decided to run with all of these skeletons in his closet, and he imploded because of it. ANd now HE put US in this position in the first place. We shouldnt blame anyone who supported Platner for now things turned out. We should blame Platner himself for running despite these compromises. And yeah, a lot of us were willing to overlook a lot. You gotta do it when they're the only one running on a platform that's good. But his scandals kept escalating until one dropped that was just devastating. Platner shouldnt have run at all. Would someone else have answered the call if he didn't? Im not sure. But honestly, yeah, dont feel bad if you supported the guy. The moral guilt, as far as I'm concrned, isnt on his supporters, its on him. 

With that said, no, I don't make apologies for supporting him. He was the best candidate at the time, the rationale for supporting him was solid in my view. I dont regret the logic associated with it. Im not trying to play the whole "Im the most moral" game. And if anything I feel a twinge of regret from knowingly allowing myself to be manipulated by a rival faction that has a vested interest in wanting him gone so they can push their own candidate on us. Still, given the alternatives, supporting him isnt any better. Morality aside, he cant win anyway. He lost 7 points in the polls in the past month, and that was before this one dropped, he probably would definitely lose the seat for us if he remains in the race. So, we're just screwed, and at the end of the day, the person most responsible for this is platner himself, for running in the first place and putting us in such an uncomfortable position when his scandals came to light. The dude failed his constituents by doing that. And that's how I REALLY see it. 

Simulating the effect of a possible democratic voter rebellion in Maine

 So....let's really start thinking about this empirically. I understand my simulation model is kinda flawed, but it's good or close situations like this. With Platner dropping out, let's assume a blank slate for Maine. We don't know who the candidate is, what their polling data will look like and while I've seen internals going around, who knows. Maine is also a very weird state with polling, with Collins being a historic underperformer. So we really don't know where Maine is right now. it was at D+0.7% with Platner still in, but that was pre scandal, and I'm gonna assume it's now closer to R+4. 

In terms of my raw election model, with Maine being neutral, we're at a 50% chance to win the senate, with Maine and Iowa both being coin flips, and the result being 50-48 with either faction gaining up to 2 seats. 

 We could see 52-48 DEMs as Iowa and Maine go democrat. 50-50 if both go republican, or maybe some 51-49 mix as one goes each way. Given how close the other races are, we could see anything from 48-52 REP to 54-46 DEM. It really is up in the air. I mean, ANY of these outcomes is reasonably possible. This is why I'm saying that the senate doesnt RELY on maine, but it does help to win it. There are like 6 races in coin flip range and any of them could go for either party. We might see the republicans sweep all 6, the democrats sweep all 6, or some mix in between. And maine itself doesnt change my main model much given Iowa also being as pivotal here.

With that said, let's discuss simulations. With Maine being at 0.0% or a tie, if I do 100 simulations with my current model, I get:

Dems: 50

Reps: 17

Tie: 33

We can get some variation between sample sizes of 100, but anything within, say, 3-5% of that is probably within the margin of error I'd say. 

With that said, let's change Maine to R+4, simulating an unpopular outcome for replacing platner (or even a possible keeping him on the ballot, since I'd estimate R+4 is about where the race is post scandal)::

 

This is what the main forecast looks like, given it operates on a wave theory of elections, it's not much different, but that can lack some variation. If we assume individual outcomes aren't linked, and we go with another 100 simulations, we get:

Dems: 36

Reps: 35

Tie: 29

It seemed pretty even between the three options with Maine being R+4. And it did hurt the dems' chances at taking the senate. One less seat functionally up or grabs means one less seat to their totals in the simulator a decent amount of the time, meaning that given near 50-50 nature of the senate predictions, means that assuming we dont assume a wave does most of the work here, we could see a lot of weird scenarios happen. Democrats go from a 50% chance of winning in my simulator to a 36% chance, with the republicans making up most of that ground directly, going from 17% to 35%. 

If we want to look at it simply, I'd say this. If Maine is a tossup, the general distribution of results is 50% D, 33% tie, and 17% R. That's 1/2 of the results being D, 1/3 being ties, and 1/6 being R. Given the GOP controls the vice presidency, that's functionally 50-50. 

Assuming that the dems screw up on the platner replacement (or alternatively, if he stays in), we could see a shift to 33% D, 33% R, and 33% tie. All 3 outcomes are roughly as likely as each other, +/- some small amount of variation. That amounts to a 2/3 chance the republicans functionally maintain the senate. 

So yeah, losing Maine WILL hurt the democrats, and it CAN in theory decide the whole thing assuming all the tossups are functionally independent of each other. Whether you see elections like that is another thing. I think in the real world, error is gonna go one way or another, meaning most will go one way or the other. A stronger blue wave will amount to a bluer map, a weaker one will lead to a redder one. Remember what happened in 2024, my map had all kinda of weird combinations of the 7 swing states going red and blue, but in reality what ended up happening was all went red as trump systemically overperformed. Had harris overperformed, we could've seen the states swing back the other way and we could've seen a 319-219 outcome. The same can happen here. So it really depends what kind of model you believe in. With that said, if wave theory of elections turns out to be accurate, we could see a blowout for either side, with Maine not making much of a difference. But assuming the result is somewhere in between and things are a lot more marginal, and individual error on the state level matters a lot more, yeah, losing Maine will functionally destroy the democrats' current electoral advantage in the senate.

Just something more to think about for anyone thinking of protest voting against the eventually democratic nominee in maine.  

Vote blue no matter who in Maine? Let's have a discussion about this

 So, the reality it setting in for a lot of people that if Graham Platner steps down, he's gonna be replaced with someone. And that process is gonna be relatively undemocratic, and the Maine democratic party is essentially foisting a candidate on the public. This has been a reality I was aware of from the beginning, which is why I have the even handed approach of "yeah platner is a rapist and should drop out, BUT that doesnt mean we should trust the dems here." I mean, the dems have had it out for platner from the get go, and a lot of it IS ideological. They despise "democratic socialists", see them as an invading force within the democratic party, and wanna control their spread within the party as much as humanly possible. It is possible that they'll use this moment to force some moderate down our throats and telling us to 'vote blue no matter who", but I think the American public is finally getting fed up with that. It's like the dam is breaking, and most people online are like NO, I WON'T DO THAT, with them threatening to vote for Collins or stay home if the nominee isn't a close ideological replacement of Platner. hell, even Joy Ann Reid is saying it, and I typically see her as an establishment figure. So this is WILD. The dam is breaking in the democratic party, and we might finally be seeing a generational shift toward progressivism, with people breaking the ultimate taboo within the party of sitting out the election if it doesn't go their way. 

I cant blame them. My own stance on these issues is well documented over the years. I'm spiritually on board with these guys, but I do think this moment is too consequential to history to risk blowing the election. Donald Trump is a tyrant. At least a wanna be tyrant. He wants to destroy democracy and subvert it to his will. A rebellion within the democratic party at this moment in time could empower him to do things far worse than what the dems are doing. With Trump, he's running against a clock, that clock runs out in November, or arguably January when the new congress is seated. He's almost certainly gonna lose the house. He's at risk of losing the senate, with Maine's seat being a potential flip that could contribute to that.

I would say, at minimum, we NEED to win the house. We do that, we can obstruct him. If we have the senate, even better, but I dont think it will matter as long as we dont hold 60 seats due to the filibuster. So...senate control, arguably less important here.

Maine's seat is also unique. Susan Collins is one of the most moderate, inoffensive republicans in the country. A 90s establishment republican. While she will side with trump more than she won't, I dont believe she is a threat to democracy. According to the data, she votes with Trump 95% of the time, but has broken with him on several major issues of consequence. 5% doesn't sound like a lot, but she has put a brake on Trump's more extreme tendencies, and that does matter. The fact is, you NEED to be moderate to keep a red seat in a blue state. 

As far as winning the senate goes, I mean, while I initially saw Maine as one of the easier pick ups, being harder than north carolina, but significantly easier than Ohio, Texas, Iowa, or Alaska, it seems to be polling in line with them. Remember, this is where the Senate stands. Not much changed in the past week, so I'm just going to put up last week's graphics. 

So...the senate is tricky. We can win it, we shouldn't count on it. We technically have paths to win it without maine, but maine could make it easier. If we do take it, Im not sure we can do much with it we can't do without it, assuming we take the house (we only need one chamber to obstruct trump's agenda), Collins is a vote against Trump's most extreme impulses anyway, and I'm not sure a centrist democrat would do much to advance a progressive agenda. 

So...I guess I'll leave it at this: do what you will, vote your conscience. Democracy belongs to the voters, and I'm unclear what stance I would take myself. I do believe we are at a point where we need to weaken the GOP as much as possible to isolate and contain trump's impulses. Maine's senate seat could contribute to this, but I do not believe it is pivotal. An extra seat is an extra vote, but if a moderate obstructs us anyway, it's not gonna matter a whole lot. At the same time, Collins is THEIR moderate. She is basically a "RINO" by modern standards in the eyes of many republicans, and while she votes their party line 95% of the time, that 5% she breaks matters, and often represents principled stands against Trump's worst impulses and bills. With that said, I can reconcile a refusal to vote for the democrat here with not really throwing the entire election cycle to the GOP. Again, our lock on the house is near certain. I have a 96-97% chance that we win the house. Senate, again, its a coin flip. Maine could help, but there are likely other paths if we lose that one. And honestly, the chance that it will all come down to maine, while possible, isn't necessarily likely. Given the nature of polling error and how many seats are tossups, I could envision a situation where either the GOP sweeps the tossups and maintains control, or the democrats sweep them and gain control. In such a situation, Maine itself is only one piece of the puzzle. It helps. And in more marginal outcomes, it CAN mean the difference between retaking the senate and not. 

But yeah. Again, idk. As I said, I think my final advice here is to vote your conscience. Trump is dangerous and should be controlled, but I dont like the democrats possibly screwing people and believe they should face electoral consequences if they handle the maine thing poorly. And let's face it, when platner was the nominee, the amount of "center left" types I saw threatening to vote for Collins was awfully high, so if those guys start pulling that "vote blue no matter who" crap on you, you have zero reason to ever listen to them given how they were acting. Many of them would actively prefer collins over Platner. Again, it's the "uniparty". THe moderates on both sides are closer to each other than others on their side. A lot of moderates would rather collins win than to hand that seat over to a socialist of progressive. Rememeber that. 

So, again, do what you will. 

Graham Platner drops out and my thoughts

 So, Hasan covered it, it's official, Platner dropped out. He seemed kinda angry. He expressed his innocence, he blamed the democratic establishment for trying to shiv him, and honestly, a lot of leftists and progressives arent buying it. They think he's a chud, they think that he's guilty, and yeah. I mean, Platner is divisive among progressives. Like, he's super economically progressive, but has a rough history with women, and has said said things in the past that dont go well in progressive circles. The more "white male bernie bro" types tend to like him, but the more hyper feminist types hate him. I'm more on the "bernie bro" side of that spectrum, given my dislike for idpol, my rejection of the whole "believe all women" thing, etc. 

With that said, i do tend to believe the woman who came forward here, simply because they provided at least some evidence of having said things about platner implying what happened BEFORE he ran for office. And that's important. Like, Im not hardcore on "believe all women". I get the whole idea behind it, because sexual assault happens A LOT, and it is hard for women to always have evidence. And a lot of women with legit accusations arent believed. However, i do think simply "believing all women" dogmatically and reflexively goes too far. Remember what happened to Till Lindemann? Yeah. I do. And I think when a person is famous, that the standard needs to be different. Any whack case can come forward and accuse anyone they want of anything they want. And they can create a culture war crapshow where all the feminists will be like BELIEVE ALL WOMEN and anyone who offers any defense of the man involved is a chud and should be expelled from the community. I also think, when someone is running for office, the standard should be higher too. Again, you can just make up crap to tank someone's approval, split their voter base, and force them to drop out. 

And another thing, just because the accusations are credible doesn't mean that there isn't a conspiracy to kick someone out of the race with an accusation. Campaigns do opposition research. They dig into peoples' history and release stuff in order to tank their run for office. That's the point, to shift public opinion so that they win elections. There is ALWAYS going to be a manipulative angle to this stuff in politics. The idea that Graham Platner is a suspected rapist, and the idea that the democrats are cynically weaponizing this to force him to drop out, can both be true at the same time. This isn't a binary. Yes, I believe the accusations. but yes, I believe the democratic party is weaponizing these accusations at an opportune time to force him out of the race in order to kick a berniecrat who won his primary off of the ballot so they can replace them with someone else. 

Which brings us to the actual process, as stated in Hasan's video, this is gonna be decided by 600 people within the democratic party. They're not having a new primary, they're not gonna coronate a replacement of similar ideology, they're gonna have some sort of convention of insider officials decide who gets it. While we can wait and see who that candidate is, I want everyone to know this, if this ISNT a progressive, this was a functional coup. Yes, the democrats literally did shiv platner, and even more so, they shived all berniecrats and progressives, stealing a nomination from us, and replacing OUR candidate with some neoliberal hack who basically reflects the democratic party's ideology. And keep in mind, the democrats are overtly hostile to progressives. They're basically declaring war on the democratic socialist faction.

Again, it doesnt matter if the accusations are true. Multiple things can be true at the same time. Platner may be a rapist. But the democratic party also has a vested interest in removing him and replacing him with a more ideologically palatable candidate. Both things can be true at the same time. We shouldnt be tribalistic where we either deny the accusations, nor should we not recognize the democrats and their vested interest in shiving Platner. Both are true. The accusations are true, but these accusations are coming forward now because the democratic party wants him out. 

And on THAT question, we got two further realities. Functionalist theory: the democrats released this stuff before the deadline so the republicans couldnt use it to tank Graham Platner themselves, thus costing the dems the seat. By replacing platner, they're saving the democrats' chances at winning the seat. Conflict explanation, the democrats also dont like platner because he's a democratic socialist, and want to remove him to potentially replace him with a more ideologically moderate candidate. Again, these two things dont have to be mutually exclusive. Both can be true at the same time. They have both legitimate and illegitimate interests in tanking platner. You can frame it as them saving the party, or them screwing the left. hell, maybe it's a bit of both. 

And that's where I'll leave this. This is a very complex situation. Multiple realities are true, we shouldnt be tribalistic and understand that yeah, this really is multifaceted. The accusations are legitimate, but the democrats can be doing this to screw a progressive candidate and replace him with a moderate. Both can be true at the same time. These two things arent contradictory. With that said, rather than engaging in all this toxic nonsense, where about 80% the democrats are virtue signalling and insisting on their moral rightness by always being against the guy, or alternatively of being willing to drop him at the drop of a hat while dunking on anyone who refuses to, and the other 20% denying the accusations because they wanna protect their guy, I really do suggest a middle ground. 

This is why my stance was "okay, replace him, but replace him with an ideologically similar candidate". CHoosing someone else in a smoke filled backroom who does not fit those qualifications is crappy and it really is the democrats taking advantage of the situation to push their agenda.

With that said, we wait. We wait and see where the democrats go from here. Again, if they put forward a similar candidate like Troy jackson, then okay, cool. If they give us fricking Janet Mills, then you know they screwed us. Given the threat of donald trump and the fascist GOP this election season, I suggest we grit our teeth and take it, but at some point, we are probably gonna have to have the progressive left go to war with the democratic party (peacefully). Because if were gonna win primaries and theyre gonna shiv us and force their crap on us and tell us to vote blue no matter who, well, eventually, we're gonna have to answer that by NOT doing that. 

Of course, I won't suggest we do that until Trump is out of office and the fascist threat is behind us.  

Discussing TYT's Platner take and cynical politics

 So...of many of the takes on the Platner scandal, one of the most refreshing that comes off to me is TYT's take. Now, this is gonna be controversial, but you know what, with this one, I'm fine with embracing controversy. Basically, TYT looks at this from a perspective of, okay, are these allegations credible, they tend to be more skeptical than most, even me (I tend to accept them at face value). They look at who is pushing them and the cynical motives that might be involved, and I think that's an argument worth considering. Republicans obviously have a vested interest in pushing this stuff. Politics is hardball and if they can drum up a sexual assault allegation, that benefits their campaign. Centrist democrats also have a vested interest in removing him. They never wanted platner as nominee, and they've been floating the idea of just subverting the will of the people the second he got the nomination. And of course, they're not gonna say it's because of ideological reasons, but because of vague appeals to morality. 

And again, there's been a lot of self righteous crapbags who obviously dont like platner who hide behind that morality. Centrists are throwing every bad argument under the sun, acting like "I told you so" and acting oh so moral because they were "right" about him from the get go. Screw those guys. Of course, some on the left get the same way. Im not always a fan of hardcore leftists either. A lot of them go in with hyper feminism, "believe all women", and I'm listening to Mike Figuredo go on about how he was right all along because omg war crimes or whatever.  And I'm over the self righteous morality from all sides of the aisle, and how everyone is trying to wear their virtue on their sleeve and go on about  how they always had the BEST moral judgments and are therefore more moral than the rest of us. I mean, seriously, screw you guys. I don't care. I'm not gonna try to get into a peeing contest over high and mighty morality and virtue on these topics. If anything, I kinda have the opposite approach of "when they go high, I'll go low", because I find it so satisfying when I offend these morally exasperated snowflakes by refusing to play their game. And they do get so exasperated. Really. I guess that's one aspect of old conservative me that never died. I still do tend to have the rough around the edges F your feelings mindset. Of course, at this point, I recognize that these attempts at guilting and shaming people are manipulative. And I refuse to be manipulated. 

And that's what a lot of this is about. These appeals to a common morality in order to pressure platner to drop out...eh, I'm not really sure they come from a good place. I do recognize cynical political entities whose goals are very opposed to my own are going to cynically display virtue to manufacture consent around pulling a progressive candidate and replacing them with a more establishment friendly one. And I recognize that these factions have a lot to gain from Platner being removed. As I said, these guys have been floating this since he won the nomination. And I'll be blunt. I'm kinda with TYT on this one. We should be asking questions, like whether the motivations behind this story releasing are legitimate, if the accusations are made in good faith, and what the political implications are for our actual legislative goals. 

I mean, I'll be blunt. Unpopular opinion, but I'm fine with accepting a somewhat morally compromised individual if it means they'll be effective at passing legislation I want. A lot of people are thinking about what these scandals mean for Platner's governing style, like he's gonna pull a fetterman. But as I see it, the democrats are full of fettermans, and manchins, and sinemas, and schumers, and pelosis, and a bunch of corporatist hacks who wont do what I ask them to. Hell, I operate under the assumption that the democratic establishment is inherently bought and paid for and hostile to my goals. Again, see my argument about "political adultery." Most congresspeople and senators are adulterous by my standards. They WONT remain morally consistent in actually passing legislation that matters. That's why some of us on the left have such weird preferences with candidates. And then WE'RE called the moral purists as if that's a bad thing. Again, it's manipulative AF. it's fine to be a purist when it comes over some weird character issue, but when it comes to politics itself, like we actually expect our candidates to do things and we reward them when they do? OMG we're just like maga, apparently. 

Meanwhile, maga's effective and we're not. Gee, I wonder why. Maybe it's because we'll sit around with a thumb up you know where giving our power up in the name of some weird ethics only we actually seem to believe in, while the other side will fight us with everything they got and we just cave to them?

Again, I'm not saying Platner shouldnt drop out. I do believe, despite whatever questions may or may not exist around these stories, that the accusations are legitimate enough to take seriously and he should drop out. I'm just trying to encourage people to actually think about the broader context. Like who is behind these accusations? Why are they being made? Who beenfits from them? Do we really believe that are legit accusations that just dropped from the sky at a politically advantageous moment to advance the agenda of our political adversaries? Even if the accusations are legit, obviously, they were dug up at this moment by certain people who benefit from him being removed from the nomination. I just think before we concede to such demands, we ask who these people are, why they want him gone, and how to we minimize damage to our own political movement and ideological goals? Because if we just cave because "it's the right thing to do", well, we might be surrendering a lot of power to people who don't have our best interests at heart. And that's one of the reasons why these other factions are more effective than us. Again, look at what the right is doing with Mitch McConnell. He might be braindead and they're hiding it to avoid having a special election for their senate seat. But we're just supposed to back away from a guy who is for, say, medicare for all, because of a sex scandal? What kind of double standard is that?

The reason why the world is run by sociopathic billionaires and hostile business interests is because they'll fight to ensure that the world is molded after their vision for it. Meanwhile we're too sanctimonious with our "morality" where we give away whatever hard fought advantages we get to these people because of some vague moral quandry of what it will do to us if we don't. I'm not concerned about that. I'm concerned about actually beating our adversaries so our vision gets enacted and theirs doesn't.  So yeah. I guess what I'm saying with this whole line of discussion is that we need to think about the long game. We want certain goals done. What advances those goals? What doesn't? And how do we avoid being manipulated away from getting those goals accomplished? If we wanna win at politics, we have to act in ways consistent with accomplishing our goals. We shouldn't just surrender our advantages because of vague moral nonsense. Just how I see it. Sorry not sorry, haters gonna hate. 

Discussing Graham Platner's condition to drop out

 So...despite most of the democratic party seemingly unanimously pressuring Platner to drop out immediately, Platner is pushing back and offering a condition:
 

“If he was to step down it would only be with a guarantee of being replaced by a candidate who he believes is true to the values and vision and policy agenda of the campaign that Maine voted for." (Source)

 Ya know what? I'm with Platner on this one. He's not saying he won't step down, but I think this is a reasonable ask. After all, it's not unlike the centrist wing of the party to use this opportunity to foist their candidate on us after Platner won the nomination by a margin of around 2:1 vs Mills. It would be a slap in the face for us to end up with Mills, an establishment centrist and do nothing democrat who won't do anything to advance Platner's agenda. And yet, centrist dems would LOVE to use this crisis to do this. Hell, I suspect they precipitated this crisis outright to FORCE platner to drop. Republicans were bragging about having more dirt and centrists went digging for more dirt to force him to drop out, there was talk of making him drop out the second he won the nomination. 

Here's the reality of politics. It's about power, and about passing an agenda. The right knows this. The centrists know this, but feign weakness because their real goal is the status quo. And they love to use any excuse to not do anything. They'll hide behind "morals", institutional norms, decorum, etc. cynically to get their way, and they're gonna try to do this with nominating a platner replacement.

Remember what happened in 2024 when Biden was pressured to drop out, the centrist wing wanted to remove Harris to and foist some no name centrist candidate on us in order to pass their agenda. No, we gotta think more like, say, Mitch McConnell. People on the left hate Mitch McConnell, but you know what? He's darned effective. "Oh, what's that, we have to approve a SCOTUS Justice Obama nominates? well, what if we just didn't do that for months and "let the voters decide" by holding out until after the election? And now the dude is apparently on his literal death bed, possibly brain dead, with the announcement of his death being delayed until it's too late to replace him via special election, which would head off a possible Thomas Massie challenge. 

The right plays hard ball, the right understands power, and then you got all these centrist types who are like MUH MORALITEH! MUH DECORUM! MUH INSTITUTIONAL NORMS! when it comes to Platner dropping out, and shaming anyone who isn't like "he must drop out NOW". And be replaced with whom?

I mean, we have a solution right in front of us, Troy Jackson, who failed to win his primary for governor but is popular among Maine progressives. This should be an easy condition. Okay, you drop out Graham, we run Troy Jackson. We won't run Janet Mills. 

But instead these guys just get all high and mighty like HOW DARE YOU PLAY CYNICAL POLITICS! YOU'RE JUST LIKE MAGA? And you know what? Screw you, yes I am. Because I understand power and I understand that if we just unilaterally surrender, we're handing you guys a win to shove your ideology on us under the guise of morality. Screw your morality. Replace Graham with a roughly equal candidate. They dont even need to be 100% equal, I'd settle for like 80-90%. If this were Abdul El Sayed, I'd take Mallory McMorrow over Haley Stevens, for example. But you know what? A GOOD FAITH attempt. Give us a progressive wing candidate so that we get our agenda passed. Anything less than that just seems in bad faith. Like YOU MUST UNILATERALLY SURRENDER TO US BECAUSE SEX SCANDAL. We have a pedophile as president, F you, and F your morality.  

Really, I'm tired of all these sanctimonious A-holes who are getting so self righteous and pearl clutching over this. It just seems so fake. Most people who do it fit the same general ideological profile. Most of them are some flavor of centrist republican/democrat, and most are overtly concerned about symbolism like his tattoo or the optics of this, and how we can NEVER support someone who does sexual assault. But I say if that guy is gonna fight to give me healthcare, and the more "moral" candidate isn't, I'd rather have the candidate who will fight for me.

Obviously, it shouldn't be a binary choice, and it isn't. Graham Platner SHOULD drop out, and Troy jackson SHOULD be the replacement nominee. And the fact that people can't just be like "okay, your terms are acceptable" just comes off like THEY aren't operating in good faith, and THEY are trying to cynically use the scandal to advance their agenda. See, in politics, everyone is there advancing their own moral agenda, but then we're just expected to unilaterally disarm. Screw that. Meet the condition, and Platner can step down. Otherwise, we're just handing a victory over to our opponents.