After months of scrutiny over his tattoo, past social-media posts, and former relationships — scrutiny that included televised commentary from liberal media figures — Graham Platner won the Maine Democratic Senate primary with 72% of the vote. The result, one week after he defeated a field that included Gov. Janet Mills, has intensified a debate within the party about how the establishment treats candidates who do not fit its template.
In a Guardian opinion piece published Saturday, Dustin Guastella, a research associate at the Center for Working Class Politics and a Teamsters union official, argued that the campaign against Platner — which he described as a “coordinated campaign” stretching “across social media, television, podcasts, magazines and newspapers” — may have backfired. “Elite Democrats have become accustomed to accusing their rivals of all sorts of evil sorcery: racism, sexism, Nazism, chauvinism, you name it,” Guastella wrote. “Anything to avoid a real debate about policy.”
The attacks Guastella cited were specific. Chris Hayes, host of a program on the liberal-leaning network MSNOW, questioned whether Platner was “going after underage girls,” according to the article. Mika Brzezinski, a co-host on the same network, compared his behavior to that of Jeffrey Epstein. Earlier in the campaign, Platner’s critics had pointed to a tattoo they said was indicative of “secret affection for Nazis.” The allegations against him also included claims of misconduct with former girlfriends, which Guastella described as “flimsy.”
Platner, a former Marine, has acknowledged a “rocky past,” infidelity, and being “a lost young man.” Guastella argued that the avalanche of accusations “just confirmed who Platner said he was,” and that voters chose him despite his flaws because they believed his populist economic message.
The primary win sets up a general-election contest against incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins in November. The race will test whether Platner’s platform — built on the assertion that “the elite really are rigging the system against the little guy” — can carry a state where independent voters often split their tickets. Guastella noted that the same anti-establishment sentiment that propelled Platner in the primary could complicate his general-election prospects. Democratic primary voters are “far more progressive than voters at large,” especially in a rural state like Maine, he wrote.
Some of Platner’s vulnerabilities remain. His “expensive education and his blue-blood family ties,” Guastella wrote, “could be a liability among blue-collar voters who might see him as a phony.” His liberal social views could also turn off inland Maine voters who are more traditionalist than their coastal counterparts.
But Guastella argued that the liberal establishment’s campaign against Platner could, paradoxically, help him in November. “Independence from that system is now rightly seen as a political virtue,” he wrote. “Inspiring the hatred of the highest layers of the party’s political machinery is a sure way to demonstrate one’s political independence.”
The opinion piece also pointed to what Guastella described as the party establishment’s broader habit of top-down electoral management. He cited California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s comments about the California governor’s race, in which Newsom discussed a “break-the-glass” contingency plan if his preferred candidates did not make the general election. Such moves, Guastella wrote, fuel “populist revolts both within and against the party.”