When it came time to recruit candidates for next year’s midterms, some Democrats had a goal of finding political newcomers who don’t talk like Beltway insiders and are ready to fight back against the Trump administration.
As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for.
U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner of Maine, a gruff veteran turned oysterman, seemed to fit the bill: marrying left-leaning policies with the blunt talk of the blue-collar men Democrats have been hoping to win back.
Some in the party fell in love. Others thought that two-term Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, who jumped in the race in mid-October, might be a less risky choice. Their point was underscored this month when an avalanche of opposition research on Platner began making headlines.
The information was largely drawn from his Reddit account, where he posted under the name “P-Hustle.” The posts had something in there to offend everyone, including Platner referring to himself as a communist, calling cops “bastards,” making insensitive remarks about sexual assault and arguing that Black customers don’t tip.
Then came the centerpiece: the revelation that Platner had a tattoo that resembled a symbol associated with Nazis. (He’s since had it covered up and has said that he did not realize the supposed Nazi connection when he got it.)
The controversy has forced Democrats to wrestle with thorny questions about where to draw the line.
The controversy has forced Democrats to wrestle with thorny questions about where to draw the line on offensive conduct and who gets to set such boundaries.
Former Alabama Sen. Doug Jones knows a thing or two about a campaign hitting trouble. When he ran for Senate in 2016, his general election opponent, Roy Moore, was accused of sexual misconduct by several women, one of whom told the Washington Post that she was 14 at the time that a 32-year-old Moore sexually touched her. (Moore denied the accusation.) The accusations helped sink Moore’s campaign.
Jones told me that the Democratic Party is at a crossroads and has to figure out the balance. “Things like overt racism, overt misogyny … are bright lines, [but] it’s hard to draw a fine line, especially these days, because frankly I think the needle has moved a little bit to where people are more tolerant of so many things.”
He said he would lean toward the party being a bit more understanding than it has been in past election cycles. “We need to be a little bit more forgiving if somebody has truly convinced you that ‘I was in a bad place’ or whatever,” he said.
It wasn’t too long ago that just one or two of those social media posts would have been enough to sink a Democratic primary campaign. But the fact that the party is even wrestling with forgiving Platner is proof of how much has changed. The biggest evolution seems to be tied to how Republicans have operated for years.
Many Republicans spoke out against Donald Trump in 2016 after the “Access: Hollywood” tape leaked, but he won anyway. As president, Trump then stood by problematic nominees such as Moore and Herschel Walker. More recently, Vice President JD Vance defended Republican operatives who had compared Black people to monkeys and fantasized about gas chambers in leaked texts.
No Democrat I’ve talked with wants to go that far. But they are having a more fulsome conversation about where to draw the line than they would have had in the past. “The Democratic Party, sometimes we want to grow our candidates in the lab and check all the right boxes and not make any mistakes or, you know, do anything f—ed up or be interesting throughout their lives and then win. Donald Trump was a big wake up call for me,” former Obama aide and current Crooked Media host Tommy Vietor told me. Another factor is the age of social media. Any candidate who doesn’t qualify for AARP probably posted something embarrassing or regrettable on a social media network at some point, especially if they weren’t the kind of person who grows up wanting to be president. But while Republicans are mostly doubling down on their remarks or denying having made them, Democrats are looking for a show of contrition. If a candidate’s apology seems sincere, the offense was long ago and it’s out of line with their recent behavior and views, they may get a pass. If small donors keep showing up and voters choose the candidate anyway, there’s not much the party can do about it. At the end of the day, it won’t be up to Beltway insiders anyway. The party can try to force out a primary candidate with a problematic history, but if small donors keep showing up and voters choose the candidate anyway, there’s not much the party can do about it. In Maine, the voters seem nonplussed so far about Platner’s past. In University of New Hampshire polling conducted before and after the various news about Platner broke, 58% of those who responded still chose him, compared to 24% for Mills. The next test for the party will come when the candidate isn’t someone like Platner. Many Black Democrats have said they want to see the same willingness to forgive when the candidate with the troubling remarks isn’t a white man. But that’s a conversation for another day. For more thought-provoking insights from Eugene Daniels, watch “The Weekend” every Saturday and Sunday from 7 to 10 a.m. ET on MSNBC.
Eugene Daniels is an MS NOW senior Washington correspondent and co-host of "The Weekend." Recommended
