Platner: Astro-Turfed Authenticity

[QueerDuck]

Last edited Wed Jul 8, 2026, 09:01 AM - Edit history (1)

It makes me angry that the most deceptive element was that Platner's campaign was marketed as a spontaneous, grassroots phenomenon. We were led to believe that he was "just a regular guy" and that he'd been "discovered by accident."

In reality, we can now see that his "outsider" persona was carefully scouted, vetted, and polished by national progressive consultants looking for a specific type of working-class vehicle to defeat establishment figures like Janet Mills. --- But with all the "vetting" going on, it's disappointing to me that those doing the vetting didn't seem to care about the Nazi tattoo, the misogynistic and racist comments or his contempt for the police, or his anti-gay rhetoric.

Instead, the powers that be consciously chose to emphasize his "boots and truck" while actively burying his history at elite prep schools like Hotchkiss.

In fairness... and obvioiusly, standard political embellishment involves highlighting a real but minor aspect of your life (for example, a candidate's previous part-time summer-job on a farm would be touted as the candidate being "rooted in agriculture.'')

But, from what I can tell, Platner’s campaign went much further by actively hiding his financial safety net... all the while, campaigning on the premise of his financial desperation.

Looking closely, he routinely claimed that he and his wife could not afford basic, vital necessities (like domestic healthcare and fertility treatments) due to a broken economic system. But, he omitted the fact that his elite, wealthy family was entirely funding these endeavors behind the scenes, alongside cushioning his mortgage.

He and was presenting himself as an "un-networked" and "struggling" worker while actually operating with systemic, upper-class insulation ... which is a fundamental distortion of his material reality.

Platner didn't just casually mention he farmed oysters... his team manufactured a visual identity around it to symbolize the working-class struggle against "corporate oligarchy."

But in reality, his oyster farm was not a gritty, independent battle against market forces. It was a boutique business operating out of an upscale restaurant owned by his mother and a private island owned by his partner’s family. He had ONE customer... his mother's restaurant.

We can see now that his campaign was carefully crafted to mirror Sanders' platform. This made Platner the perfect vessel for organizations like "Our Revolution" (the political group founded by Sanders) to back in an effort to push the Democratic party to the left (or... as someone said in an angry and unguarded moment... their goal was a "hostile takeover of the Democratic party'') Ugh. So, it's no surprise to me that Platner was also the darling of Cenk Uygur and the "Justice Democrats" group who have always been hostile to the Democratic party. Cenk was leading the way in defending the Nazi tattoo, and in turn attacking others who dared to criticize.

With all these things in mind... I think it's clear that we dodged a bullet. (Whew!)

[WhiskeyGrinder]

1. As someone who has contempt for police, would like to see the party move to the left, etc., I want to add that it is

extremely frustrating that the consultant class has found fertile ground to till on the left. The idea that working class markers + saying the right things = A Candidate for the wider party is bad news for everyone. It's insulting to the working class and should be at least a yellow flag to the party as a whole. It bypasses the deeply important work of organizing, building a bench and a community, and networking that buoys a candidate and strengthens a party. There's no shortcuts to winning, and consultants are the ones desperately trying to find a magic wand.

It wasn't just centrists who were against this guy from Day One, is what I'm saying.

[QueerDuck]

2. Indeed... a bad fit from the beginning.

But some critics were louder than others... and the defenders seemed to be the loudest of all.

[yardwork]

11. I think we need more information.

I read the WSJ interview with one of the three self-proclaimed "activists" who claimed that they "handpicked" Platner and also claimed that the oppo form they hired missed a bunch of things.

That left me with nothing but more questions and I think it's important that the Democratic Party learn more about how this all happened.

My one very strong takeaway is that Platner was not well vetted, at all. Why not? Where was the national and state Democratic Party in this? Who is responsible for vetting primary candidates?

There's a really fundamental issue here that needs to be addressed.

And yes it's very clear that voters are hungry for new ideas and radical promises. That's been clear since 2016 and the DNC needs to get onboard and lead or get out of the way.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

16. Increasingly, the consultants and activists groups are doing the vetting. Parties don't have the money, time or

inclination to vet multiple primary candidates and instead rely on endorsing conventions, word of mouth and straw/polls to gauge viability.

[yardwork]

62. Well, there's a big problem right there if searches are farmed out to consulting firms.

IMO the Democratic consultants who advise our candidates, as a whole, are way behind the times and are missing the mark.

In general consultants will recommend the traditional supposedly safe choices and approaches and we see where that has gotten us.

Leaving the field open to self-appointed activists funded by who knows who is also a big problem.

Thanks for this insight. This whole process has been eye opening for me.

[flashman13]

36. I need some answers. Like who were these the people doing the veting? What's the source of your bio of Platner?

Something here doesn't pass the smell test. It has all of the markings of some sort of conspiracy theory. Persons unknown crafted a persona and platform that resonates with the Democratic grass roots, but they chose an incredibly flawed vessel to deliver the message. That is a stretch.

What I do know is that Maine Democrats (I emphasize Maine Dems) need to sort this mess ASAP before we do any more damage to the party than has already been done. Otherwise, we are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The mission is to defeat Collins.

[mcar]

68. Do you trust Lawrence O'Donnell

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1322120822

[QueerDuck]

72. I do. That was a great segment.

[LisaL]

3. Yes, they weren't excited about their other options.

They had to vote for this guy. Well now they got him. It was clear dirt was going to keep coming out, and I am sure we haven't heard all of it yet.
But the other candidates were apparently too boring.
And no, we haven't dodged a bullet. He has to voluntarily step down by July 13, and he has not done it yet.

[QueerDuck]

7. "Too boring" ... The danger of demanding a political soulmate.

Exactly! Yes! Thank you! You hit the nail on the head. The other candidates in the primary were seen as "boring," or "too old" and that reality exposes a massive vulnerability in our voter base.

There is a frustrating truth we have to face: Democrats routinely insist on falling in love with a candidate before they'll show up. We want a savior, an orator, or an idealized working-class hero like Platner appeared to be. If a candidate is "too educated," too policy-wonkish, or just lacks that "guy you'd want to have a beer with" charisma, our side loses enthusiasm.

Meanwhile, Republicans operate with cold, transactional discipline. They don't care if their nominee is a flawed, unhinged hypocrite; they fall in line because they understand that a vote is about capturing power, securing judges, and passing policy.

GOP voters will hold their noses and vote for a literal criminal just to advance their agenda. It's frustration to me that too many on our side will stay home or complain on social media if a Democratic nominee doesn't perfectly check every single aesthetic and ideological box. (Too many of us look for reasons to swipe left.)

When we treat elections like a search for a soulmate rather than a chess move, we get burned. Platner was exciting, flashy, and anti-establishment... but in the end he turned out to be an unvetted disaster who almost cost us a crucial Senate seat. (At least we still have a chance of replacing him with a competitive candidate who isn't GUARANTEED to lose against Collins!)

Ultimately, "boring" candidates might not give us butterflies, but they keep the trains running, they pass the legislation, and most importantly, they don't have Nazi tattoos and hidden elite trust funds waiting to explode in the general election.

We dodged a bullet, but we need to stop putting ourselves in the path of the gun.

[LisaL]

8. We haven't dodged a bullet because he has to step down.

By July 13. Otherwise he stays on the ballot.

[QueerDuck]

9. True. I'm hoping that calmer and rational thought prevails...

... and that we do not have to suffer the consequences of ego and pride and selfishness.

[spooky3]

29. I'm hoping that his wife or someone else he trusts

Last edited Wed Jul 8, 2026, 11:35 AM - Edit history (1)

will convince him that a huge loss in the general will happen and would be humiliating, and that meanwhile bad news from his past will continue to come out in the media. In other words, things will get much worse for him.

[Lifeafter70]

77. They just announced on ms now

He has formally stepped down. Now Maine can roll up their sleeves and hopefully beat
Concern Collins.

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. It wasn't just the "vetters" (whoever they are) who were OK with Platner's flaws

It was the voters of Maine.

How would the “vetters” (whoever they are supposed to have been) have stopped Platner from running?

[LisaL]

5. And some of the people still are.

By the way the ex is accusing him of a crime potentially punishable by many years in prison. Statute of limitations has not expired, so if she wants to, she can go to the police and press charges. So he could be running for a Senate seat and be on trial at the same time.

[Fiendish Thingy]

10. It would be difficult to get an indictment without physical evidence

Not saying it didn’t happen, just that indictments for rape are outrageously under-charged, and this incident, five years after the fact, would be difficult if not impossible to get a DA and grand jury on board unless there were some kind of evidence other than the woman’s verbal account.

My point is, I don’t think running for senate under indictment will be an issue in this situation. I sure hope there is a lot going on behind the scenes that we don’t know to facilitate Platner’s exit and the selection of a replacement that respects Maine’s voters as much as possible.

[LisaL]

13. Her testimony is considered evidence.

People could believe it or not, but I don't see why a DA couldn't decide to take it to the jury.

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. Since it's a felony, it would have to go to a grand jury to get an indictment

And DA’s generally don’t prosecute cases unless they think they can get a conviction.

With nothing but her testimony, think of how she would be treated on the stand by the defense attorney. That’s why many women choose not to press charges, to not have to endure a second trauma on top of the original one.

[LisaL]

17. Grand Jury just indicted a supposed pool vandal.

So how hard can it be to get an indictment?

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. They also indicted Comey and Tish James

And once they got to court the indictments were dismissed.

You seem to want this woman to endure some pretty painful trauma to satisfy a political vendetta, when currently, she can tell her story and maintain complete control over what she chooses to talk about.

[spooky3]

30. E.Jean Carroll won her case. Her evidence sufficed, and

From the Politico article alone, it sounds as if there may be at least as much evidence in the present case.

[Fiendish Thingy]

33. That was a civil suit, where the burden of proof is far lower

Than for a criminal conviction.

Juries in civil suits don’t have to believe guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and they don’t have to be unanimous in their verdict.

Ultimately, it is the choice of the woman accusing Platner whether to proceed further than just telling her story publicly, under her own control, rather than a bunch of randos on the internet telling her what she should do, right?

[spooky3]

34. True, but my point still stands.

It sounds to me as if you have not read the Politico article. I would strongly advise that, in addition to doing more investigating of other sources—and the research literature on rape.

Carroll’s jury decision WAS unanimous.

[Fiendish Thingy]

42. And my point still stands

It’s not up to a bunch of randos on the internet, with nothing at risk, to decide the right course of action for this woman.

Do you agree or do you think she should be pressured to comply with the internet’s demands, against her will, again?

[Lifeafter70]

78. You are correct

It is very difficult to bring criminal charges in these type of assault cases especially when the victim knows their attacker.
Unfortunately I have personal experience regarding my daughter. She did however win her civil suit.

[mdbl]

27. In this twisted world, it only depends on the DA in question

They will indict for less nefarious reasons just to gum up the politics.

[QueerDuck]

12. That's just the thing... it appears to me that their job was not to vet, but to scrub and polish...

... and sweep things away. They weren't SUPPOSED to stop him from running. Their job was to clear the path.

[Cha]

79. whops. And all the scrub and

Polish in the world wasn't going to clean up that guy

TY for all your work on unpacking this disaster.

[LeftInTX]

50. A campaign strategist can make or break you.

Morris Katz could have dumped Platner last year, but he didn't. However, one of his staffers did exit the campaign because of what she was seeing with Platner.

Katz has got a name for himself. However, he ignored everything. He knew all about Platner, but didn't care.

Your campaign person fundraises, consults you, puts you out there. Platner had a star from NYC, who showed up at his door one day and recruited him on the spot. Platner had been protesting takeover of his oyster farm. He was seen by strategists and recruited to run for senate. W/o the recruiting, he would have never thought of running.
If he had just had a podunk nobody from Maine, I doubt that he would have won.

No Katz. No Platner. Plain and simple.

ETA: We have many podunk "strategists" in Texas too. Someone will want to run for a statewide race and will get their next door neighbor to run their state wide race. If they are running for Gov, Lt Gov, US Senate or AG and don't have a good campaign person, they are toast in the primary.

[ahnakneemoose]

6. Absolutely Good Work QueerDuck (Thank You)

Along the way, I believed the oyster farming story; so these two paragraphs were real eye-openers:

Platner didn't just casually mention he farmed oysters...his team manufactured a visual identity around it to symbolize the working-class struggle against "corporate oligarchy."

But in reality, his oyster farm was not a gritty, independent battle against market forces. It was a boutique business operating out of an upscale restaurant owned by his mother and a private island owned by his partner’s family. He had ONE customer...his mother's mother's restaurant.

[Escape]

14. Isn't it odd that most of we Democrats doubted Platner's honesty and authenticity from the beginning...

and that it only took about a month for us to collectively figure him out and toss him in the trash can.

Whereas, the slime, corruption and criminality of Trump and Paxton, etal., have been on "flashing light display" for years and years and the MAGATS either deny it, excuse it or embrace it..

It must really suck to be them.

[LisaL]

18. We can't toss him.

He has to step down by July 13, or he stays on the ballot.

[BComplex]

45. I hope he doesn't step down.

I don't believe a word of what has been going on.

[QueerDuck]

65. The candidate's own actions tell a different story.

If Platner himself is actively distributing a farewell survey and preparing his exit from the race, he clearly recognizes that the campaign is over. The reality of the situation is no longer a matter of personal belief or denial.

[mdbl]

28. Yet they keep winning elections and have a devoted cult

willing to overlook egregious behavior and criminality.

[betsuni]

20. Populist Them (establishment elites) vs Us (The People, the working class).

Last edited Wed Jul 8, 2026, 01:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Purity test that only working class people can understand economic inequality, unlike the "liberal elites" (of course Democrats from working or middle class/single mother families -- Carter, Clinton, Obama, Hillary, Biden, Harris -- never ever ever ever never get the benefit of the doubt that yes, despite probably often taking showers at the beginning of the day and not the end,* they do know what inequality is).

*"The white working class men who take showers at the end of the day" and people "who were a little bit dirty" -- this person despises Democrats and has no idea what he's talking about.

[mcar]

26. Only working class white men

Working class women and men of color are held to a much higher standard.

[betsuni]

53. "What you're talking about is identity politics. We are so proud that for the first time we have a judge

from this state who is Black, Latino, Asian, you name it. We have a woman this. We have a gay that. ... Donald Trump has surrounding him a whole lot of women. There are right-wing women governors all over this country. The issue is that Democrats have retreated from class issues, from economic issues, from taking on big money, to 'Oh, isn't it wonderful we have a woman here and have a gay person here and we have a Black person here and a Latina person over there.'"

Susan Bordo:
"Many of us considered ourselves political progressives, yet we ... were apparently just old, stale blood, clogging the veins of the revolution, agents of a corrupt 'establishment.' And when he spoke of taking the party back for 'working people' and young people and out of the hands of the rich donors, I wondered -- not for the first time -- how the hundreds of thousands of African Americans who [vote Democratic] fit in. Did he think they all owned Bentleys or were too old to matter?"

[mcar]

56. ...

[MichMan]

66. Platner posted a few years ago that "Black people don't tip"

It was dismissed along with everything else he had said

[LetMyPeopleVote]

21. Lawrence was great on Platner on the Last Word

@lawrenceodonnell.bsky.social on the lesson of the Platner campaign: Always wait for the vetting youtu.be/rnKosV5DkqA?...

— The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell (@lastwordmsnow.bsky.social) 2026-07-08T04:19:12.688Z

[QueerDuck]

24. Yes... that was excellent.

[Progressive dog]

22. Thank you for this information

I just hope that Democrats can win the Senate seat after this candidate withdraws.
Letting him or his biggest fans have any say in his replacement makes no sense to me. The people mostly responsible for this disaster should step aside and try to help make it better.

[PatSeg]

23. Like many, I was leery of him from the beginning,

but I backed off because a lot of Democrats were supporting him. Now I'm just mad that he got away with this subterfuge and that so many supported him.

Did those who groomed him not even check his background? And did he not realize the true would come out? I'm disgusted.

[QueerDuck]

25. Yes. There was a lot of bullying and attempts to silence critics. This was coming from his campaign...

... and by his most visible (most "famous'') supporters, as well as from ardent fans across the internet. I do believe (or I choose to believe) that much of this support wasn't genuinely for him, but for a desire to "stick it to the Democrats".

[Raftergirl]

39. If you spoke out you were deemed a traitor to "the cause." It just wasn't coming from his campaign, it

was happening right here, too.

[PatSeg]

40. Exactly

That is the primary reason I backed off. I'm really pissed now.

It is no wonder so many people don't trust politicians. I know there are a lot of good, decent Democratic politicians, but people like Platner make everyone look suspect.

[boston bean]

31. I think Bernie's endorsement propelled him.

More vetting should have taken place.

[QueerDuck]

35. You're absolutely correct.

The lack of vetting here was a massive failure. It is deeply frustrating that national backers like Sanders stood by Platner even after his past unsettling behavior and problematic online history were exposed by major outlets. At a critical moment like this, it's not the time for political pride and egos to stand in the way of the need to make the best possible and realistic decisions.

Instead of pushing hard for a proper vetting process early on, his high-profile backers doubled down. Relying entirely on populist platform alignment without looking into character was a massive gamble that has now put a must-win Senate seat in serious jeopardy.

[Fil1957]

32. One thing about Platner that has not been mentioned in this thread -- he's a very talented speaker. He also gives good

interviews. If he didn't have those assets, he probably wouldn't have gotten as far as he did. Too bad about his character.

His story should be a cautionary tale for Democratic progressives.

[spooky3]

37. I agree. Nt

[MustLoveBeagles]

46. That is what caused me to brush aside my misgivings

To my everlasting shame.

[QueerDuck]

67. Spot on. Charisma is exactly why rigorous and honest vetting is vital.

I think you make an excellent point that often gets overlooked in the fallout of a campaign collapse. Platner is an incredibly effective communicator, and that specific talent is precisely what allowed him to build early momentum and charm national backers.

Political talent and sharp interviewing skills are powerful assets, but this situation proves they can also act as a smoke screen. When a candidate is highly articulate and looks perfect "on paper" or on camera, it is easy for campaigns and organizations to lower their guard and skip the tedious homework of a deep background check.

This is absolutely a text-book cautionary tale for any Democratic candidate. It proves that no matter how dazzling a candidate's oratorical skills are, they cannot substitute for basic character, transparent history, and institutional vetting.

[Sympthsical]

38. You would've hated Abraham Lincoln

Who quite famously leaned into his rustic prairie laboring ways (the rail-splitter). When speaking in public, he would often embody the country bumpkin persona, only so he could then pivot and use his oratory skills to dazzle. The man was one of the most successful lawyers and political minds in Springfield.

But that's not what the campaign imagery was.

Politicians always lean into "just one of the folks!"

Scranton Joe! Man was in the Senate since he was 30. He was the elite of the elite for 50 years. Still played up his working class background.

People do this shit. It's not new or novel or really of any particular note.

Platner sucks, but trying to draw some "grander lesson" just to exploit the moment to get a "Fuck Progressives!" circle sesh out is tedious.

[QueerDuck]

48. There is a vast difference between standard marketing and material fraud.

Comparing standard political image-crafting to what happened with Platner completely misses the point.

Abraham Lincoln and Joe Biden did not use a working-class persona to conceal a history of white supremacist imagery, misogyny, or anti-gay rhetoric. They did not fabricate a narrative of financial desperation while being actively insulated by generational wealth.

Highlighting a rustic background is standard politics. Fabricating an entire material reality to manipulate voters (while national backers ignore glaring red flags) is a systemic vetting failure.

This isn't about factions or broad-brushing progressives. It is about a specific candidate and their campaign that engaged in profound deception, and the objective reality that our party dodged a massive bullet.

[Sympthsical]

49. Seriously. So many politicians do this.

If this is new to you, well, today you learned.

It's not whether or not things are known. It's whether or not they care - and it's whether or not it gets out and gains traction. Like most politicians don't have seedy things in their background. They all do. They just don't all get play due to connections and influence, particularly with the media.

Can you honestly - honestly - say Platner wasn't vetted? Because from my perch, he was all a large swath of DU and the online chattering classes could talk about for months. A billion other races happening in this country, but some days would read like Platner Underground (and I would argue the past two days of its dominance of discussion serves to illustrate that nicely). Not only was Platner vetted, I was stone cold sick of hearing about the guy by the time the primary rolled around. People knew. It was all out in the air before the election.

Voters still picked him anyway. What does that tell you about what you were selling?

You seem to be arguing that we just didn't discuss him enough.

Oh, we did. Quite enough. To the point I'm not even sure if there were other primaries this year. I think I vaguely recall my own state's. Oh right, California. Where half the party knew about Swalwell and pushed him anyway.

You mean that kind of leadership and vetting? You should explore that one, because that mess was institutional and far more disturbing in just what the people in power were very comfortable with.

But I guess that's not as interesting. For reasons.

[QueerDuck]

51. A simple misunderstanding of terms.

There seems to be a fundamental confusion here between "public discussion" and "systemic political vetting."

"Internet chatter" and "forum debates" are not vetting. Vetting is the formal, institutional process by which campaigns, organizations, and leadership thoroughly investigate a candidate's background before clearing them for a major ticket.

My pointing out the severe failure of that institutional process in this specific race is not an invitation to litigate past California primaries or broad political cynicism. The facts of this specific situation speak entirely for themselves.

I am content to let my original post stand on its own merits.

Goodbye for now. Have a nice day.

[Sympthsical]

55. Swalwell had institutional vetting

The party promoted him anyway. And he'd had a full decade of sex pest stories going for him that was out there lingering in public secret like a Weinstein or Spacey.

No amount of institutional vetting is going to catch an actual rape unless the victim came forward.

She did. And it ended him.

[LeftInTX]

58. I still can't past the Nazi tattoo! And he didn't get rid of it until after it was made public.

I thought that was the end of him.

Swalwell didn't have a tattoo and honestly, I knew nothing about his Swalwell's sex life.
Sex abuse unfortunately is easily covered up.

And then Platner had racist posts on reddit too. Once again, it was something very public.

[Sympthsical]

61. There's so much faux hand-wringing about this

I don't mean about his issues, I mean about, "How did this happen?!"

We know how it happened. The party didn't put up what the voters wanted. Full stop.

But rather than reckon with the obvious - that perhaps party leadership are out of touch with voters and it's time for a change - people are contorting themselves into rationales and overly complicated explanations and deflections.

It's simple. Platner succeeded the same way all populists succeed. People do not feel the party as it currently exists is in touch with their concerns and interests. They will seek out people who do seem in touch. It's third grade political arithmetic, but people who don't want to face the fact the party has big problems are busy throwing trigonometry on the board as a distraction.

The shit doesn't happen in a vacuum. Recruit people voters actually want to support instead of begrudgingly feel like they have to. For a change.

[LeftInTX]

64. His strategist could have dumped him early on. It happens. It wasn't his idea to run.

He was recruited after a strategist saw him protesting in a video.

A strategist saw him protesting in a video and went to his house and asked him to run for US Senate!

It wasn't his idea to run.


The strategist saw all the warning signs early on and could have exited before he started to gain traction, but ignored everything.


Watch at the 8 min mark how he was recruited. He literally told them to "fuck off".

[MorbidButterflyTat]

69. What a fighter!

He told them to fuck off, but then he did it anyway!

This is the guy hyped as a "fighter"?!

[Kaleva]

52. Lincoln was self taught and grew up poor

“ The man was one of the most successful lawyers and political minds in Springfield.“

Quite exceptional for a man who never attended law school and who, by his account, had no more then 12 months of formal schooling as a child.

[Sympthsical]

54. Absolutely

But then it was the 19th Century, where becoming a lawyer was a vastly different process. It was an apprenticeship affair (reading the law).

But my point is, his hick persona was largely put on. He used it exceedingly well, but it wasn't who he was. He first ran for office at 23 and was in the Illinois legislature by the time he was 25. When it came time to maneuver his way into the presidency, the country lawyer from the uncultured West was a bit he used to disarm people. Hell, he married a Todd, which most people believe was at least partially out of political and social calculation. (And for all her complexities, Mary Todd read his ambition very well. She knew who he was.)

He was always a politician.

[Kaleva]

73. It was his performance at the Lincoln Douglass debates that garnered him national fame

He did not come across as a country bumpkin during those debates but as a very intelligent, highly educated man who was a master of the English language.

[Sympthsical]

74. Yes, but we're talking about campaign personas

The reality vs. the image projected by a campaign.

Let's be honest about the 19th Century American electorate - these were people who got excited if you pushed a ball through their town.

It's funny, because when Salmon P. Chase was getting it in his head to challenge Lincoln in '64, he had a campaign biography written called The Ferry Boy And The Financier, trying to parley a brief childhood job into a rustic image to vie with Lincoln's. Everyone in Washginton's response was more or less, "Jesus fucking Christ."

Chase has to be one my favorite "what world do you think you're living in?" politicians.

[Kaleva]

75. Interesting! I've never heard about that

I’ll concede this discussion to you as you clearly have a far greater knowledge about the subject matter than I do!

[karynnj]

43. Actually a lot of that information on his background

was on DU. Part of the difference was that it was not the sole or even primary focus.

As to his campaign, I he word "authentic" was used often, when, in fact as your post might suggest, he may have just been the actor playing the challenger to the establishment scripted by his team.

I also wonder if genuine real people in politics who are more complicated are seen by many as "less authentic" than those following a script.

[mr715]

44. This is the worst dodged bullet since Trump's ear.

[MustLoveBeagles]

47. Agreed

[QueerDuck]

59. Note to self... "do not read anything from mr715 with food in my mouth"

[MorbidButterflyTat]

70. Never gets old!

[Keepthesoulalive]

57. You are correct

Platner appealed to the bro contingent and they can be extremely loud and confrontational. When black folks, women and other groups sounded the alarm they told us to be quiet, the only thing that matters is economics and authenticity. The excused a swastika. They are selfish , misogynistic and have no interest in helping anyone but who they deem worthy. Thank you for the deep dive. I heard that the person who pushed this fraud on us also helped Fetterman.

[MichMan]

60. It wasn't a swastika, it was a SS totenkopf.

[Keepthesoulalive]

63. German or Nazi military history I will not get in the weeds with

It looked like Swastika, so I am going with that. Judging by his history and worldview I think that that designation is appropriate.

[EX500rider]

71. Actually it looked like what it was, a Nazi SS Deaths Head tattoo

As seen on him here:

[SheltieLover]

76. When they show you who they are, believe them.