Why Graham Platner’s Supporters Don’t Care

By Jim Geraghty

Monday, June 08, 2026

 

In 2012, Republicans were convinced they had nominated the better man in Mitt Romney.

 

Among other vindicated positions, Romney contended, “Russia is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe,” an assertion that Barack Obama dismissed with a scoffing, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” The New York Times editorial board sneered, “His comments display either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics.”

 

But to hear Democrats tell it that year, the Republicans had nominated the devil. A Democratic activist group ran television commercials charging that Romney had given his workers cancer, a glaring lie. Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claimed that Romney had not paid any taxes for ten years. This, too, was a blatant lie; when later confronted about it, Reid smiled and gloated, “Romney didn’t win, did he?” The Obama campaign claimed that Romney had committed a felony and lied on his filings with the Federal Elections Commission; when that accusation proved baseless, Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter responded, “He’s not going to get an apology,” and accused Romney of “whining.” New York Times columnist Gail Collins wrote about Romney telling the story of putting a dog in a crate on the roof of the family station wagon more than 100 times.

 

Every political consultant focuses on winning the race they’re working on this year; few if any contemplate the longer-term ramifications of their actions.

 

Republicans learned a hard lesson that year: that nominating the better man did not mean he would win the election. And if the electorate could be so easily persuaded by false accusations, nominating a more ethical man with a better character didn’t matter much.

 

Heading into the 2016 presidential election, many Republicans concluded that if any person they nominated was going to be painted as the devil, they might as well nominate a man with the reputation of a devil and as ruthless as the devil and get all the advantages of nominating a devil. And the GOP, the country, and the world have been living with the consequences of that decision ever since.

 

In 2024, Democrats were convinced they had nominated — er, had selected for them — the better candidate. They were convinced Kamala Harris was smarter, wiser, and more experienced. What’s more, she was “joy.” She was “brat.” No less a world-renowned moral authority than Taylor Swift had endorsed her. As Democrats often told the country, it was the prosecutor against the felon. In the minds of those on the political left, Trump had long-since morally disqualified himself with his performance in his first term, his refusal to accept his defeat in 2020, his incendiary remarks leading up to the January 6 riot, and the multiple criminal investigations of him.

 

And Kamala Harris not only didn’t win the presidential race, she lost the popular vote and all seven key swing states.

 

It was the Democrats’ turn to learn that nominating the seemingly “better” person meant little — particularly if the country was deeply dissatisfied with the Democratic incumbent, and the better person said “not a thing comes to mind” when asked what she wanted to do differently than the incumbent.

 

This helps explain why today, so many Democrats are dismissing Graham Platner’s Nazi tattoo, his sexting other women, his account on Kik, and allegations of his abusing past girlfriends as mere “minutiae,” not worth a moment’s thought.

 

Keep in mind, the desire to support him despite his baggage and scandals is not merely a Maine phenomenon; it is thoroughly a national phenomenon. Of the nearly $12 million that Platner’s campaign had raised as of the end of March, just $500,000 was from residents of Maine.

 

The updated numbers are likely to show additional national surges; Platner’s campaign said that after the candidate admitted to sexting other women, “Fundraising was 17 percent higher than the previous four-day period, and that small-dollar donations jumped 27 percent compared with the week prior.” His campaign said he raised $200,000 in the 24 hours since the New York Times article alleging physical abuse of his girlfriends, “a quarter of it from first-time donors.”

 

There are people in this world who believed that Platner was not worth financially supporting until they heard about him grabbing a young woman by the shoulders hard enough to leave marks.

 

But Democratic donors are human beings, just like Republicans, and thus perhaps we should not be surprised. Over the past eleven years, the overwhelming majority of the Republican Party has concluded that all the allegations of past wrongdoing by Donald Trump are overblown, false accusations, or immaterial.

 

The cheating on his wife, the six business bankruptcies, the “grab them by the” you-know-what comment, the sneering at John McCain’s experience as a prisoner of war, accepting a plane from the Qataris, the praise for dictators, the ferocious attacks on allies, the threat to militarily annex Greenland, the quoting of Benito Mussolini, the gleeful social media posts after a famous critic got murdered — you name it, the average Trump fan can come up with an excuse for it, or insist it doesn’t really matter.

 

Donald Trump’s life is a moral Chernobyl, and yet there are people — Americans who think of themselves as Christians! — who see him as morally difficult to distinguish from Jesus. I am going to choose to believe that when Pastor Mark Burns and a group of religious leaders dedicated a 22-foot golden statue to President Donald Trump at the Trump National Doral Miami golf club, and then used its creation to sell a meme coin called $PATRIOT, they did so as an elaborate troll. Then again, they did not include a giant golden calf, nor Mooby.

 

From the beginning, some Trump supporters have taken great pleasure in the sense that the president outrages “all the right people.” You see, if you don’t like everything that Trump is doing or that he’s ever done, you must be either a crazy leftie, or some sort of RINO squish and an effete wimp. (Everybody who wants to do the wrong thing can always find a way to convince themselves that it is the necessary thing, and that their willingness to break a moral code, rule, or law is just evidence of their courage and determination.)

 

In the minds of many Democrats today, it is Platner who outrages “all the right people.” If you’re reading this, there’s a good chance the “right people” are you and me, people who think a potential senator shouldn’t have a Nazi tattoo, shouldn’t describe himself as a communist*, shouldn’t physically assault his girlfriends, and shouldn’t be sharing half-naked pictures of himself in a towel on Kik — the app that is a “predator’s paradise.”

 

New York University professor Scott Galloway insisted during a podcast appearance last week, “The obsession with personal purity has become a luxury belief.” When Galloway isn’t shaping young minds at NYU, he’s working at the American Institute for Boys and Men, which aims “to inform policy and public dialogue with non-partisan research so that boys and men from all backgrounds can lead healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.”

 

Say, does anyone think it might be a problem for a guy who wants to help boys and young men “lead healthy, happy, and meaningful lives” to make the public argument that objecting to allegations of abusing partners and having a Nazi tattoo represents a “luxury belief” and “an obsession with personal purity”?

 

Forget Al Franken; somewhere Eric Swalwell must be kicking the cat in frustration. Just weeks ago, Swalwell’s history of predatory womanizing with interns made him unacceptable in California’s gubernatorial race, while elected Democrats in Congress are still lining up and helping with Platner’s fundraising.

 

A few weeks ago, Texas Republicans could have picked the allegedly boring, establishment, scandal-free incumbent John Cornyn to be their nominee, and rest assured that Cornyn would cruise to reelection against James Talarico. Instead, they deliberately chose Ken Paxton, who leaves a trail of slime everywhere he goes — infidelity, mortgage fraud, abuse of office, bribery, frivolous lawsuits — you name it, Paxton’s been credibly accused of it. Lots of Senate candidates say they’re committed to serving the community, but Paxton can boast he’s proven it through his court-ordered 100 hours of community service.

 

At some point, we must start wondering if primary electorates prefer candidates with lots of scandals and sordid histories. From a profile of Platner in NOTUS from April:

 

But far from dooming his campaign, all these controversies seem to have simply played into Platner’s brand as a regular person — someone outside the usual political system. Back in November, Platner supporter Jacob Makoujy, then 27 — whom I spoke to before Platner’s campaign event in Biddeford — told me he appreciated the way the candidate had not dodged questions about the revelations but took accountability. “It feels like I can see my own growth, myself, in him,” Makoujy said. “I’ve gotten older and been like, ‘Wow, that was kind of stupid of me.’”

 

Andy O’Brien, a former Democratic member of the Maine Legislature and the current communications director for the Maine AFL-CIO, heard similar sentiments while canvassing door-to-door for Platner in his personal capacity. “People brought up the tattoo,” he told me. “But only to say, ‘Oh yeah, he got this tattoo. I’ve got stupid tattoos, too.’”

 

Apparently, there’s nothing worse in this world than being squeaky-clean, boring, and “too perfect.” A common lament among men who think of themselves as upstanding and ethical is that “women like bad boys.” So do many electorates.

 

We now have the bases and the leaders of both parties arguing that ethics are for suckers. Good character is a weakness. Past bad decisions are evidence of “authenticity” and “relatability.” There is apparently a widespread belief that it takes a thoroughly shady SOB to get things done.

 

I have found in my life that every time you trust a person with bad character — with no evidence of genuine repentance — to not screw things up this one time . . . they screw it up again. There are people in this world who have good character and middling or limited competence, but much more often, character and competence intertwine. Good character is often a reflection of recognizing the longer-term consequences of our actions; bad character is often tied to impulsivity, self-centeredness, an inability to delay gratification, and an erroneous belief that one is so much smarter than everyone else that you can easily con them and get away with it.

 

But apparently, a lot of voters simply don’t want to learn that lesson.

 

*Under federal law, a member of the Communist Party cannot be admitted to the United States, never mind become a U.S. citizen. Why would we want someone like that in the U.S. Senate?