DSA losing to republican in key senate race

[Elliott]

10 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

 

Yeah, you know why Platner raised that much more than Mills and so far even more than Collins?

DSA

Grassroots, from nyc and calIfornia, lol.

Approximately 78% of Graham Platner's itemized, trackable individual campaign contributions have originated from outside of Maine, according to figures tracked by the Federal Election Commission.

Quote

It's bc he raised a lot through a grassroots/small-dollar style donor base, while Collins’ financial ecosystem is much more tied to major donors, national Republican money, super PACs, and outside spending. That is one of the strongest arguments for Platner’s real political strength. Platner is not raising Mills/Collins-style establishment money and calling it enthusiasm. This is much more evidence of grassroots energy, which fits with the poll showing his supporters are more enthusiastic than Collins’ supporters.

Platner has been called a "communist" and at the same time he has been called "Nazi" which as Graham himself pointed out makes the whole thing a comical contradiction.

He called himself a communist

Edited July 2 by Elliott

[Inliytened1]

Don't worry the president will be a democrat coming up.  Too many shenanagans with Trump. But no Hitler as you fools all presumed. 

Edited July 2 by Inliytened1

[Elliott]

42 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Don't worry the president will be a democrat coming up.  Too many shenanagans with Trump. But no Hitler as you fools all presumed. 

He's only 1 year into a 4 year term, we need to win the midterm, It could get much worse.

[Raze]

13 hours ago, Elliott said:

", 55% of respondents said they approved of the job Mills was doing as governor, up from 48% in February.

Just 14% of those polled viewed Collins favorably, while 57% had an unfavorable opinion. Even among Republicans, Collins’ favorability stands at only 29%."

https://www.pressherald.com/2025/06/27/more-mainers-have-higher-opinion-of-gov-mills-than-sen-collins-poll-finds/

Irrelevant, match up polls still found she was doing worse than Platner.

[Elliott]

45 minutes ago, Raze said:

Irrelevant, .

It's obviously 100% relevant

[Elliott]

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/06/graham-platner-sexual-assault-allegation-00987737

 

Like everyone didn't see this coming, Platner raped a woman. DSA scumbags

 

"Racicot said she tried to separate herself from Platner by telling him she couldn’t be in that room anymore, after which he followed her to her bedroom and had sex with her against her will."

Edited Tuesday at 04:12 AM by Elliott

[Raze]

The allegation is obviously BS. She literally spoke to NYT a few weeks ago and said nothing about this. Now she claims her proof got deleted and the only proof she provided was a message she sent to her friends where she praises Platner but describes him as “consensually careless”, like that’s proof he broke in to her home and raped her.

[Raze]

Even more ridiculous is in her own proof when the friend directly asks if he forces himself on people she complains about his OKcupid profile.

But already all his allies and supporters are dropping him, an example of how hysterical feminist witch hunts are  anathema to any effective movement or institution, and that’s most of the democrat base now.

 

[Elliott]

6 hours ago, Raze said:

The allegation is obviously BS. She literally spoke to NYT a few weeks ago and said nothing about this. Now she claims her proof got deleted and the only proof she provided was a message she sent to her friends where she praises Platner but describes him as “consensually careless”, like that’s proof he broke in to her home and raped her.

I think you have bad judgement for people and confirmation bias, the guy is a dirtbag

 

https://www.wsj.com

Highly cited

Graham Platner's Wife Flagged Sexually Explicit Texts to His Senate ...

May 30, 2026 — The wife of the Maine Democratic Senate candidate last year told the campaign about texts she had found between Platner and other women

 

This bum needs put down

Edited Tuesday at 12:00 PM by Elliott

[Elliott]

6 hours ago, Raze said:

an example of how hysterical feminist witch hunts are  l

 

Its....rape

[Hardkill]

I’m not going to pretend this new Platner situation doesn’t change the race. It obviously does. A serious allegation that he denies, combined with major Democratic figures pulling support, is a major candidate-quality crisis.

But I also don’t think this proves that the original pro-Platner argument was stupid or that Collins was always safe. The argument was that Maine is a blue-leaning state, Collins is vulnerable, and a working-class anti-corruption/economic-populist message could beat her. I still think that lane is real.

What may have changed is whether Platner himself is still a viable messenger for that lane.

There’s a difference between saying “Platner’s message could beat Collins” and saying “Platner can survive any scandal and still beat Collins.” Those are not the same claim. The first claim was based on real political fundamentals: Maine’s Democratic lean, Collins’s vulnerability, anti-billionaire/anti-corruption energy, and Democratic voters wanting fighters instead of safe technocrats.

It’s also becoming more clear to me why this is not really the same as Trump, even though I initially thought that comparison was stronger. Trump survived worse scandals and crimes because the MAGA coalition treats scandal as persecution: “They’re only attacking him because he fights for us.” His voters often folded his corruption, legal problems, and personal misconduct into a broader anti-establishment identity. Trump could lose moderates nationally and still win because he had massive conservative consolidation and a national grievance machine behind him.

Platner does not have that same shield. He is running as a Democrat in Maine, not as the leader of a cult-like national movement. He needs moderates, independents, ticket-splitters, liberal women, progressives, and anti-Collins voters. Democratic coalitions are also much more likely than MAGA coalitions to police their own candidates over sexual misconduct or character scandals. That may be unfair compared to Trump, but it is politically real.

It’s also not really the same as Bill Clinton in 1992. Clinton had character and infidelity scandals before he first won the presidency, but the heavier public record of sexual harassment, assault, or rape allegations mostly came during his presidency, near the end of it, or afterward. In 1992, the public image was more “womanizer/infidelity/character problem” than a fully developed sexual-misconduct crisis before the general election. Platner’s crisis is happening before the general election, after he won the nomination, while the party still has to decide whether to support him, abandon him, or replace him.

Maine makes this especially important. Maine is blue-leaning, but it has a lot of independents and a ticket-splitting tradition. Collins has survived before by winning voters who may dislike the national GOP but still see her as familiar, moderate, or safer. If enough independents decide Platner is too risky, and if enough Democrats/liberals/progressives feel demoralized or morally conflicted and stay home, that could absolutely hand Collins reelection.

So the lesson should not be “economic populism cannot win.” That would be the wrong lesson. The lesson is that a must-win anti-oligarchy campaign cannot depend on a poorly vetted or personally damaged candidate. The message may still be powerful, but the messenger may have become fatally flawed.

So if your point is “Platner had serious risk,” fair enough. But I hope your point isn't “this proves the whole economic-populist theory was wrong,” I don’t buy that. A candidate can collapse without the political lane collapsing. Dunking after a late-breaking scandal is not the same thing as disproving the original electoral theory.

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, Hardkill said:

I’m not going to pretend this new Platner situation doesn’t change the race. It obviously does. A serious allegation that he denies, combined with major Democratic figures pulling support, is a major candidate-quality crisis.

But I also don’t think this proves that the original pro-Platner argument was stupid or that Collins was always safe. The argument was that Maine is a blue-leaning state, Collins is vulnerable, and a working-class anti-corruption/economic-populist message could beat her. I still think that lane is real.

What may have changed is whether Platner himself is still a viable messenger for that lane.

There’s a difference between saying “Platner’s message could beat Collins” and saying “Platner can survive any scandal and still beat Collins.” Those are not the same claim. The first claim was based on real political fundamentals: Maine’s Democratic lean, Collins’s vulnerability, anti-billionaire/anti-corruption energy, and Democratic voters wanting fighters instead of safe technocrats.

It’s also becoming more clear to me why this is not really the same as Trump, even though I initially thought that comparison was stronger. Trump survived worse scandals and crimes because the MAGA coalition treats scandal as persecution: “They’re only attacking him because he fights for us.” His voters often folded his corruption, legal problems, and personal misconduct into a broader anti-establishment identity. Trump could lose moderates nationally and still win because he had massive conservative consolidation and a national grievance machine behind him.

Platner does not have that same shield. He is running as a Democrat in Maine, not as the leader of a cult-like national movement. He needs moderates, independents, ticket-splitters, liberal women, progressives, and anti-Collins voters. Democratic coalitions are also much more likely than MAGA coalitions to police their own candidates over sexual misconduct or character scandals. That may be unfair compared to Trump, but it is politically real.

It’s also not really the same as Bill Clinton in 1992. Clinton had character and infidelity scandals before he first won the presidency, but the heavier public record of sexual harassment, assault, or rape allegations mostly came during his presidency, near the end of it, or afterward. In 1992, the public image was more “womanizer/infidelity/character problem” than a fully developed sexual-misconduct crisis before the general election. Platner’s crisis is happening before the general election, after he won the nomination, while the party still has to decide whether to support him, abandon him, or replace him.

Maine makes this especially important. Maine is blue-leaning, but it has a lot of independents and a ticket-splitting tradition. Collins has survived before by winning voters who may dislike the national GOP but still see her as familiar, moderate, or safer. If enough independents decide Platner is too risky, and if enough Democrats/liberals/progressives feel demoralized or morally conflicted and stay home, that could absolutely hand Collins reelection.

So the lesson should not be “economic populism cannot win.” That would be the wrong lesson. The lesson is that a must-win anti-oligarchy campaign cannot depend on a poorly vetted or personally damaged candidate. The message may still be powerful, but the messenger may have become fatally flawed.

So if your point is “Platner had serious risk,” fair enough. But I hope your point isn't “this proves the whole economic-populist theory was wrong,” I don’t buy that. A candidate can collapse without the political lane collapsing. Dunking after a late-breaking scandal is not the same thing as disproving the original electoral theory.

I agree. Economic populism is popular, but DSA messengers don't understand how to sell it to anyone outside disaffected college grads, in general. Trump ran on it...

[Raze]

52 minutes ago, Elliott said:

I agree. Economic populism is popular, but DSA messengers don't understand how to sell it to anyone outside disaffected college grads, in general. Trump ran on it...

For the last time, he isn’t in the DSA, and btw polls show the DSA endorsed candidate who people are saying should replace him does the best in polls against Collins.

[Elliott]

6 minutes ago, Raze said:

For the last time, he isn’t in the DSA, and btw polls show the DSA endorsed candidate who people are saying should replace him does the best in polls against Collins.

He entered the race today and already leading the polls!

[Hardkill]

3 hours ago, Elliott said:

He entered the race today and already leading the polls!

Ok, so then who do you think can inspire economic populism like TR or FDR could?

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, Hardkill said:

Ok, so then who do you think can inspire economic populism like TR or FDR could?

I don't know of anyone. I don't think it's necessary though, that would require them to be an independent and it would be a huge task to get a fringe of both sides of the aisle to coalesce on what is still a minor issue when they disagree on how to attack the issue and then disagree on almost every other issue.

Economic populism is popular with disaffected college grads, and middle aged low income people ('blue collar'), they have nothing else in common and it's not a strong enough issue to bind them.

[Hardkill]

15 hours ago, Elliott said:

I don't know of anyone. I don't think it's necessary though, that would require them to be an independent and it would be a huge task to get a fringe of both sides of the aisle to coalesce on what is still a minor issue when they disagree on how to attack the issue and then disagree on almost every other issue.

Economic populism is popular with disaffected college grads, and middle aged low income people ('blue collar'), they have nothing else in common and it's not a strong enough issue to bind them.

Have you thoroughly studied history?

Economic populism has always been popular during times when enough people in a country feel fucked over by extreme economic inequality and economic injustice.

This is not the beginning of the rise of neoliberalism like in the late 1970s, Reaganomics in the 1980s, the maintenance of Reaganomics during the H. W. Bush era, Third Way Clintonomics in the 1990s — which essentially consolidated Reaganomics in a New Democrat way — or Bush-era Reagan-style economics. Modern conservative economics no longer works, and quite frankly, it never really did in the long run.

We are no longer even in an era where the country wanted to try liberal economics for the first time in a very long time, as it did during the Obama era. Obama himself, along with many of the people who supported him back then, wanted to make liberal economics work by cooperating with Republicans in the spirit of bipartisanship. But Republicans in Congress became unprecedented obstructionists against Obama, his party, and his economic agenda.

Obama did many good, if not great, things in economic policy. On net, he became the first truly liberal Democratic president in policy since LBJ in the 1960s. He helped save the economy from the worst crisis and recession since the Great Depression, left the economy strong in many major ways, helped bail out the auto industry, and worked with Democrats in Congress to enact the most significant and successful health care reform since Medicare and Medicaid under LBJ. He also enacted major financial regulation, significantly reduced unjust sentencing for racial minorities, helped advance fair pay for women, pushed for and signed into law the first major federal regulation of how tobacco is made, marketed, and sold, reversed the direction of the annual deficit, broadly reversed the overall war-spending trajectory from Bush’s expansionary war years, and so on.

However, all of that still was not enough. Too many people were still left behind economically by the end of his presidency, especially too many working-class people, poor people, rural people, and Black and brown people. That is one major reason Trump was able to take advantage of discontent with the system through his charismatic demagoguery, including his promise to make the economy dramatically better by bringing the country back to the supposed “good old days” of white Christian America: “Make America Great Again.” Of course, his version of that was never going to work in the end because of how stupid, incompetent, and psychopathic he has always been, along with how exclusionary and outdated his right-wing economic populism is, especially in this day and age.

Biden, believe it or not, came the closest to enacting the kind of economic populism our country desperately needs, even though during his 2020 presidential run, he coded as an old moderate and pro-establishment politician who wanted to restore normalcy. Why do you think that during his presidency, he kept talking about the rising problem of corporate greed and the growing need for labor unions more than any president since FDR or Truman in the 1940s?

And he did not just talk about it. Biden, his administration, and Democrats in Congress did more to enact economic populist policies for the working class than at any point since LBJ in the 1960s, and they enacted more pro-union policies than any presidency since FDR or Truman in the 1940s.

And yet, Biden and his party still did not do enough. Trump won again in 2024 in large part because too many people in the country still felt that the economy was not fair or affordable enough for the little guy. Of course, Trump has betrayed the people once again and has run the economy with even greater idiocy than ever before, which anyone with enough brain cells and good-quality information in their head knew was going to happen.

But the underlying point remains: economic populism, particularly liberal and progressive economic populism, must be employed by Democrats in the tradition of TR, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ. Otherwise, our democracy and all of our freedoms could very well vanish before we know it.

And by the way, national polls have shown that a clear majority of Democratic voters view socialism more favorably than capitalism, while many Republican voters now say they prefer a strongman or right-wing authoritarian figure like Trump to rule the country, including “their leader” dominating the economy in a soft, modern version of fascistic economic nationalism: private capitalism plus strongman state direction.

In fact, one major reason TR, Wilson, and especially FDR enacted their revolutionary economic programs was not just to make the economy more free and fair for everyone. It was to save capitalism, save democracy, and save our other American rights.

Now, one major reason greater economic populism has still been so hard to enact in contemporary times is that we no longer have the same level of trust in government or social trust that we had in the mid-1900s.

However, once things get bad enough in this country, people will have no choice but to desperately demand that the government enact historic economic populist reforms — and we are already starting to see that happen now.

Otherwise, there has to be a mass movement powerful enough to pressure both the public and political elites to support those reforms. That has been slowly but steadily happening in this country since the 2010s.

Even establishment and moderate Democratic politicians and strategists are starting to understand this, although many of them still have not fully internalized it yet. And if they do not, many of these establishment and moderate Democrats will lose their careers to democratic socialist or more left-wing challengers — which is already happening as we speak.

[Elliott]

2 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Have you thoroughly studied history?

Economic populism has always been popular during times when enough people in a country feel fucked over by extreme economic inequality and economic injustice.

This is not the beginning of the rise of neoliberalism like in the late 1970s, Reaganomics in the 1980s, the maintenance of Reaganomics during the H. W. Bush era, Third Way Clintonomics in the 1990s — which essentially consolidated Reaganomics in a New Democrat way — or Bush-era Reagan-style economics. Modern conservative economics no longer works, and quite frankly, it never really did in the long run.

We are no longer even in an era where the country wanted to try liberal economics for the first time in a very long time, as it did during the Obama era. Obama himself, along with many of the people who supported him back then, wanted to make liberal economics work by cooperating with Republicans in the spirit of bipartisanship. But Republicans in Congress became unprecedented obstructionists against Obama, his party, and his economic agenda.

Obama did many good, if not great, things in economic policy. On net, he became the first truly liberal Democratic president in policy since LBJ in the 1960s. He helped save the economy from the worst crisis and recession since the Great Depression, left the economy strong in many major ways, helped bail out the auto industry, and worked with Democrats in Congress to enact the most significant and successful health care reform since Medicare and Medicaid under LBJ. He also enacted major financial regulation, significantly reduced unjust sentencing for racial minorities, helped advance fair pay for women, pushed for and signed into law the first major federal regulation of how tobacco is made, marketed, and sold, reversed the direction of the annual deficit, broadly reversed the overall war-spending trajectory from Bush’s expansionary war years, and so on.

However, all of that still was not enough. Too many people were still left behind economically by the end of his presidency, especially too many working-class people, poor people, rural people, and Black and brown people. That is one major reason Trump was able to take advantage of discontent with the system through his charismatic demagoguery, including his promise to make the economy dramatically better by bringing the country back to the supposed “good old days” of white Christian America: “Make America Great Again.” Of course, his version of that was never going to work in the end because of how stupid, incompetent, and psychopathic he has always been, along with how exclusionary and outdated his right-wing economic populism is, especially in this day and age.

Biden, believe it or not, came the closest to enacting the kind of economic populism our country desperately needs, even though during his 2020 presidential run, he coded as an old moderate and pro-establishment politician who wanted to restore normalcy. Why do you think that during his presidency, he kept talking about the rising problem of corporate greed and the growing need for labor unions more than any president since FDR or Truman in the 1940s?

And he did not just talk about it. Biden, his administration, and Democrats in Congress did more to enact economic populist policies for the working class than at any point since LBJ in the 1960s, and they enacted more pro-union policies than any presidency since FDR or Truman in the 1940s.

And yet, Biden and his party still did not do enough. Trump won again in 2024 in large part because too many people in the country still felt that the economy was not fair or affordable enough for the little guy. Of course, Trump has betrayed the people once again and has run the economy with even greater idiocy than ever before, which anyone with enough brain cells and good-quality information in their head knew was going to happen.

But the underlying point remains: economic populism, particularly liberal and progressive economic populism, must be employed by Democrats in the tradition of TR, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ. Otherwise, our democracy and all of our freedoms could very well vanish before we know it.

And by the way, national polls have shown that a clear majority of Democratic voters view socialism more favorably than capitalism, while many Republican voters now say they prefer a strongman or right-wing authoritarian figure like Trump to rule the country, including “their leader” dominating the economy in a soft, modern version of fascistic economic nationalism: private capitalism plus strongman state direction.

In fact, one major reason TR, Wilson, and especially FDR enacted their revolutionary economic programs was not just to make the economy more free and fair for everyone. It was to save capitalism, save democracy, and save our other American rights.

Now, one major reason greater economic populism has still been so hard to enact in contemporary times is that we no longer have the same level of trust in government or social trust that we had in the mid-1900s.

However, once things get bad enough in this country, people will have no choice but to desperately demand that the government enact historic economic populist reforms — and we are already starting to see that happen now.

Otherwise, there has to be a mass movement powerful enough to pressure both the public and political elites to support those reforms. That has been slowly but steadily happening in this country since the 2010s.

Even establishment and moderate Democratic politicians and strategists are starting to understand this, although many of them still have not fully internalized it yet. And if they do not, many of these establishment and moderate Democrats will lose their careers to democratic socialist or more left-wing challengers — which is already happening as we speak.

I think those are very good points and post. But people were starving to death in the 30s, today they're just upset that BigMacs have gone up.

(I'm downplaying a lot of personal economic problems, no need to hash housing or anything like that( thats what hits disaffected grads))

Bidens 'economic populism' is of course quite central to democrats, always has been, I said DSA has the messaging issue, I agree with bidens type of messaging being the winning strategy, i don't agree that bidens messaging is 'economic populism' though, certainly not the way DSAs is. I consider populism to be 'us versus them', Biden’s messaging is that it's best for everyone including hedge funds.

[kguirnela]

Platner is out

 

https://www.threads.com/@meidastouch/post/DajUnCSGYuJ

[Elliott]

This is a victory, he was Bernieng garbage

 

You have to remember who the type of people that like power are, when you see inconsistencies there's usually something structurally wrong.

Edited Thursday at 02:20 AM by Elliott