Why Do Democrats Continue to Rally Behind Loser Candidates?

The political process in America has a funny way of producing candidates who look great on paper but fall flat on their face when voters finally get a closer look and realize how unqualified they actually are. The recent Senate campaign of Graham Platner (D-ME) is the latest blunder we were all forced to witness.

The collapse of Graham Platner’s Senate campaign warrants one simple question. How did a candidate with so many warning signs become the Democrat parties’ nomination?

Platner didn’t simply emerge as the nominee overnight. Party leaders, activists, and rich influential supporters embraced him as the candidate they believed had the best chance to defeat Republican Senator Susan Collins. They were attracted by his compelling personal story as a Marine veteran and oyster farmer, his populist message, and his ability to energize progressive voters. After Governor Janet Mills exited the primary, Democratic support piled rapidly behind him.

But throughout his campaign, reports about Platner’s past and disturbing allegations repeatedly surfaced. From a Nazi tattoo, to appalling Reddit posts, to claims of toxic and controlling behavior by former girlfriends, Platner’s disturbing past should have immediately disqualified him. 

Instead of recognizing the obvious and mandating a new candidate, many supporters argued that the Platner’s disgraceful behaviors were distractions or politically motivated attacks. It’s the classic defense Democrats play. Even after several damaging stories, Democratic primary voters overwhelmingly nominated him. It’s mind boggling and hard to understand how anyone can justify supporting a candidate like Platner.

Things took a drastic turn for the worse this week, when a former girlfriend publicly accused Platner of sexual assault. Platner has denied the allegation, but within days he suspended his campaign and acknowledged that his candidacy has become a liability to the Democrat party. That’s certainly an understatement. Democratic leaders immediately began searching for a replacement. Good luck with that.

The major issue here isn’t simply Platner’s repulsive downfall. Its Democrats openly allowing ideology and perceived electability to outweigh careful vetting. No candidate is perfect and we’re all flawed humans, but parties have a responsibility to examine serious concerns before asking voters to entrust someone with high office, especially the United States Senate.

Democrats believed Platner could flip one of the country’s most important Senate seats. Instead, they now find themselves rebuilding a campaign in the middle of an election year while trying to explain and justify why they ignored controversies that eventually became impossible to dismiss.

This situation should be a lesson Democrats learn from, but I doubt they will. Excitement over a candidate should never replace thorough vetting. Winning elections begins with nominating candidates who can withstand the scrutiny that inevitably comes with seeking public office.

If Platner’s campaign outcome has disappointed Democrats, they should ask themselves whether they selected the candidate most likely to win over voters or simply the candidate most likely to satisfy party insiders. 

The answer to that is glaringly obvious.

Chris Thompson’s ([email protected]) column is published weekly on howiecarrshow.com and livefreepressnh.com