Democrats are grappling with ongoing controversies surrounding Maine U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner. Their continued support raises questions about the extent they are willing to overlook his past actions and statements.
Reports have surfaced that Platner has a tattoo associated with Nazi imagery. In 2013, he reportedly made comments in online forums suggesting rape victims should be responsible for their plight. In 2020, Platner described rural Americans as “stupid” and “racist.” Additionally, in 2019, he criticized U.S. Army Pfc. Ted Daniels, who was wounded in Afghanistan, expressing support for the Taliban. Platner later reflected, stating, “I’m proud that I got through a dark period in my life, and I’m proud of the life that I live now.” This leads to questions about when this “dark” period truly ended.
Recent revelations add to the controversy. A few days ago, Platner’s wife informed campaign staff that he had sent explicit messages to several women using the messaging app Kik, continuing this behavior as recently as last year. The question arises: is this also part of his dark period?
The New York Times conducted an extensive investigation into Platner’s past, revealing more concerning aspects of his personality. Several women were interviewed, including Lyndsey Fifield, who dated Platner from 2013 to 2015. Fifield’s political background, described as a Virginia conservative involved with right-leaning groups, should not dismiss her claims. Her statements challenge Platner’s narrative regarding his tattoo, revealing that his military unit deliberately chose its Nazi origins.
“They literally, deliberately, selected it because it was relevant to their military unit,” Fifield stated.
This contradicts Platner’s assertion since October 2021, when he claimed he selected the tattoo during leave, removing it later that month. Fifield claims to have known about its origins before he did, indicating Platner was aware all along. Yet, Democrats continue to support him.
Fifield further alleged misconduct by Platner during their relationship. Although she refrained from claiming he hit her, she described incidents where he handled her roughly, leaving marks. On one occasion, following an argument, Platner forcibly removed her from a cab and later prevented her from leaving a room. She recounted falling asleep and leaving the next morning. The New York Times referred to these incidents as “unsettling behavior,” which could be classified as abuse in other contexts.
Responding to these claims, Platner admitted to self-medicating with alcohol and acknowledged his imperfections during what he termed a “very dark period” in his life.
Before the New York Times report, Platner met with Democratic senators, assuring them no further negative stories existed. However, the Wall Street Journal noted that Sen. Elizabeth Warren queried specifically about allegations of sexual assault, to which Platner responded there were no “credible” allegations. This response suggests awareness of potential undisclosed allegations.
It is early June, and numerous allegations about Platner have surfaced. With the primary yet to occur, questions loom about how much more Democrats will tolerate in their attempt to unseat Republican Susan Collins. Can they trust no additional stories will emerge after the assurances they received? It remains to be seen if they will continue backing a candidate with such a controversial history.