Double_R wrote:
He'd do much better as a Republican
The overt and blatant hypocrisy around him has always been remarkable, even for the same party who held a supreme court seat open for a year cause you know, election year, only to fill a seat of their own in the final weeks of the next cycle literally after some votes had already been cast.
…and then they put a rapist on the Supreme Court. Trump can politicize anything into something unrecognizable from what was before the Trump era.
I agree with most everything you are saying, but unfortunately, in this post Trump era, it just doesn't apply to the way most voters think anymore, if you can even call it "thinking"
Democrats do have higher standards, that's not disputable, and Planter's scandals wouldn't have mattered one bit if he were a republican, that's not disputable either, but I still find the ease with which democrats and the mainstream media were willing to treat his scandals as disqualifying to be infuriating.
I don’t think they had a choice, Maine is one of nine Senator races that matter, so they will be run on national money and will be scrutinized on a national basis, this race has much more profound implications than just what happens in Maine. The Democratic party couldn’t make him stand down, all they could really do is refuse to support him (which disappears the requisite money). Supporting him or not in Maine will be seen as morally defining the Democratic party nationally.
Democrats couldn’t express disapproval of the corruption, sexual infidelities, and Fascist tendencies of the Republicans while supporting Platner, keeping Platner would be hypocritical and probably have made them lose a lot of votes they currently have because of voter disapproval. I'm afraid Platner would have a terrible effect on Democrats nationally by weakening the appearance of Democratic moral identity. Perception is reality in politics.
I love your term “whataboutism”, it’s one thing to look at Trump’s sexual deviances and say "whatabout Biden, he smelled a woman’s hair", it’s completely different to give them whatabout Platner to work with, that would give their ridiculous whataboutism some real substance. You correctly said Democrat’s higher standards are not disputable, supporting Platner certainly makes it more disputable.
This last rape allegation is in my view the first one I would actually call serious, and even then I think it pales in comparison to most SA allegations.
I think it is the most serious too, but they all weaken the Democrat’s ability to condemn the indiscretions of the opposition. Dems lost Al Frankin because of a funny photograph from before he even got into politics, back when he was a comedian, our standards are clearly much higher, and I’d think supporting Platner would damage the party’s image and harm their chances nationally.
The Nazi tattoo thing was certainly bothersome, but when the candidate unmistakably denounces anything they stood for and are actively fighting back against those very forces, it's pretty ridiculous to dwell on that, especially if you are even a little sympathetic to the president who had galvanized white supremacists nationwide to march into the streets with their Nazi flags.
I think it’s good that he denounced what they stood for too, but is it sincere or is it politically expedient, I’m not sure and I don’t think the undecideds and independents can be sure either. Even if his story is true, I think getting a permanent tattoo without knowing what it represents shows a lack of responsibility that should probably be disqualifying, I don’t think “I’m not a fascist, I’m just an idiot” is a very good response actually. Again, Democrats lose the ability to run against the Republican’s authoritarian tendencies by supporting a candidate with such affiliation, questionable or not.
The rest of the prior allegations are all about him treating his girlfriends poorly. From sexting other women while married to "being rough" by pulling one out of a car forcefully - the victim of which went on to say he never hit her. These are sadly not things that are unusual in relationships, not even close. Are they ideal for a Senate candidate? Of course not. Were they serious political scandals, especially at a time where we re-elected a man with 26 accusers, bragged about grabbing women by the pussy, bragged about barging into the dressing rooms of naked women because he's the owner and can get away with that, was held civilly liable for sexual assault, and oh yeah, has a 34 count felony conviction... No.
You are being rational, which is fine of course, I do it from time to time myself, but unfortunately, it’s not how most people vote anymore, now it’s about emotions, about negatively characterizing the opposition, and about Tribalism rather than reason. I’m working my ass off to pull off another miracle to get Jon Ossoff reelected, Ossoff is squeaky clean and his Republican opponent has lots of scandal baggage, among others, there's ethics issues regarding tax dollars, a rape victim smear, and ties to white nationalists, some very Platnery things. It’s going to be close, and I think the party supporting Platner could just give them enough whataboutism to tip the scale to Mike Collins in Georgia, same with Paxton in Texas. (Here’s a bit of trivia that is very telling: In the last election, in their campaign ads the Republicans used AI to make Jon Ossoff’s nose bigger; to make him look "more Jewish", that’s the kind of thing we are dealing with now.)
But the world treated them like they were, because that's how it always works. Democrats always have to be the adults in the room. Democrats always have to show you they deserve your vote. Trump and the republicans, they get your vote by default. That's how it works.
I’ll never understand that, but I think it has to do with it being about a culture war instead of issues, and about “owning the libs” instead of governing. They will be glad to elect a felon with sexual assault issues and authoritarian tendencies if it triggers Democratic outrage. They aren’t voting for these candidates as much as they are voting against the Democrats, lower standards are a response to Democrats higher standards, racism and LGBTQ hatred is a response to Democratic tolerance. I think even crapping all over the Constitution and denial of our foundational democratic process are accepted because of how much it causes outrage in the opposition. I doubt this is all of it, but I think it’s a lot of it.
My other explanatory theory is that we are trapped in a Fellini movie and shouldn’t even try to understand it rationally. let's just hope we wake up tomorrow morning and we are back in the real world saying, “OMG, that was a very disturbing nightmare”.
Trump showed support of the Knicks and they lost, he showed support of US soccer team and they lost, let's just hope this portends what is going to happen in the Midterms.
