Pratt Falls

We wouldn't quite say "it's official," because not all the votes have been tallied yet. However, every outlet that projects election outcomes has decreed that Nithya Raman (I, but really D) has won the right to attempt to unseat Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (I, but really D) in November. That means that Spencer Pratt (I, but really R) and the Republican Party in general are out of luck.

Here are the numbers as of 11:30 p.m. PT last night:

Candidate	Votes	Pct.
Karen Bass	275,992	34.3%
Nithya Raman	229,576	28.5%
Spencer Pratt	207,757	25.8%

It's estimated that 92.4% of votes are counted, and that only 66,000 or so remain. Pratt would need to claim about 67% of those to overtake Raman. Given that he's actually been getting a shade less than 20% of the votes as the mail-in ballots are counted... well, you can see why every outlet has now called the race.

The next phase of the election is certainly going to be interesting. Bass is obviously the moderate, establishment candidate and Raman is the progressive, outsider candidate. The election will be decided by two things: (1) How many non-progressive voters prioritize "change" and/or "throw the bums out" over all else and (2) How many independent/right-leaning voters cannot abide by either choice, and leave that line on their ballots blank. There has been one Bass vs. Raman poll so far, and it has Raman at 32%, Bass at 28%, Undecided at 15%, and 25% of respondents saying "Neither." That really doesn't tell us much.

The national news here, meanwhile, is that Donald Trump has been once again using the results in California as basis for claims that Democrats cook the books. He went on a conspiratorial jag this weekend, starting with this message, and continuing for at least four or five more such messages:

The Dumocrats are at it again! They are trying to STEAL THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA PRIMARY, AND THE MAYOR OF LOS ANGELES, PRIMARY, AWAY FROM TWO GREAT REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES. Here we go with the very late and massive numbers of MAIL IN BALLOTS

Is he just a sore loser who cannot handle defeat, even when that defeat is entirely predictable? Or is this part of a nefarious plot to undermine faith in the midterm elections? Or is this part of an even more nefarious plot to undermine faith in democracy and to argue that the nation would be better off with King Donald I? Truth be told, it's probably all of the above.

There is absolutely nothing going on in California that is suspicious. Because of the state's large population and liberal voting rules, it always takes this long to have something close to final results. And there is always a "blue shift," because young voters, and Democratic voters, who are often one and the same, are more comfortable voting by mail than older voters/Republican voters. Trump is partly responsible for this, due to his constant badmouthing of voting by mail (despite the fact that he regularly avails himself of that option).

Meanwhile, let us give you a non-exhaustive list of six reasons that the "election fraud" claims don't stand up to scrutiny:

1. No Evidence: This might be the most important entry on this list, as it really stands on its own without requiring any additional entries. In short, if there is fraud, where is the proof? Even the MyPillow guy managed to come up with something, though his numbers fell apart on closer analysis. Trump has absolutely nothing, other than his "gut feel."
   
   The vacuousness of the GOP's fraud claims are indicated by Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-LA) remarks to reporters yesterday. CNN's Manu Raju said to Johnson: "Speaking of fraud, the president keeps saying that there's election fraud in the California mayor's race. What evidence is there to prove that?" And Johnson replied:

   You tell me, Manu. They are counting votes weeks after the election. We have entire nations with huge populations, like India, that can count their votes in 24 to 48 hours... I'm saying it stinks to high heaven, and everybody knows that. Let's—let's—let's remove the appearance of impropriety. Let's have—what, what a concept—let's have votes on an election the day of the election. That's what many states are able to do. I think California is playing around with us.

   Raju then asked: "But what evidence is there to prove that the election was rigged?" Johnson replied:

   Some of these efforts are so diabolical and so far upstream, it is impossible to prove. But I think everybody knows instinctively something is wrong here, and that's a concern. We need people to believe in the integrity of our election system. It is critical to maintain a constitutional republic. We're going to keep working to pass the Save America Act because it requires, as you know, proof of citizenship and a photo ID to vote. Those are also 90-percent-plus issues in public opinion, and 70 percent of Democrats understand that's necessary.

   Raju continued to hold Johnson's feet to the fire, wondering (quite reasonably) if this is just sour grapes whenever Republicans lose elections. At that point, the Speaker did his best Trump impression and stormed off because a reporter's question hurt his fee-fees.
   
   First of all, Johnson's "facts" are either wrong or dishonest (readers can decide for themselves). India famously takes about 6 weeks to conduct a general election, not 24-48 hours. This is because that nation faces a similar (but more extensive) challenge as California: making sure a very large number of people have every opportunity to vote. And perhaps Johnson has not read the Constitution recently (or at all), as states are absolutely entitled to run elections as they see fit. That is why there is much padding built in between "primary election," "general election" and "oath of office." (Note: He is correct that polls suggest that 70% of Democrats, and 90% of Americans, support voter ID laws, at least in a vacuum. The numbers go down once respondents are asked about complications, like "Are you OK with people not being allowed to vote if they cannot afford to get an ID?")
   
   More importantly, note that Johnson cannot offer a shred of proof. In fact, he asserts that proof is not possible, because the efforts are "so diabolical" and "so far upstream." Now, isn't that convenient? In other words, "We don't have to offer proof because that's not actually possible!" Truth be told, "upstream" (i.e., one focal point as opposed to many, diffuse focal points) should be easier to uncover, not harder. And as to "so diabolical," isn't that a tacit admission that he thinks Democrats are cleverer than Republicans?
   
   By the way, Johnson has developed such a reputation for being Trump's obedient lapdog that even Trump has started making jokes about it. And everyone on the Hill agrees that when it's time for a tough vote, it's Trump who whips the members into line, not Johnson.
   
   
2. Upstream, Downstream: Speaking of Johnson's claims, the offices that the Republicans think are being "stolen" are the governorship and the mayoralty of Los Angeles. However, the governor tallies are compiled and released "upstream" (i.e., by the state Secretary of State). The mayoral tallies, by contrast, are compiled and released "downstream" (i.e., by the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk). So, Johnson's characterization could not possibly be correct.
   
   Further, the "conspiracy" would require the involvement of key officials in Los Angeles AND in Sacramento. While that is possible in theory, the broader a conspiracy gets, the harder it is to pull off, and the less likely it is to remain hidden.
   
   
3. Raman Is NOT What the Democratic Establishment Wants: Anyone who thinks that the Democratic pooh-bahs wanted Bass vs. Raman has not been paying attention.
   
   The first problem is that Bass is as establishment as it gets. The establishment tends to like establishment candidates, not only because "they are one of us," but also because establishment candidates tend to fly below the radar and to avoid saying things that can become fodder for the media, especially the right-wing media.
   
   The second problem is that the two favorite whipping-people of Fox, et al., are Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D-New York City). AOC is hated because she's lefty, brown and a woman. Mamdani is hated because he is lefty, brown and a follower of a religion that is not Christianity. Well, Raman is lefty, brown, a woman AND a follower of a religion that is not Christianity. She's the superfecta, as far as right-wingers are concerned, and they will do everything possible to make her the face of the Democratic Party heading into the midterms.
   
   
4. Timeline: This is a simple one. If Democrats in California were planning to manipulate the results, why would they deploy a pattern that Trump recognizes as "fraud"? In other words, why not have Nithya Raman lead wire-to-wire, as opposed to coming from behind? For that matter, why not have Karen Bass at 50.01%, thus avoiding the need for a runoff?
   
   
5. Selectivity: It is not a secret that California Democrats, from Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) on down, want as much of the pie as is humanly possible—hence the hasty and successful initiative to redraw the state's House districts. This leads to two very good questions, questions that Trump, et al., certainly have no answer to.
   
   First, if there was potential "upstream" to manipulate results, why wouldn't the Democrats cook the books in House races where it's close or where the Republicans have an edge? For example CA-22 is somewhere in the range of EVEN (post-ballot-proposition PVIs haven't been calculated by Cook yet), and has an incumbent Republican in David Valadao. CA-48 is also somewhere in the range of EVEN, and has one strong Republican in San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond, along with several strong Democrats. The blue team's optimal outcome in both districts would be Democrat vs. Democrat. And yet, in both districts, the hard-to-beat Republican easily outpaced the second-place Democrat, leaving the third-place Democrat on the outside looking in.
   
   Second is the mirror image of that question. If Democrats do have the ability to cook the California books, why would they only use that in races the party is going to win anyhow? Whether Steve Hilton (R) makes it to the runoff or not, he's not going to win. Whether Spencer Pratt (R) had made it to the runoff or not, he wasn't going to win.
   
   
6. Words vs. Actions: Let us imagine that Trump really was concerned about voting fraud, if not because he cares about democracy, then because he cares about Republican electoral prospects. If so, how come Trump shut down his blue-ribbon panel on "Election Integrity" before it could issue its final report? And how come, per NOTUS:

   [F]ive months out from the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress, [Trump's] Justice Department has canceled election-integrity training sessions for prosecutors and FBI agents, deleted a 281-page guide to prosecuting election offenses, fired most of the lawyers in its Public Integrity Section and failed to replace the director of its Election Crimes Branch.
   
   Moreover, the DOJ has not taken the usual steps to establish a "command center" to monitor and address the typical emergencies that pop up around Election Day...

   A cynic might conclude that Trump wants to whine and moan about nonexistent election meddling by Democrats, while at the same time leaving the door open to election meddling by Republicans.

Sorry to go on at such length, but sometimes there is value in showing our work, and demonstrating that our conclusions about election integrity are based on evidence and fact, and not what our gut and our spleen and our trick knee tell us.

As tales of certain young men who issued a few too many alarms about certain lupine creatures remind us, there is such a thing as going to the well too often. We don't think Donald Trump did himself any favors by throwing a hissy-fit and storming off when NBC News' Kristen Welker presumed to ask him for proof of his claims this weekend. Clips of that temper tantrum were all over the place yesterday. So were supercuts, like the one here, of Trump's many and varied and evidence-free claims of election fraud over the years.

So, the efficacy here may be fading quickly, at about the same pace that Trump's approval ratings are fading. And the net effect of his bellyaching might primarily be to warn anyone and everyone that he's hoping to pull off some shenanigans, and that state and local election officials will need to be very, very well prepared to counter them. (Z)

UFC White House Event Well on Its Way to Being Another Boondoggle

Donald Trump did indeed attend last night's New York Knicks-San Antonio Spurs game, hoping to improve his political standing by being seen as a "man of the people." That was a long shot, even under the best of circumstances. And we don't think the gamble paid off. Some of the reasons why:

1. Wait times to get into the game, given the extensive security precautions, sometimes exceeded 3 hours.
   
   
2. The streets around Madison Square Garden were shut down, wrecking traffic patterns in the vicinity.
   
   
3. The viewing party scheduled for the area outside of Madison Square Garden, which would have allowed fans who cannot afford $5,000/ticket to be a part of the fun, was canceled. Fans were redirected to the Central Park viewing party, but the remaining slots for that one were limited and were soon snapped up.
   
   
4. Trump did indeed try to hide himself by sitting in James Dolan's owners' box. It did not work; when they showed the President on the big screen during the National Anthem he was booed very loudly:
   
   
   
   
5. At the viewing party in Central Park the booing was even louder. There may also have been certain other expressions of the fans'... pique visible.
   
   
6. Trump fell asleep during the game, making it seem like he wasn't terribly interested in what was happening on court.
   
   
7. The Knicks lost for the first time in 14 games and 46 days, leading some sizable number of fans to blame Trump for jinxing the team. This is not rational but, last we checked, the Constitution contains no requirement that voters be rational.
   
   
8. The social media mockery has already begun. For example, there was a tweet circulating widely last night that included the footage of Trump being booed, and added the observation that Knicks fans don't like him because "He's been rooting for the Spurs since Vietnam." Ouch.

Again, we don't think that showing up for a basketball game where you're going to be a huge distraction could ever work out well for a president. Certainly, it does not seem to have worked out this time.

Assuming Trump is clever enough to take a pass on any more NBA Finals games, his next attempt at sportswashing, and his next likely disaster, is right around the corner (probably). We speak, of course, of the UFC fight scheduled for the front lawn of the White House this Sunday, which is Flag Day and is also Trump's 80th birthday. This is a very obvious attempt to get young men interested in the Trump administration again, after poll after poll has shown them drifting away. Let's run down half a dozen bad signs for the administration:

1. Lightning, Bugs: The structure that has been built for the event is a godawaful eyesore (see below for a picture). If there was rain on Sunday, which is hardly unknown for Washington in summer, then lightning would have been a major problem, at risk of electrocuting either fighters or audience members. Instead, the weather is projected to be 92 degrees and very humid—not too pleasant for either the fighters or the crowd. Oh, and people who know Washington say that there is going to be a different type of rain: bugs will be out in force, will fly into the lights, and people will end up with bug parts in their hair, on their clothes, etc.
   
   
2. Pretty Gay: If there's one thing that Trump tries to sell to young men, it's "macho." Quite a few folks, among them the staff at The Advocate, have pointed out that if you have sweaty, half-naked men grabbing at each other right in the middle of Pride Month... well, that's a lot of gay subtext. There is also a campaign—we'll see what comes of it—for gay men to buy up all the seats in the audience, and to show up rocking their rainbow gear.
   
   
3. Lawsuit: A consortium of activist groups filed a lawsuit over the weekend, arguing that the event is illegal. When we first heard about this suit, we thought it was a long shot, since presidents are undoubtedly allowed to organize banquets, egg rolls and other entertainments on the White House lawn. And it may still be a long shot, because time is running short. However, the argument is actually pretty sound. The suit asserts (correctly) that the event is not being organized by the administration, but by a private concern, namely Freedom 250. More importantly, the suit points out (again correctly), that Trump bought stock in UFC's parent company shortly before announcing the event, and that he is using the fight to help sell $1 million/plate tickets to a fundraiser on Saturday night.
   
   
4. Unrealistic Expectations: UFC CEO and promoter, and friend-of-Trump Dana White declared over the weekend that the event would do "Super Bowl numbers." Even a below-average Super Bowl, these days, pulls in 120+ million viewers. Heck, even the very first Super Bowl, when the game did not even have that name, drew 51+ million. By contrast, UFC's record for viewership for any event is 8.8 million. Oh, and the fight will be streamed on Paramount+, which has fewer than 90 million subscribers.
   
   
5. Joe Rogan: If anyone is a spokesperson for the "bros" that Trump is trying to reach with this event, it's podcaster Joe Rogan. Rogan is not only a UFC fan, he works for the promotion as a commentator. And he says he does not like the event, in part because it's "gimmicky" and in part because he thinks outdoor fights are of poor quality.
   
   
6. The Cool Kids: Just as the artists that people might actually want to see have no interest in the Freedom 250 Concert(s), the celebrities that might give the UFC event some reflected glory have no interest in attending. Reportedly, actor and comedian Adam Sandler, filmmaker Guy Ritchie, former NFL star Tom Brady, Oscar winner Jared Leto, actor Jason Statham, actor and former wrestler Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, director Jon Favreau and TV host Mario Lopez have all declined invites. When you get to Mario Lopez in your Rolodex, and even he says "no," you know you've got trouble.

Again, we're not seeing many good omens here. What we do foresee is fertile ground for another wave of Trump-mocking memes. Indeed, in support of that guess, we're going to let Hillary Clinton have the last word here:

That take is even more scorching hot than it's going to be at the White House on Sunday. (Z)

Oh, Graham!, Part I: General Thoughts

We received something like 50,000 words of reader comments on would-be U.S. Senator from Maine Graham Platner (D). Because this could well be the Senate race that determines control of the upper chamber, and because our readership is probably a pretty good reflection of the Democratic base, we're going to run three sets—some of them today, some tomorrow, and a final set on Friday. We will admit that, by and large, the general tone and tenor was not at all what we expected.

We will begin with a lengthy commentary from one of our most popular correspondents, and follow that with a few more general assessments:

• D.E. in Lancaster, PA: Yeah, I have some additional thoughts about the Graham Platner situation. Let me first get out of the way that I have watched a lot of Platner's videos and I like what he has to say a lot. If he was running for office in Pennsylvania, I would probably vote for him. With that said, the accusations have caused me to do some minor thought-wrestling. Actually, the accusations that I tussle with the most is none of the stuff that gets the media attention—it's the suggestion that he is just another Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), but this time on an oyster boat. They say, "once bitten, twice shy" but that doesn't mean you give up. With all that said up front, there are some areas about this latest accusation that I find concerning.
  
  First, I think a lot more could be added to the description of Lyndsey Fifield than just "she worked for Nikki Haley's campaign and the Heritage Foundation." During the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh to be a Supreme Court justice, and therefore after the incidents that took place when she was dating Platner, Fifield co-founded a group called "Ladies for Kavanaugh." Fifield said this about why she co-founded the group, "But in the wake of the baseless, 11th hour accusations (by Christine Blasey Ford) orchestrated to stop Kavanaugh's confirmation, we couldn't stay silent anymore." Ford's accusation against Kavanaugh was that a very intoxicated Kavanaugh and a friend pushed her into a locked room, held her down, Kavanaugh used his hand to cover her mouth while he groped her and tried to take off her clothes. Fifield's accusation against Platner is that a very intoxicated Platner grabbed her by the wrist and then locked her in a room and wouldn't let her out.
  
  I know we all process trauma differently. For me, I hate the smell of cut grass, and I know why. When I was 8, I was helping my father mow the grass and shortly after we entered the house to cool off, he flew into a rage and slammed my head in the oven door. If someone had accused Platner of that, there is no way I could form a group called "Kids for Platner" and declare the accuser was lying. Additionally, Platner has been in the news probably the most of any Senate candidate this cycle, yet Fifield did what she accused Ford of doing, waiting until the 11th hour to make her claims. I want to give her the benefit of the doubt, but all that just seems so very suspect. Additionally, Fifield, in trying to strengthen her case, is saying that calling her a Republican operative is misleading because she sometimes votes for Democrats for local offices. Now there, I know she's flat out lying because you are not involved in a Republican presidential campaign and working at the Heritage Foundation and then secretly voting Democrat on the sly. I would give more credence to her claims if she had just fessed up to being a Republican and voting that way. But like most Republicans, she has to be too cute by half. Another tendency of Republicans is to base your accusations on the thing you are yourself most guilty of because you know the fools, meaning us voters, don't remember squat.
  
  The other observation I would like to make is that there is definitely a double—no, really a triple—standard at work here. Consider that of the two Democratic candidates that have a good chance of unseating Republican Senators, both are being attacked from basically the same position, just different angles. In Maine, we have Platner, who the Republicans are doing their best to portray as a savage beast, lecherous, cruel "Man." In other words, he's the ultimate in everything that is bad about a male. On the other hand, in Texas we have James Talarico, who they are desperate to portray as weak, effeminate, a freak who doesn't eat meat and such a non-man that he just might be transgendered. He's everything that makes a "real man" cringe in disgust.
  
  Both of these caricatures are ridiculous. When I look at those two cases juxtaposed, I can really see why so many young men are frustrated, because it seems to them no matter what they do they're either being accused of being a brute or they're not manly enough. For a party that has Donald Trump, Ken Paxton and Pete Hegseth—among many other sterling examples of how not to behave—as party leaders, they should not be lecturing the country on what it means to be a man. While I refuse to let Trump become the new measuring stick of acceptable behavior, at the same time, I realize that the Republicans are trying to play the Democrats like a fiddle appealing to our "wokeness" that we will be pressured and shamed into abandoning Platner. While at the same time appealing to their base's reflexive "anti-wokeness" by painting Talarico as what the Democrats will make the "manly men" of Texas become if "he" should gain power. While at the same time holding corrupt, violent, misogynists with criminal backgrounds, adjudicated rapists and possible pedophiles as their heroes, leaders and God-Emperors. Funny how both of these attacks happened against two of the strongest Senate candidates since Barack Obama and two candidates who seem to want to lead us into a new era, one the Republicans most definitely do not want to see. Well, I've seen this movie before. I, for one, am sick and tired of letting the Republicans dictate the conversation and I will not let them dictate my values through their distortion lens. Clean up your own house before commenting on mine!
  
  Ultimately, it's a case of "she says, he says" and it has been my experience that it not only takes two to tango, it also takes two to disagree. No one is a saint in a relationship. I have certainly been a "bad boyfriend" as well as had my fair share of "bad boyfriends." As far as I can tell—and I'm certainly not a lawyer—nothing that Fifield accuses Platner of comes near a criminal offense. What Fifield describes would be called "bad behavior," but who among us has not indulged in bad behavior at some point in their lives, especially when it comes to personal relationships? I knew a sweet, kind lady, who in a fit of anger with her husband accidentally walloped him on the head with a pan. I had a relative who was married multiple times and with each marriage dissolving after the most frightful arguments; yet his final marriage was one of peace, harmony and respect. I loved my grandmother, who helped raise me and who helped form my values and outlook on life in so many positive ways, but yet once or twice a year we would have the most frightful yelling rows. She knew me so well that she could call forth the beast within, something I'm not proud to admit, but then I could do the same to her. It was a horrible thing to witness. Still, after the yelling died down, we both loved each other deeply. We apologized and tried to do better. If there is any one of us who hasn't acted poorly, then there is a saint who walks among us.
  
  Which reminds me of a story about a young female political operative who went to work for her state's senator. Her immediate boss, for many years, was married to a woman who had been diagnosed with cancer. The young lady's boss subsequently divorced his cancer-stricken wife. This political operative, many years later, started dating her boss and they married a year after his ex-wife died from her cancer. There has been innuendo and chatter that this young female politician-to-be had set her sights on breaking up her boss's marriage, rumors that have only supposition to back them. So my question, should we be... "concerned" about this young politician's alleged bad behavior? My answer would be that it's none of my damn business! Relationships are incredibly complex and somebody always gets hurt, in even the best situations. If the insinuated behavior occurred, there is no way I can know the pathways of the heart. Who am I to judge? Here's a little free advice to Little Donnie: I didn't care if you slept with hundreds of porn stars until you started lying about it and engaging in illegal money laundering to hide it. Then, your personal problems morphed into something else. To Sen. Susan "I'm Concerned" Collins (R-ME), your personal life is yours and rightly so. You don't owe anyone an explanation about how you live your life. Where it becomes my concern is when you pretend to "be concerned" about charges of attempted rape, but vote to confirm the alleged perp to a lifelong high position of power and influence. Then you want to smear your opponent for much-less-bad behavior. Now, hypocrisy is a personal habit I am very concerned about, especially when it is used as a tool to put you on your high Holier-Than-Thou horse. It's the hypocrisy, not that "sin," for which I will damn you. Just two words for you Collins: "Glass houses!"
  
  Fifield, in her accusations, admits that Platner never abused her physically, nor did he try to force himself upon her. There is a beast within us all, under the right situations, it is just lurking behind a thin layer of tissue, keeping it in check. To me, Fifield's accusation says that a situation or situations arose where that beast in Platner raised its ugly head, but that Platner still had the decency not to give the beast free reign. My father certainly had his ugly beast inside, as do I, but the difference is he never saw letting that beast do what it wanted as being his fault. He was always justified in his actions and so he never ever ever ever learned from his actions. As he got older, he just substituted mental abuse for the physical. Platner has certainly admitted to being a bad boyfriend and having his demons, but those demons were not out of control. Fessing up to your faults, even some of them, represents more humanity than those who worry with that mote in my eye while having an entire desert in their eyes. That's being human, and I want a human to be our political leader, not phony-baloneys pretending to be a saint and the dictionary definition of what a politician is supposed to be. I guess I need a third "A" to my mantra: Authenticity, Affordability and Accountability. And, with God as my witness, I'm not going to let any damn Republicans badger me into giving up on believing in the possibility of the best.
  
  
• A.R. in Los Angeles, CA: Republicans are clearly afraid of Graham Platner and they're pulling out all the stops to take him down, starting with a female operative, Lyndsey Fifield, who was given a huge platform in The New York Times to make her accusations, all uncorroborated and unchallenged by the publication. The Times has some experience with these types of hit pieces, starting with their persistent (and ultimately successful) attacks on Joe Biden to destroy his re-election bid (and usher in another Trump term).
  
  But let's be clear what this is not. This is not reporting by, for example, Jodi Kantor, who broke the Harvey Weinstein story that generated the "Me Too" movement. This story was written by political reporters with a political angle, and the only person to give an extensive interview was Fifield, who has spent her entire career working to get Republicans elected. This is also not her first attack on Platner—she started the rumor that he was aware of his tattoo's darker meaning. Because of this, the details she describes (details that no one else corroborates and that no other women interviewed experienced) must be taken with an enormous grain of salt. The timing of this piece is also inherently suspect—they waited to publish until after a former campaign aide leaked the private information about his text messages that dragged his wife and their marriage through the mud.
  
  Democratic officials have a tendency to immediately start the circular firing squad at even the hint of scandal in their candidates, which Republicans exploit to the hilt. They would be well-served to hold their fire here. Platner has admitted to bad behavior and struggles with alcohol addiction in coping with PTSD after his military service. Maine voters will ultimately decide if he has, indeed, changed and if this is a redemption story. Democrats outside of Maine should keep their focus on the man in the Oval Office, who was found liable for sexual assault by a jury and who still hasn't explained the accusations of rape against him by underage women trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein.
  
  
• W.D.M. in Denver, CO: I am not a Maine voter, but I have been very impressed by Graham Platner's stance on the issues and the way he backs them. For example, he's pro-Union and helped his campaign staff unionize. If the Democrats ever hope to create a new governing coalition that can deliver big results, they need to build a party more like their affiliated party in Minnesota—DFLs. Platner is in that mold, and whether or not he CAME from the working class, he clearly is a workingman now and cares about the biggest issue of our time for anyone below the Top 10%—affordability (and its friend, wealth inequality). I think the electorate that exists, as opposed to the one that exists online, is not gonna care about his past personal failings. He holds tons of events to meet people and lets them ask questions and the people of Maine seem to really like him for it.
  
  A final thought—if every ex-lover of mine was able to weigh in on me during a job interview, it would be a mudslinging sh**show. Especially if one of them worked for a rival of the company I was applying to. How that would allow a future employer to determine if I could do a good job (assuming I wasn't applying to be a boyfriend) is beyond me.
  
  
• M.S. in Raleigh, NC: Sigh. Mr. Platner is certainly trying my patience. Here's my thinking on this. Regarding the Nazi tattoo, I have to be honest: I've never seen that symbol before and I certainly would not have known it is somehow related to Nazism. And, since tattoos are often done while one is drunk and being crazy, I can absolutely believe his excuse. DO I believe it? Eh... maybe. I certainly don't think it's obviously false enough to warrant concern.
  
  As for the former girlfriends, the woman you mentioned, Lyndsey Fifield, is someone who has absolutely no credibility in my eyes. None. Zero. Zilch. I wouldn't believe her if she told me water was wet. If there is one thing that I've learned over the past 10 years or so, it is that hardcore Republicans will do and say anything to get what they want. They don't care about lying, they don't care about morality, they don't care about anything except getting what they want. They will gerrymander to steal an election without batting an eye. In her case specifically, Platner is definitely presumed to be innocent. To put this another way: I see her trying to do exactly what Leeann Tweeden did to Al Franken, and I've learned my lesson.
  
  Then you have the other ex-girlfriends; I think there are two. But there are also three ex-girlfriends who contradict the other two. And Platner's wife contradicts them. Every one of them could have motives for lying. The wife's is obvious; she wants her husband to become a senator. The other two ex-girlfriends might just hate him, maybe he cheated on them, maybe he dumped them for someone else and they were angry/hurt, or maybe they are MAGA. The three ex-girlfriends on his "side" could all be Democrats, or hate Trump, etc., and could also be lying, though I think of the three groups they are the least likely to have a motive to lie. Bottom line here is that I think he's probably been a jerk at least sometimes in his past. How much of a jerk I don't know. Is he still a jerk? I don't know, but I don't think he is. He's worse than the public image his campaign presents, but then again, so is every person on the planet.
  
  Overall, compared to a confirmed felon and adjudicated rapist and serial liar, Platner looks like a saint. There is also the fact that anyone can Google and see Susan Collins in 1996 running for the Senate for the first time say "I have pledged that if I am elected, I will only serve two terms." She actually ran ads saying this. She is now running for her sixth term. She literally, very clearly and repeatedly, PROMISED Mainers that if they elected her, she would leave after 12 years. And 30 years later, she's still there. It's time for her to leave, even if it means the new person is Graham Platner, a man who seems like a decent person now, but clearly has a questionable past. I personally would vote for him a million times before I would vote for chronically concerned Collins even once.
  
  My friend from Maine says he believes most Mainers will not get too hung up on the past scandals and will see past most of the typical mud slinging. He believes Platner is the type of guy to knock Collins off. Also, I wholeheartedly agree with your suggestion that Platner's campaign should have blamed the war service for his past, and not the media. Maybe (V) should work for political campaigns...
  
  
• S.O.F. in New York City, NY: I disagree with (V)'s assessment that Platner should not attack the media to defend himself. The Platner situation exposes two important dynamics of modern politics:
  
  
  1. The media spends a lot of time on scandals during their election coverage. Sensationalism sells.
     
     
  2. The political center and left care more about the personal character of their candidates than the political right. This dynamic is asymmetric.
  
  Because of these dynamics, the media spends a lot more time covering the personal scandals of Democrats than Republicans, and the right has learned that, because of this asymmetry, they can weaponize the Democrats' conscience against their opponents.
  
  No matter how much you value an independent press, punching back at the media seems like a useful way to defend against these dynamics. When it comes to personal scandals, at worst the media are willing participants in the right's attempt to consolidate oligarchic control over our election system. At best, they are useful idiots. I sense there is a growing exhaustion among the left and center of how asymmetric coverage of elections has become, as well as how obsessed we have become with personal "dirt." It is politically expedient for the Democrats to capitalize on this exhaustion in the same way the far right has under Trump.
  
  Where we are at right now: "240 years ago... a Vulcan ship crossed into Klingon space. The Klingons attacked immediately... From then on, whenever the Vulcans crossed paths with Klingons, the Vulcans fired first. They said 'hello' in a language the Klingons understood." - Michael Burnham, Star Trek: Discovery
  
  
• Z.L in Minneapolis, MN: Own goal (noun): When Democrats find a combat veteran, working-class outsider who can actually win a purple state and then torch him over sexting before he's even on the ballot.

Thanks to all who wrote in. Tomorrow's entry will be entirely messages from voters in Maine. If that describes you, we would be very happy to hear from you at comments@electoral-vote.com. (Z)

Never Forget: Thanks, Kenny

Today's account is from L.A.B. in Chesterton, IN:

Captain William Stroven was the pilot, and Captain Kenneth Stonebraker the navigator/recon officer aboard an Air Force RF-4C Phantom II jet assigned a photo-reconnaissance mission over North Vietnam on October 28, 1968. The aircraft departed its base at Udorn Airfield, Thailand, for its target, which included an ammunition supply dump near Hanoi.

As the aircraft was over Quang Binh Province, North Vietnam, it was lost from radar—Stroven and Stonebraker were declared Missing in Action (MIA) when they failed to return to base. The public record reveals very little more about their fates.

In the 1990s, American survey teams in Vietnam believed they found the wreckage of their aircraft, but it was later determined from close inspection of crash debris details that was not the case.

The Air Force kept promoting the airmen while classed as MIA, with both achieving the rank of Lieutenant Colonel before finally moving from MIA status to KIA (killed in action) in 1975.

Kenny chose to leave a post in Strategic Air Command to go to tactical photo-recon in Vietnam. He left behind a wife and two young children, mother, father, brother, sister, aunts, uncles and cousins.

Kenny, thank you for your sacrifice.

Thanks, L.A.B. (Z)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger