Concerning Platner, What Would Frederick Douglass Tell Maine’s Voters?

 by James Zumwalt

19th-century writer and statesman Frederick Douglass warned us, “The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous.” Were he alive today, he undoubtedly would remind Maine’s voters that, for the nation to embrace such qualities, so must they.

It is befuddling in some elections to understand what motivates voters to cast their ballot for a particular candidate. As such, it has been interesting to watch the Democrats’ Senate primary race in Maine. That race is telling, both about the lead candidate and those supporting him.

The June 9 primary election involves three Democrat candidates (a fourth unofficially withdrew)—David Costello, Graham Platner, and Andrea LaFlamme. In late 2025, Platner—an oyster farmer—clearly led the pack with a 58% poll showing among Democrats. He has maintained a lead throughout his campaign, thus standing out as the Democrat candidate with the best chance to defeat Republican incumbent Susan Collins in the November 3 general election.

Platner maintains this lead despite a myriad of allegations about his past that, like a spoiled oyster, stink, particularly for someone who is to represent their state in the U.S. Senate. These independent and frequent allegations, coming not only from past girlfriends but from his wife as well, almost suggest he is a man capable of committing more than just the seven deadly sins, apparently having no guilt about doing so.

The list of Platner’s accusations is extensive—they include having adorned himself with a Nazi tattoo, abusive conduct (as reported by the liberal-friendly New York Times), sexual misconduct while married, violence, rape fantasies, sending explicit texts to younger women, trashing rural Americans, and admitting to having “no regrets” about buying cocaine and doing drugs, etc. He mocked a soldier who had been shot multiple times—eventually receiving the Purple Heart—telling him he “didn’t deserve to live.” Given the opportunity to apologize, he refused to do so.

Three women who had dated him shared that while he could be charming, his behavior was unsettling. Two of them left no room for doubt, making clear their opinion that he “does not respect women.” They described his behavior as troubling, demeaning and, in some instances, physically intimidating. One of them, Lyndsey Fifield, described him as, “The most toxic, literally abusive man on earth who destroyed my life.”

While defenders of Platner’s tattoo argue it was the reckless choice of an 18-year-old, reason leaves one wondering why in the 24 years since he has made no effort to have it removed—especially as he sought to do the Democrats’ bidding.

Meanwhile, various outlets that have published more than 2,000 of his deleted comments over the years reveal Platner to consistently engage in profanity, rage, and extremist rhetoric. He unhesitantly called complete strangers online “dumb motherf****rs” and told them to “f**k off and die.” A review of his archives by Fox News revealed numerous graphic and vulgar posts that demonstrate a consistent pattern of dehumanizing others.

No one has been spared by Platner in his online attacks—outrageously not even Jesus and the Virgin Mary. He boasted about his eight years of military service during which he’d “been about as crudely atheist as one can be the entire time (zombie jesus jokes and Mary sucking at covering up being a skank, as examples.” The spokeswoman for the National Republican Congressional Committee said of Platner, “The guy with a Nazi tattoo is showing us his truly disgusting and repulsive takes on Christianity.” In reference to women worried about rape, he told them to “act like an adult” and posted deleted comments asking why black people “don’t tip.”

Platner’s wife felt his sexual conduct was questionable enough to forewarn campaign organizers during the vetting process about explicit texts he had sent to women. Apparently, for a Democrat party candidate, this was not a disqualifier. Campaign staffers dismissed it as a “private matter” for marriage counseling, and not a matter of public accountability.

As one Platner criticism notes, he has fueled “a narrative of poor judgement, immaturity and disrespect for his own family.” It adds that these “are not minor character flaws; they go directly to trust, fidelity, and respect for institutions like marriage. Yet national Democrats, eyeing a rare pickup opportunity, kept him viable, signaling that winnability in a Senate race can outweigh moral squeamishness.” The response of Platner’s campaign to all of this seems to be one less devoted to fighting the allegations and more to claiming he is a victim of the press.

The allegations are telling about Platner’s character. He is a man who, at the time of committing the actions he is said to have committed, probably had no idea he would one day be running for the US Senate. Or, perhaps more telling, is—if the allegations are true—he would even consider running. Nonetheless, his history tells us of what he is capable of when believing no one is tracking his activities. If true, such actions are demonstrative of a bravado clinging to a belief one can fool most people most of the time. For right now, all he needs to do is to fool people on June 9. And, apparently, he is well on his way to doing so.

Another poll taken the first week of June indicates while Platner’s favorability has increased from 29% to 49%, his unfavorability has increased as well—from 35% to 40%. The poll also reports, should Platner prevail on June 9, he would be in a deadlock with incumbent Collins. Alas, the poll revealed more voters were completely indifferent to Platner’s conduct than were outraged. Included among his supporters is Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

But why would Democrat voters still support such a candidate who has been so slimed with seriously damning allegations of misconduct? It is difficult to view him as anything other than a low-life having as much respect for human dignity as the Nazis demonstrated during World War II—which explains his tattoo.

We have an indication as to why that support continues:

• “The View” co-host, Sunny Hostin, described Platner as follows: “He’s a liar, a racist, an anti-Semite. He’s a homophobe.” Yet, she went on to explain, she supports his candidacy for the single reason that Democrats need to win back Congress. Unbelievably, she openly supports a candidate whom she acknowledges lacks the qualities we want in our political leaders simply because she wants to see a majority Democrat Party senate seated.
• This same mindset appeared to exist, evidenced by a photograph of Democrat voters supporting Platner who were holding posters on a sidewalk. Almost as if out of embarrassment about the candidate, the posters made no mention of his name. They simply read “Democratic Senate” in an effort to advise voters that “qualifications be damned, vote for our party.”

It is a sad commentary about Maine voters who choose to identify with the power of their political party rather than the overriding priority of our country’s best interests. Maine’s Democrat US Senate campaign has hopefully revealed this for all to see.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/06/concerning_platner_what_would_frederick_douglass_tell_maine_s_voters.html