Graham Platner's campaign for U.S. Senate collapsed this week after a rape allegation surfaced, but the collapse itself was almost anticlimactic. What mattered more was the revelation of why some Democratic operatives and high-profile commentators had championed him in the first place: they saw his recklessness and contempt for women not as disqualifying traits, but as selling points.
On Monday, Politico published an account from Jenny Racicot, a woman Platner once dated, alleging that in 2021 he entered her home without permission while heavily intoxicated and raped her despite her repeated refusals. Politico reviewed emails between Racicot and her therapist discussing the alleged assault, interviewed a boyfriend she later confided in, and reviewed messages she had sent warning other women about Platner long before his political career began. Platner denied the accusation, calling it "categorically untrue," but suspended his campaign Wednesday night in a video that emphasized his own grievances rather than any acknowledgment of the woman's account.
The allegation capped a cascade of personal scandals that had plagued Platner's candidacy. An oyster farmer and former military contractor, Platner had emerged as a Democratic challenger to Republican incumbent Susan Collins in Maine. But his campaign became defined almost entirely by controversy: a Nazi-themed tattoo he claimed to have gotten drunk in Croatia, a history of crude internet posts mocking rural voters and sexual assault victims, allegations that he had removed condoms without consent, and an ex-girlfriend's account that he had physically restrained and locked her in a bedroom during an argument.
Throughout each revelation, Platner's campaign would insist there were no more skeletons in the closet. Then another scandal would emerge. Yet a faction of Democratic operatives and commentators had defended him with notable enthusiasm.
These supporters seemed drawn to Platner precisely because of the very behaviors that should have disqualified him. They embraced a theory that the Democratic Party had become too "feminized" and that electoral success required promoting white male candidates whose rough masculinity and callous disregard for social norms would appeal to working-class voters. Ken Klippenstein, a social media power user, celebrated Platner's rise as an end to the "era of smoothgroin politicians." Matt Stoller, a think tank analyst, hailed the campaign as "a rejection of Dem HR lady politics." Ryan Grim, a journalist and founder of Drop Site News, expressed hope that Platner would force progressives to confront what he framed as bigotry against white men.
These characterizations amounted to enthusiasm for misogyny. Before Racicot's allegation became public, some of Platner's supporters appeared to view his treatment of women not as a liability but as evidence of authenticity and strength. When the rape allegation emerged, Grim posted a video highlighting a detail Politico had omitted: a text Racicot had allegedly sent Platner about needing a massage. Drop Site News later deleted the video, claiming Grim had not intended to justify the alleged assault. The implication was impossible to miss.
But the theory that working-class voters would embrace Platner's brutishness collapsed under scrutiny. Polls conducted just before the rape allegation became public showed him trailing Collins among voters without a college degree. When asked why, voters cited concerns about his "good character" and "moral values." The electability argument that had animated his most ardent supporters proved hollow. Working-class voters were not drawn to his recklessness; they were repelled by it.
Platner's pattern of alleged behavior toward women followed a recognizable trajectory. His 2013 Reddit posts suggested rape victims should "take some responsibility" for their assaults. He downplayed sexual assault in the military and allegedly referred to women using crude slurs. He maintained an active sexting life outside his marriage. He allegedly removed condoms without consent, an act Maine law recognizes as a civil violation. An ex-girlfriend accused him of physical restraint and confinement. When these details accumulated, the rape allegation did not feel like a shock but like an inevitable conclusion.
What remains striking is not that Platner faced accusations, but that influential figures in Democratic circles had consciously decided his misogyny was a strength rather than a flaw. They had built a narrative around the idea that voters hungered for a candidate who treated women with contempt. That narrative was not grounded in evidence about what voters actually wanted. It was grounded in what these operatives and commentators themselves valued: a kind of crude, unbridled masculinity they believed the party had abandoned.
The pundit class's swift defense of Platner reveals something uncomfortable about a segment of Democratic opinion. They were not defending him despite his cruelty toward women. They were defending him because of it.
Author James Rodriguez: "The myth that working-class voters crave a candidate who openly despises women has been thoroughly tested and rejected here, but that won't stop the next generation of operatives who want to believe it."
Comments