A woman who previously dated Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner said he drunkenly forced her to have sex after she told him to stop, according to a Politico report released Monday, leading prominent supporters to pull their endorsements and throwing a must-win race for the party into turmoil.
Platner denied the allegation, but said he would be considering next steps for his campaign.
“Regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting but mindful of the political reality it will inflict, we’re taking the time to reflect on the best path forward,” he said in a video released on social media.
Jenny Racicot, who lives in Maine, told Politico that Platner entered her home in 2021 while drunk and assaulted her. Racicot said she had been in an on-and-off relationship with Platner, but she cut off contact with him after that night and told him the incident wasn’t consensual. A voicemail left at a number listed for Racicot seeking comment did not receive an immediate response.
Platner’s campaign did not immediately respond to an email and phone message from The Associated Press seeking comment.
“Any accusation of non-consensual behavior is categorically false,” Platner said in his video.
Still, the allegation sparked a flight away from a candidate who has long been controversial. Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat who’d stood by Platner even as the insurgent candidate was hit with prior allegations, said Monday’s was enough. “I’ve been very clear that sexual assault or violence against women is a red line,” Khanna said. “These allegations are very serious and credible. Graham Platner should drop out from the race. I am withdrawing my endorsement.”
Edit: holy shit, these comments are insane.
Regardless of what you believe with this, Platner likely cannot win anymore. He has a week to do the right thing and drop out before he’s fully locked in. If he actually gives any sort of a shit (and doesn’t just want power, like rapists seeking office tend to), he needs to drop out yesterday.
This is the nail in the coffin for his campaign. It’s not time to defend him no matter what, because there’s still a week where a new candidate can be put into place. Instead of being mad at people not wanting to vote for him, you should start vocally supporting another candidate.
Moral consideration includes whether the person has attractive morals to be considered a leader.
Anybody that commits a crime, that rehabilitates and demonstrates social behavior and not a social behavior, should be given the chance to run for public office. Lifetime bans from public office can be abused.
ICE agents that change their minds, leave the force, and show rehabilitated behaviors should absolutely be considered for public office.
None of what I’m saying that we should pick these folks over others that have the same policy views WITHOUT this same baggage. In my view the baggage shouldn’t be deal breakers, because baggage is nuanced and deserves contextual understanding.
People demonstrate whether they’ve learned about their past wrongs through their actions. Speaking truth to power is an action, and it’s better than nothing when the political parties in USA are rotten to the core. Maybe you Euroids and third worldists have better choices in political candidates. In the US, our choices for some races are Zionists, rapists, white supremacists, etc. The best we can do (in certain areas of USA) in the big dystopian 226 is rally behind people who do say the right things. Until someone better shows up, which wasn’t the case in Maine until this Platner rape crisis and the alternative, Troy Jackson.
Who is Platner’s campaign manager? Who is Bernie’s? Zohran’s? AOC’s? I have no fucking clue because I’m not a political autist masking as an ML.
That’s not what the phrase “moral consideration” means. “Moral consideration” means, like, if they’re in a trolley problem next to an empty track, it’s wrong to kill them. If there’s a mosquito on one track, it probably doesn’t warrant moral consideration, so it’s not important to save it.
Hard disagree. Why are you so deadset on getting people with questionable loyalties and character into leadership roles? It’s self-sabotage.
Completely ridiculous.
Yes, exactly!
What the fuck? Absolutely not!
People demonstrate their character by actual actions. Which is why, someone whose character has been demonstrated as bad through bad actions should be expected to redeem themselves through actions and not just saying nice things.
I mean, seriously? “People demonstrate their character through actions” means nothing if you’re counting “talking” as an “action.” The whole point of that phrase is that talk is cheap!
I have absolutely no idea where you pulled that one from. I’m an American.
That’s literally the point, dumbass. The campaign manager could be murderer or rapist (as you are so intent to allow into high-level positions for some bizarre reason) and it wouldn’t cause nearly as many problems. Like, tbh it wouldn’t be great to have such people in such roles, but Jesus Christ, at least keep them out of the top positions! It’s like you’re trying to tank the campaign or get co-opted!