Platner proving every Democratic consultant and hack wrong!

Graham Platner has flown in the face of "traditional wisdom", and making party hacks look foolish.

Back in 1992, Democrats changed their candidate model. After twelve years of Reagan-Bush Republicanism, Democrats moved away from the left-leaning candidates like George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis, and turned to the new, polish, centerist, DLC candidacy of Bill Clinton. After Clinton pulled off the victory, Democrats have been afraid to move away from what they think is a “winning formula”. And what is that model? Candidates who can raise money, are good looking, or at least not ugly, moderate on economic policy, but you can be left of social issues as long as they support Israel, and can raise money, as well as raise money. Oh, and did I mention raising money?

When it comes to Susan Collins, the same logic holds. The only way to beat Collins is to fit the exact 1990s mold. And in the case of Maine, that is even more important since it is seen as a “moderate” and “swing” state. And every time the Democrats popped another candidate out of the mold, they would lose. Their solution was to clean the mold, fill it up again, pop out another identical candidate, lose, and repeat. They were, and still are, stuck on this old logic of how to win elections.

Then we come to 2026. Janet Mills seemed like the perfect candidate who fit the old mold. She was going to be just like every other candidate that came before her. She was the moderate, non-confrontational, statewide elected Democrats that was finally, after all these years, going to beat Susan Collins. But oyster farmer Graham Platner had other plans.

Platner is definitely NOT part of the mold. He is not a career politician. He is rough looking and got a Nazi tattoo on his chest when he was in the service. He had no fundraising experience and no national exposure. He was progressive on every issue, supporting single-payer healthcare and opposing the genocide in Gaza by Israel, with the continued support of the United States. He is FAR from being from the mold. There is no way that someone like Platner could win.

Well, here we are. Mills dropped out of the primary almost a month before it was to be held, with Platner the only serious candidate to win the Democratic nomination. And when it comes to running against Susan Collins, Platner is either outside the margin of error in the polls, or just inside the MoE.

Basically, all the conventional wisdom of most political consultants and hacks have been absolutely shattered by the success of Graham Platner. Or, assumed success, as he still does have to win.

But how did we get here. Of course, everyone will pontificate and have their own opinions. With that, I’ll throw my own two cents in there.

Voter-Centered Campaign

Many have argued that grassroots campaigning is dead. Well, Graham Platner, as well as others like Zorhan Mamdani, have proven that to be wrong. Early in both of their campaigns, nobody knew who they were or what they stood for. They were complete unknowns. But as they reached to more voters, their popularity rose. Eventually, Mamdani won and Platner looks to be on his way to victory.

The reason why this grassroots campaigning is working is because they are making the voters front and center of their campaign. Instead of telling voters “this is what I can do for you”, these candidates ask voters “what I can do for you”. I don’t think many political hacks understand this, but this is a fundamentally significant change in the way that campaigning is done. We’ve always judged candidates on their “issues”, and pick the candidates that most align with us (the median voter theorem). But now, it’s more about the candidate that will listen to the needs of voters, and show compassion toward their fellow Americans.

Social Media IS the Medium

A few months ago, Platner made a hilarious video about direct mail pieces, saying that nobody actually reads those. He said that if you want to win votes, you need to reach out to the voters, and social media really helps with that. And yes, social media is the place for voters to know more about candidates. This isn’t 1978 anymore!

However, one thing that is an absolute plague in the political consulting world are the direct mail consultants who are nothing more than grifters and con artists. Their direct mail pieces just makes the consultants rich without contributing anything to the candidate. Direct mail was never useful and is extremely outdated at best.

This can now be said for television and radio ads. Seriously, I’m 52, going on 53, and I can’t even tell you the last time I listed to the radio. Maybe I tune into WBBM when I am in Chicago for nostalgic reasons, but that’s it. Still, even television is starting to become a dinosaur in today’s social media climate.

Both Platner and Mamdani made social media the focal point of their campaign’s media strategy. Seriously, social media should be the absolute priority when it comes to mass media exposure. Television is nice, but not necessary. Radio ads, newspaper ads, and direct mail pieces are absolutely and utterly useless today. But still, the Democratic Party still relies on political consults who grift off of the ignorance of most candidates.

Also, with social media as the campaign’s focal point, there is less of a need to spend hours on the phone doing “call time”, otherwise known as begging for money. With a large social media exposure, candidates are able rely on small donor contributions instead of promising companies legislative favors for campaign funds.

Progressive issues = Voter-Centered

As I’ve already mentioned, both candidates have been listening to the voters instead of reading off a list of focus group-tested answers. Yes, both Platner and Mamdani have their views. But instead of saying “shut up and take what I am giving you” (which has been the Democratic mantra for over 30 years now), they are explaining how progressive policies can help the average voter. And as more voters are exposed to progressivism, otherwise known as actually caring for your fellow citizen, then more people move over to their side.

And this, oddly enough, brings me to Platner’s Nazi tattoo. Now, that was a fuck up and he should have had that tattoo removed much, much earlier. However, I still wonder if his campaign leaked it so that they could get out ahead of it before it became an “October surprise”. But that’s not the reason for me brining it up. What this incident shows is that voters really don’t care if someone had a transgression when they were younger.

During my early days of politics (which coincidentally started in 1991), candidates had to be perfect. The perfect look, the ability to speak eloquently, and to raise money. The checklist was so massive that if you didn’t serve in the military, that would be an automatic disqualifier, especially if you are running for president. But here we are, five straight presidents who never actively served in the main branches of the military.

The reason I wanted to write this article is to show that the fundamentals of campaigning have changed drastically, but many Democratic consultants and hacks are still stuck in 1990s mode. Janet Mills was stuck in 1990s mode. Now she’s dropped out of the US Senate race. Until Democrats understand that a shift is happening, then Democrats will always undeform.