Suggested approach for Maine Democrats when (not if) Platner drops out. Just a few weeks ago in the Dem Governor primary, three candidates emerged as the strongest competitors to the eventual winner: Nirav Shah, Shenna Bellows, and Troy Jackson. They just demonstrated voter support. Why not have the three compete in caucuses and a convention. (Troy Jackson is a strong Platner supporter). Then we can avoid the "Biden/Harris" problem of a dictated choice, and all of them have campaign staffs and have been vetted.
I agree this would be the best course. My worry is that Schumer will get involved and they will try and run Mills. That would most assuredly cause us to lose that seat.
Part of the reason she dropped out is that Platner polled better against Collins than she did. There is no guarantee that enough Platner supporters would throw their votes to Mills. Age was, in fact, a reason given by voters for not supporting Mills.
Yesterday I was of the opinion that they should just put in Mills, but today I've changed my mind. Platner absolutely HAS to drop out, but the Dems 100% can not just instead give Maine voters the person they pretty emphatically did not want in his place. Two things are clear to me: Platner can't win, and Maine Democratic voters have no interest in Mills as the nominee. I don't know where that leaves them, but I think if they put Mills in there, she'll lose just like Platner would.
She would lose by more than Platner would and depress Matt Dunlap's numbers in the Second Congressional District. I personally like Janet Mills but she cannot be the candidate.
Platner was never going to be a good senator. He is a flawed human being who shouts a lot but has never fought anything politically.
He is the equivalent of the pyramid scheme, NFT, Trump crypto. He made the young people feel good and made them think they knew something no one else did. When in fact everyone knew this guy was garbage from the beginning. His resume fit the Proud Boys better than the senate.
Now it’s time to get an adult to actually win this race.
Did you ever attend one of his rallies.? he went all over the state of maine, holding town halls and letting folks ask him questions and giving them good answers.
Susan collins hasn't held a town hall in over 20 years. you can goggle that fact! The reason platner was embraced by mainers (he received more votes in the recent primary than anyone ever has!)- is that most Mainers really, really, really want to be rid of Susan Colins as our Senator. Now we'll have to put up with her being "concerned" for another 6 years. and by the way, platner made the old folks feel good, too.
And by the way, Platner fucked over all those people who trusted him by running when he knew he had these kinds of skeletons in his closet. He's a piece of shit who was lying to you and it's time you guys recognize that and turn your anger towards him. This is his mess and his fault.
Voters wasted Janet Mills', who actually stood up to Trump and lived to tell about it. Platner could have started out in state politics instead of the US Senate.
Rallies don’t win elections. In most senate races the candidate with the most rallies has zero correlation to winning. Neither do primaries determine general election winners.
Hershel Walker dwarfed Raphael Warnock in terms of rallies. Dr. Oz had huge rallies. They lost.
I never attended a Platner rally or a Hershel Walker rally. Why would I?
Maine elected Angus King easily at 80 years old in 2024. Janet Mills was a 80% candidate to win the general if Platner hadn’t come along.
Things like rally size and tv appearances and town halls are irrelevant toward winning general elections. Your own words show that … Susan Collins wins without the big rallies.
I agreed with this from the day his name and tattoo went public. "I was drunk when I got it." No kidding. So what's he going to do next time he's drunk? Well we found out: rape. We need Platner to drop out. He needs to get into AA/
Amusing that someone asked you if you ever attended one of platner’s rallies. That’s akin to saying that one voted for trump simply because of a “fantasy” trump rally.
It seems that many folks who still support platner just don’t get it, to put it kindly. 🙏
A town hall, where people can ask questions of the Candidate or office holder, is much different than a campaign rally. Noone is singing and dancing to the "YMCA" at a town hall event. Maybe attend one sometime to see the vast difference.
He definitely is not the candidate with the best chance of defeating Collins anymore though, not since it's come out that he's a rapist, and that's the point. And you can't blame anyone but Platner for that since he definitely knew all this shit about himself and still decided to risk it by running.
This is exactly like the Joe Biden issue in 2024, where a selfish, vain candidate harmed the party and the country by deciding to run when they very obviously shouldn't have. Both Biden and Platner have fucked over the Dems and the country by pissing away what could have been winnable elections. Hopefully the Maine Democratic Party can clean his mess up better than the Dems did in 2024. But really this is on Platner just like it was on Biden for putting everyone in this disastrous situation.
All snark aside, if she wanted to really torpedo him, wouldn't she have done it when the NYT interviewed her before the primary? Or she REALLY could have screwed him over by waiting until after the drop out date.
Its like you haven't even thought the conspiracy theory through.
Bro, get a grip. Planter hasn't led Collins outside the margin of error in a single poll. He might be a slight favorite, but hes one minor scandal away from blowing the easiest Dem Senate race outside of California in the last decade.
Probably no more than Trump's history of sexual assault, and Kavanaugh's history of sexual assault affect their ability to be a good Republican President and a good Supreme Court Justice.
I mean, he'll probably be no worse than any other sexual predator we've sent to Congress.
I hope you threw up in your mouth a little when you wrote that sentence.
Meanwhile, Susan Collins is responsible for the harm and deaths of thousands of women, look at mortality rates since Roe vs Wade was reversed, and she gets a pass.
Because the Republicans are stripping every hard fought benefit the working class has won over the past 30 years. There will be no health care for low income people, many of whom will die. They have put 1,000's of people in concentration camps that you can't even get near without being arrested. When we go to inspect those detentions centers and they find them empty surrounded by mass graves, you can feel it justified because you kept another imperfect Democrat out office
You can disagree with his logic, but it is not shameful. It's just a different ethical tradition. Utilitarian theories suggest that when you can choose between smaller injustices and larger ones, you choose the smaller one. A more Kantian logic argues that you can't excuse the smaller injustice because. . .slippery slopes. I personally think Platner needs to step down but I understand the frustration of those who rightly note that our party has much higher standards than the other party and our party is losing. At some point, being better than them could cease to matter when their boots are permanently stepping on our necks.
We have real NAZIs putting 1,000s of people in concentration camps right now. Storm troopers who answer only to Stephen Miller who murder the innocent without reprimand. I hope when they find many detainees dead, you can feel like it was worth because at least Platner didnt get in office.
Agreed 100%. These people are so focused on their hatred of Israel and Jews that every other issue fades away for them. They don't care if he's a rapist, they don't care if he's a Nazi (hell, on that one they might see it as establishing his bona fides). All they care about is that he hates Israel.
I have no love for what Israel has been doing under Bibi either, but it's far from my most important issue with regards to American politicians. I'm far more worried about the shit Trump is doing here in America than what Bibi is doing in Israel. I hope the Israelis vote Bibi out and the courts there throw him in jail, but none of that is on any ballots here in America.
Why so many on the left have made this their single issue of importance, I'll never understand. My best guess is propaganda on TikTok or something? Why do so many people care THIS MUCH about Israel here in America? We have far more distressing issues to worry about with our own government than to ignore that in favor of something some other country in the Middle East is doing.
Thought experiment: What if Platner were credibly accused of *murdering* someone? (Let's say the case was botched by law enforcement and will never go to trial, but a reasonable person can look at the evidence and think it's damn likely that he did it.) Would you also question whether that affects his ability to be a good senator?
The point is... most people will decide *at some point* that a candidate is simply too bad a person to be rewarded with an elected office, or to be trusted with the power of that office. People differ on where they'd draw that line, but I think it's safe to say that "credibly accused of rape" will do it for most people... certainly enough to lose a competitive senate race.
Your ethical reasoning is impeccable and it's hard for people who want to consider themselves good people to argue with it. But I would ask you to re-read and reconsider this statement: "I think it's safe to say that "credibly accused of rape" will do it for most people."
Does something not strike you about that sentence? It is completely factually untrue based on actual recent events.
A jury of his peers found Trump guilty of sexual assault in 2023. His accuser was credible: E Jean Carroll was a far better victim from a prosecution standpoint than Jenny Racicot, (sad to say and don't jump on me people, this isn't about me, it's about juries) because she had never previously had a relationship with Trump and she was willing to make her accusation to his face in front of the world. This was after more than 25 other women had accused him of various forms of molestation and years after he was caught ON TAPE bragging about his assaults.
But a little over a year later, he won the popular vote. So, I think it is actually safe to say, based on evidence and not conjecture or instinct, that credibly accused of rape (or even actually convicted of rape) will NOT do it for *most* people.
To be clear, I think Platner probably did it and he should step down. But rlritt is asking: Does it make sense to cling to standards of personal behavior for electeds when the rest of our society seems to have given up the very idea that such standards matter at all? Isn't it like boxing with one hand tied behind your back?
Sarah and Tim pointed out yesterday that sleazy allegations have indeed taken down other Republicans, such as Roy Moore. So, maybe the reality is that "credibly accused of rape will do it for most people UNLESS the candidate is Donald Trump." If that's the case, this madness will someday end when Trump ends.
>>So, maybe the reality is that "credibly accused of rape will do it for most people UNLESS the candidate is Donald Trump."<<
Well, that's it exactly... and I don't think it's hard to see why.
By 2023, Trump had a base of supporters who were fully invested in a Trump mythology that says: Trump is a great man surrounded by enemies who will stop at nothing to take him down. They'll steal an election from him. They'll cripple his presidency with impeachments and hoaxes about Russian collusion. They'll concoct fake criminal charges to try to get him thrown in prison. And, of course... they'll put up some lying floozy to sue him on bogus sexual assault claims.
People argue about whether it's fair to describe Trump's base as a "cult," but that's the basic idea. After the first Trump presidency, followed by a "stolen election" narrative that swept up a great many of them, Trump supporters saw themselves in an "us against the world" narrative where Trump could do no wrong and allegations against him could only be crooked and false. By the time the Carroll decision came down, they weren't even open to thinking it was valid.
So, yeah: I do think Trump is the exception to the rule. There are a lot of scuzzballs in politics, but so far only one with his very own full-on cult.
That's more likely if Platner stays IN. You can yell about the unfairness of it all day, but if he stays in, he'll lose. (Frankly, the Nazi Tattoo Guy was already going to be a tough sell, and rightly so.)
This is like a rerun of Biden 2024 when I was pleading with anyone who'd listen that he needed to drop out because he was *going to lose* and how that was going to be *BAD* because we were going to get Trump. In return, I got a lot of nonsense about how unfair it was for the media to focus on his age, and how Trump was old too. Way to miss the point by a mile. How many times do we have to do this?
Two completely different things: Biden was unpopular. The "unfair" arguments were denial. Platner is actually popular. The assumption that a different candidate has a better shot against Collins works in a world where a convicted rapist did not win the popular vote for the presidency two years ago. I myself don't know the math here--but the assumption Collins victory is more likely if Platner stays in seems like an assumption and I'm not sure whether that scenario is more or less likely than the other.
He's lost all his institutional support and won't get any party money--he needs to step down. (He also needs to spare us all from the ongoing melodrama.) But I don't think we know whether a different Democratic candidate--a squeaky clean one--will actually attract more voters.
I would like to ask... did you think that what Brett Kavanaugh was alleged to have done was disqualifying from being a Supreme Court justice? And more to the point did you believe his late breaking accuser, Christine Blasey Ford? I think the situations are quite similar.
Yep. Same goes for how Eric Swalwell was pressured to drop out of the California governor's race for similar accusations. If this shit is going to be disqualifying for people, it should be disqualifying for ALL people. I take some pride in the fact that Democratic voters have this as a red line they will not cross. I wish Republican voters did as well, but they don't. If anything, accusations like this seem to elevate them in the eyes of GOP voters. Seeing all these leftists want to circle the wagons around a rapist with Nazi tattoos really illustrates the bottom of the horseshoe in politics.
At the very least, even from just a pragmatic standpoint, leftists really need to realize that Platner absolutely can not win now with these allegations against him. Why they want him to stay in the race when he has no chance of winning makes no sense to me. They are openly advocating for Susan Collins to win by taking this approach. They're very much like the people who were staunchly in favor of Biden staying in the race after that debate.
I mostly agree with you except that these folks don't think that Collins will win if Platner stays in, and I'm not *completely* sure they are wrong. We are assuming that to win in Maine, the Democrat has to attract folks who voted for Biden in 2020 but also for Collins. But what if the Dem could also win by attracting folks who voted for Trump in 2024? Those folks probably don't take rape allegations against their chosen candidate all that seriously because they voted for Trump. On balance, I would prefer he step down--and won't it be nice to have a candidate not plagued by scandal who we don't suspect is just an asshole? But the electorate's behavior here is not necessarily that predictable.
I said this in another comment elsewhere, but Democratic voters almost universally are not going to vote for a rapist. Trump voters will, that's obviously true. But like I said elsewhere, the only "Dem voters" who would vote for a rapist are the bottom of the horseshoe leftists who would be most likely to flip MAGA of anyone on the left (hence, Trump voters). I said they are not really "Dem voters" at all, as they'd never really vote for anyone in the Democratic party, but instead prefer to loudly complain about the Dems and then abstain from voting as a form of protest, unless the person running as a "Dem" is really there to destroy the Democratic party and remake it in Bernie's image.
So yes, Platner could still get those people, but that's a very slim slice of the pie. If you lose basically all the mainstream Dem voters by running a rapist, then they're not going to win a general election. Not when an actual Republican who rubber stamps everything Trump wants is on the ballot against them. Platner's chances of winning now are zero.
They aren’t the same. The attempted rape against Christine Blassey Ford occurred over 30 years ago and society was different regarding sexual assault. In Platner’s case, the accuser was interviewed 6 months ago and never mentioned rape. I don’t think society has changed in 6 months.
I have to disagree. At least for the purposes of my question to get at "what is a disqualifying behavior/allegation" they are reasonably similar. Both are a late breaking allegation of a sexual assault where the victim says they wrestled with coming forward before deciding to because they felt it was in society's best interest, with enough supporting evidence that it seems reasonably plausible that it is true, and where the purported victim doesn't seem especially angry or bitter or motivated by vengeance or a desire to see the man prosecuted. A situation where it also seems at least somewhat plausible that the male perpetrator might not remember it because of alcohol? And where this is plausibly derailing a rise to high office that otherwise seemed all but certain? Those seem like situations to me that are at least analogous.
The difference you are pointing out (and I admit I'm reading between the lines) seems to be that you believe one woman and not the other. That's your right of course and you could be right, but frankly, I personally find it VERY hard to read the politico story and think that there isn't at LEAST a very good chance that her story is true. I hope you've done a lot of thinking about which circumstances lead you to believe someone claiming they have been assaulted and which not to believe so you can apply them in a consistent manner. I know I have over the last few years.
The question is which story do you believe, the one 6 months ago where she never mentioned rape or the one where she claims rape? Also, has she reported the alleged rape to the police or only Jake Tapper?
I wouldnt have voted for Kavenaugh because he is a conservative whose values are help the rich and the hell with the poor. If Kavenaugh were a liberal and promised to vote to help people keep health care and close down immigrant detention centers and abolish ICE. Then yes I would have voted for him. But if Collins remains she will vote with Trump and fund ICE and allocate money for concentration camps.
Thanks for replying! I admire your consistency. One last question because I'm curious... Imagine for a moment that you can know with perfect certainty that a candidate you agree with politically in this situation WILL win and defeat an incumbent Senator who will buckle to Trump. Imagine too that you can perfectly know the heart and mind and previous history of both candidates. You are essentially omniscient about these people and the election outcome if they both run.
In this scenario is there ANYTHING your preferred candidate can do or have done, believe or have believed that would disqualify them in your mind? Phrased another way, and with a little less abstraction, would ANYTHING stop you from supporting Platner? If so, what would that be?
Speaking only for myself as a Dem, who believes the Democratic Party supportswomen, I’d say his pattern of abusive speech, his Nazi tattoo, and his sexual assault, because I find her very credible, all speak to someone with poor judgment, if not to misogyny and tendencies toward violence. To support his candidacy, he would have to have disclosed all of this at the start of his campaign.
On neophytism (is that a word?): I think the combination of the weakened party structure (thanks SCOTUS and social media!) combined with a certain political neophyte who won the presidency in 2016 has yielded yet another unforeseen consequence: the death of political expertise as an asset in the consultant class.
Tom Nichols should write a book about this or something.
Well, E. Jean Carroll came out with her Trump-encounter many years after the fact. Personally, I consider her a foolish woman who misunderstood who she was dealing with and let herself be lead into a dangerous situation. That said, I also believe her account. The world knows who Trump is now, so what's OUR excuse?
If I, beyond a doubt, knew that Platner would vote to defund ICE and to close detention centers, that would be a no brainer. The US cannot support a government that has armed Gestapo who are above the law even if they murder unarmed people, and support concentration camps where children are separated from their parents, and people are starved.
People this no longer a choice between pro labor Democrats and pro business Republicans.
There is no doubt that Trump and MAGA and poor deluded Susan Collins are fascists.
The NYT reported that the Maine Democratic committee has already said they will not just decide who is put on the ballot themselves. The report said that they are considering either a pop-up convention or a caucus. Fingers crossed they make this as democratic as possible (small D). I also hope that Platner gets input into this. As fatally flawed as his candidacy is, he has energized Maine Democratic voters and that is a critical piece of this.
Sarah and Tim made the point on their livestream yesterday that whatever oppo the Republicans have on him, they’d be holding it until after the deadline to drop out. They’re not the ones who dug this up. If this is what we’re finding out now, imagine what they could be holding onto for later?
There is a lot of corroborating evidence. The man has been dishonest about other shoes dropping. And unlike the GOP, we do have red lines. I don’t know what happened. Neither do you. But the place to adjudicate that is a court room, not a senate race on which may hinge the fate of the nation.
Nope. Not arrested. But the GOP hasn’t even unloaded their opposition research yet and his fundraising numbers were already slumping after the sexting info came out and before this. Large swaths of the left have un-endorsed him. He’s done. And if he doesn’t know that and fails to step down, the next four months will be a constant stream of this.
It's a mistake to compare Republican voters to Democratic voters like that. Because Republican voters don't care about stuff like sexual assault does not automatically mean that Democratic voters won't either. The only "Dem voters" who genuinely don't care about sexual assault allegations are the far leftists who represent the bottom of the horseshoe and who are most of a threat to flip MAGA. They're also the people least likely to actually vote for any Democrat on a ballot, as instead they prefer to voice their complaints and abstain in protest. But the majority of people who would actually pull the lever for a Democratic candidate are not going to vote for someone who's an accused rapist. So acting like running such a candidate is not a big deal because of Trump is just wrong.
It would be wonderful if it could be shown that the woman, whether a victim of Plattner or not, was paid to come out with her story by some R operative.
Up till now, it would have taken a close reading of the actual Maine statute. It's disappointing that mainstream media couldn't get this info quickly. A phone call to officials in Maine should have cleared it up quickly.
turnout would probably be low, only the most engaged party members, who are following the news closely enough to respond to seek out participation. that's still better than an executive decision tho.
Kitzsu - doesn’t Maine have a tradition of town meetings for local governance? Could be some culture of participation different from states I’ve lived in, which could be tapped into to make this effort more feasible there than would be most places
It's a tight time frame indeed. I'll admit that I don't know the rules, but it seems that local caucuses could be held and the votes from those gatherings tallied rather than holding a convention.
Think back a few years. Remember the pandemic? Spring 2020? Triage centers were set up in tents on the street. Every school system in this country (OK not South Dakota, but everybody else) went online over night. A majority of the restaurants switched to takeout virtually overnight. Every grocery chain started doing online ordering and curbside pickup. The funeral homes? Remember the funeral homes, how they managed? Every business that was open installed plastic shields between staff and customers. Distilleries began manufacturing hand sanitizer. My friends started sewing face masks! And setting up online spreadsheets to keep track of which store had toilet paper. . .or chicken breasts. . .
People can turn on a dime in an emergency. You rent a few high school gymnasiums--they're empty now-- and town hall meeting spaces, you train a few volunteers, you print a few ballots--Boom, you've got caucuses.
'and have been vetted.' Sure about that? As disappointed as I am in Platner, please remind me just what the DCCC does for a living, especially before they ask, in deep humility, for another contribution for the fifth or sixth time today.
Or, just have a caucus where any person in Maine could be chosen.
But the people who make this choice need to choose someone who represents the progressive populism of Platner, or this will be a disaster. The people he excited will stay home.
If the Democratic Party wants to replace Collins with someone qualified for the job, the party needs to get on board with the progressive agenda Platner ran on.
I could argue that people are used to assholes in their daily life and have accepted that politics right now is a bunch of assholes so let's get our own in there. We don't hold assholes in our own life accountable a lot of the time so why are we suprised that it is cascading into our politics?
Daniel Patrick Moynahan coined the phrase : Dumbing down of America. He used it in a different context but along came DJT. And he gave it new meaning; intellect and morality.
Another way to think about this: What is it about our political system that seems to attract sociopaths? Is there a way to do it differently that wouldn't keep giving us that result?
Edit: Since writing this, I read this excellent essay from Jess Piper. Maybe the problem is that only sociopaths are willing to do what it takes to survive our horrible political process: https://jesspiper.substack.com/p/vetting
Came here to say something similar. Is being a sexual assaulter a prerequisite for male [mostly] politicians? It seems that whatever causes someone to be one, is the same cause for the other. Power, I guess.
Sociopaths are, IIRC, over-represented in politics and corporate leadership.
The best way to get rid of a lot of this crap would be to institute selection by sortition for citizen assemblies. It would deliver a representative sample of the population, rather than the extremes. It would eliminate the cost (fiscal and psychological and to the truth) of election campaigns. It probably would not give us results any worse than what we are currently getting.
Not just 2026. Reagan ran on being a Washington outsider. It was definitely part of Carter's appeal after Watergate. It has been invoked by many candidates since. We want effective politicians who don't seem like politicians.
Well, there are warts and then there is full-blown, body parts falling off, leprosy. And I think that credible accusations of rape is full-blown, body parts falling off, leprosy.
Why? Trump got elected. No one seems to care that he was just ordered to pay Carrol for attacking her in a dressing room. If he were Democrat he'd be forced to resign. But a Republican can literally can get away rape and probably murder.
Yes, which is a large reason why I vote democrat, not republican. Character matters. Actions matter. Yeah its unfair the other side gets to just throw out character complaints. Gtf over it. Life isn't fair. We all agree on the end goal, but how many principles are you willing to throw out to get there?
Get back to exactly why we oppose Trump and his administration so much, which at a very basic level can be boiled down to self aggrandizement and lack of principles.
I could possibly live with the self aggrandizement and lack of principles. It's the shooting my fellow citizens on the street that I actually have a problem with.
Yeah obviously. And I think that’s the most outrageous thing his administration has done so far.
But this discussion was in the context of who you support as a candidate, and events in 2026 are irrelevant to why he seemed unsupportedablle from the start, in 2016, as a candidate.
and the Hollywood Access tape, and the reporting on ogling partially dressed young girls in the Miss America pageant, and the potentially explosive Epstein revelations if that ever happens........I guess Trump is just SO awesome, sent by God himself to save the world, that he has total and complete moral immunity. GAAAAAAH. What has happened to society??!! Why are we even debating Platner, and what-abouting him? There MUST be someone else!!!
It looked like Belgium was particularly motivated to win. The presidential involvement likely was something along the lines of bulletin board material for them to go out and embarrass us as much as they could. I'm sure their fans are particularly pleased today.
When my wife first heard the score she said, Good! Nothing against the American team but Trump enshitifies. Like he always does. And yet 36- 37% support him
This is my view. It probably rallied them to play that much harder and better. But also, they are probably the better side. Also, they probably had most of the rest of the world pulling for them, if karma or prayer or whatever makes a difference.
Full disclosure: I went to WNBA match (Connecticut at Minnesota) instead of watching the match. Had wrestled with what to do before the Trump fiasco.
In his statement after the red card, he said he thought the call was wrong but it's the ref's call to make and players respect that principle. Then Trump corrupted his sportsmanship.
Those watching the game with me last night all agreed that the American team seemed unsure, maybe shaken...not like the team we watched win a couple of days ago. The reason, we all concluded, was the news that the president intervened to get the suspension lifted. How embarrassing it was for them.
It was hilarious how he admitted that he didn't even know what a red card was but then pivoted to posing as an expert on what's an improper call and said he knows sports really really well.
I don't know much about soccer either, except that when I suggest improvements my English friends take great offense. I see why you might want even an inadvertent "high spikes" be a foul; I don't see why it should be a red card plus suspension.
The USA team wound up being a victim of Trump's sticking his nose in where it didn't belong. 1) They no longer were standing on their own merits but were like the kid whose well-connected parents got them a job/university. They suddenly had less personal power since they got special treatment, due to Trump's corrupt influence. Balagan in particular would have been conflicted even if only on a subconscious level. A 'favor' not asked for but foisted upon him 2) Any win by the US team would have been tainted 3) Belgium had a real fire in their belly and may have been fiercer opponents. Trump degrades everybody.
I also notice that it’s only Americans insisting that Balogun’s red card was incorrectly given or that the US had “an airtight case for appeal”. There is no appeal against these things in the World Cup; the ref’s decision is (except apparently when the US president starts making threats) final and whether you agree or not tough. It’s how football works.
England fans are still angry about Maradona’s handball being ignored by the ref which enabled him to score knocking England out of the 1986 World Cup in the quarter finals 40 years on (hilariously I’ve just discovered that there’s a fairly lengthy Wikipedia article on the controversy named “Hand of God” -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_hand_of_God). But we had to live with it.
Football is not like American sports where violence by players is either encouraged or gets you a brief spell in the sin bin at worst. A red card is a serious thing; especially in an international tournament where every game is vital and a suspension can be devastating. Not that my opinion matters but personally from the video and frame by frame it doesn’t look unreasonable to conclude Barogun deliberately stamped on Muharemović‘s ankle. At the very least it was an overly aggressive tackle of the sort football authorities have been cracking down on heavily in recent years.
To give a feel for how strongly the rest of the world feels about this. Despite none of the British teams being directly affected, Trump’s interference and FIFA’s capitulation is a front page story on all but two of the main British papers today (including the broadsheets). The other two go with intra-Royal family shenanigans relating to Harry’s visit to the UK.
The US getting thrashed 4-1 is being categorised as karmic comeuppance. It was probably the best outcome for the USMST (and FIFA for that matter). Had they won things really could have started spiralling out of control. At the very least the US team would forever be labelled the Trump cheats and booed and jeered wherever they played. I can’t come up with a good terrace chant myself but football fans can be quite imaginative about these things.
This is exactly right. For the integrity of the World Cup, the best outcome was Belgium beating the U.S. in a decisive way. Which is exactly what happened. I'm a fan of U.S. soccer, but I wouldn't have wanted to win depending on the corruption of FIFA and Trump. Now we're back to the tournament -- which has been really good -- and as I'm typing this, Egypt is leading Argentina at the half!
True enough. Although it has improved in recent years.
For domestic professional football the Hillsborough disaster of 1989 was a real watershed moment. While it didn’t immediately stop hooliganism the subsequent reforms in the way stadiums were set up (seating only, no alcohol other than in the corporate boxes and strict crowd limits) and matches were policed (especially police getting serious about breaking up the organised gangs who only went to games looking for a fight) slowly made a difference. Growing up it seemed that every Saturday during the season there would be one or more riots or other serious violent incidents. Now that’s thankfully almost vanishingly rare.
The record of England fans at international tournaments is more mixed but has been slowly getting better. Possibly due to a combination of the last few World Cups being held in authoritarian countries and the cost of attending putting it out of reach of the type of people who go to matches looking for trouble. Some argue that we’re still dogged by the reputation we earned in the 1980s (the Heysel disaster in particular) and these days don’t behave on average any worse than fans from other countries but are judged more harshly because of our appalling historical record.
You are right of course. But it's still really different from American sports, where opposing fans sit together, watch together in bars, etc. I have held season tickets for Mizzou college football, and now for the Minnesota Twins, and there's nothing but pleasant rivalries.
My first English football match was Burnley v. Man City in 1994, so First Division, at Maine Road. I was told by my in-laws to not show my claret and blue scarf until I was inside the stadium, and I had actually never seen such a large security presence anywhere before, especially of mounted police. And of course, we couldn't leave the stadium until after all the home supporters had had time to leave.
I have been to matches at Turf Moor many times since then. The first time I went, my parents in law were worried I would be offended by the songs, but I was able to reassure them that I couldn't understand a single word anyway, so no problem. But as far as I know, it's still the case that home and away supporters sit in completely different parts of the stands, and the away supporters are locked in until the crowd clears.
It has just always struck me as odd that we Americans, who are so violent as a culture, have a healthy and fun relationship with sports, compared to English football.
Oh yeah. Supporters are still segregated by team. Having grown up with that always being the case it’s one of those things that doesn’t strike me as strange in the same way it might a non-European from a different sports fan culture. It’s standard practice in I think all, certainly most, European countries, not just Britain. Each team gets allocated a section of the stadium and sells their tickets to their fans.
It’s not legally obligated as far as I know - although British police do have power to bar entry to people if they think it might cause trouble - but still considered best practice and, even ignoring the security issues, probably a tradition at this point so fans are all cheering for the same side together. At least now you’re unlikely to suffer more than a bit of verbal mockery if you happen to end up in the wrong section due to going with friends who support the other team or using someone else’s season ticket. 40 years ago you’d be lucky not to get stabbed.
I’m more of a casual fan these days and not attended a match in person in years so don’t know how heavy handed the police presence is now. It probably varies depending on who’s playing and the reputation of their fans.
I do remember going to see Arsenal v West Ham at Upton Park (then West Ham’s home ground) as an Arsenal supporter for an FA cup match in 1989 (the same FA cup series that ended up being scarred by Hillsborough, so before things started improving). There were (going off an entirely impressionistic estimate by a 17 year old me) at least twice as many police as at the average Arsenal home game. The atmosphere was pure menace. I have never felt as worried about my personal safety as I did that cold January Sunday afternoon. It ended up being a 2-2 draw and the Hammer’s supporters were not happy about it. It was more than 2 hours after the match finished before police had cleared the West Ham fans from the area and started letting the Arsenal fans out.
Interesting that it's so focused on football. I've been to a number of cricket internationals of various stripes, and it's not like that at all. It's really great that they have improved the situation around football. My in-laws, as Burnley supporters, always tried to get tickets in the home supporter section when attending away matches and just avoided wearing identifying clothing and kept their reactions quiet, rather than sit with the Claret away supporters. Seems sad to me.
Although it does not apply in this case every time I hear chants of U S A I want to bellow An Ti Fa. I’m not against our military or our athletes, but I am furious about republicans deciding who has free speech.
I watched the game in which the red card was issued. The tv analysts, some of whom were not American, said the red card was uncalled for and that use of the super slow motion video made the act seem more intentional and worse than it really was. They said a yellow card would have been ok to use.
Additional question. Should the USA ever be allowed to host again? Also can somebody tell me were the pre game flyovers on for the US team? That doesn’t seem to me the was a host nation should behave.
Belgium was always the better side, and it would have taken a Herculean effort on the part of USMNT to get past them. Trump taking the wind out of the American sails and giving Belgium lots of incentive to embarrass us on the world stage just made it exponentially harder, and the Americans were outclassed.
I'm waiting in bated breath how and where DJT will affix blame for the America blowout loss. And he will! Rick Wilson came up with the best description of Trump: everything Trump touched dies.( except his wallet)
Americans couldn’t win. If they actually won it was because they cheated. If they lost, it was because DT inserted himself into the equation. Guaranteeing them a loss. They were doomed the minute he made that phone call. As we all are.
Sam: "In a new, devastating report from Politico on Monday, a woman who once dated Platner said he sexually assaulted her nearly five years ago. The details are both disturbing and well-documented. Her substantiation alone—Facebook messages supporting her account and corroboration from another ex-boyfriend whom she told about it—gives her account credibility. That Platner denied the accusation is far from convincing. At a certain point, the pattern of behavior becomes impossible to dismiss, even if the details are obscured by the fog of memory."
I've been waiting for this particular shoe to drop. Imagine how arrogant you have to be to run for Senate with the majority in the balance with this many skeletons in your closet. Platner obviously thought he could weather this. After all, he probably looked at Donald Trump and concluded you can be a piece of shit and still have a 50/50 shot at winning. That sort of thinking leads to ruin. Planter needs to go, and if he doesn't drop out on his own, he needs to be forced out.
Talarico in Texas is being called a girl and a trans. He's a seminarian with a clean record.
paxton is the middle of divorce on biblical grounds. Going off to Iceland with his mistress for the 4th. Corrupt as hell and out loud and proud about it. Should've served time.
Democrats police themselves, republicans don't. For the rethugs it's a source of manly pride. And Democrats lose.
Because I'm mean when it comes to stuff like this, I think a Democratic super-PAC should generate an AI video of Paxton and Trump participating in a drug-fueled orgy. Voiceover: "This is what Ken Paxton *really* thinks of the Ten Commandments. He's a modern day Caligula, but worse."
That arrogance seems to have been encouraged by a lot of other people, too. The ones who approached him to run in the first place, various early supporters and Democrat-haters who continued to support and defend him even in the face of mounting indicators, etc.
I hope the activists who hate insider politics and the voters who support them have learned a lesson about the value of vetting.
Good article. But Sonny, you fell into a trap. "I couldn’t help but think back to the Jimmy Kimmel suspension in September of last year, following a tasteless crack about Charlie Kirk in the aftermath of his assassination. " Actually it was NOT a crack about Charlie Kirk! Not even a little. It was a crack about MAGAs reaction to it. [Kimmel: "We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it."]. NEVER concede to the reality distortion that MAGA has tried to enforce on everyone.
Thank you Ben! I get pissed off every time someone in the press mischaracterizes Kimmel's remark and they do it here often. There was nothing wrong with what Kimmel said and it was completely accurate. He cast no aspersion on Kirk whatsoever. He was talking about Fox.
I don't mean to offend any USA soccer fans, but America losing to Belgium after Trump's blatant corruption of the game gives me hope that the arc of the moral universe really does bend toward justice.
100% true. And why does Trump meddle so much? The answer can be found in a quote from today's Morning Shots - he happens to be "a narcissistic president who believes the world revolves around himself." What infuriates me the most is that, currently, the world DOES revolve around Donald J. Trump. Because of his insecurities, he has to control center stage at all times and in order to maintain his carnival barker persona he has to say or do one outrageous thing after another to make sure he stays in the limelight. His presidency doesn't consist of him actually doing any of the work that a normal president would do to "protect and defend" the Constitution or work with Congress to make life better for all Americans. No, he sleeps late every morning, gets up and does as many interviews, press gaggles, and staged personal appearances as he can manage for the day, then goes to bed and stays up all night posting ridiculous opinions on Truth Social or re-posting inflammatory or laudatory memes. In doing so, he has managed to create a mediascape where his presence is the dominant feature 24/7. Some say it is because of his massive ego - but I don't buy that. Most natural leaders have a healthy ego, but also enough confidence in themselves to not have to live perpetually in the public eye. They are not like Trump, who has to create events and controversies to guarantee people pay attention to him. The internet and social media are just the tools of his trade. I wish the "press" did not give in to his whims and desires for constant adulation and that the tech giants and their algorithms didn't spew it out ad naseum. I, personally, long for the days when you could go weeks at a time without giving a thought to what the president was doing or saying, much less being shocked and aghast every single hour of every single day. It is exhausting. Unfortunately, we have brought this upon ourselves by accepting and eagerly participating in the technology that makes it possible. Trump knows how to expertly take the most advantage of this, thereby ensuring that the world does, indeed, revolve around him - to the detriment of the nation and our standing in the world, as evidenced by his most recent meddling fiasco in the World Cup competition.
Let's not forget Chuck Schumer's role in this. He decided that Janet Mills should be the next Senator from Maine. She is a capable and talented woman, who nevertheless is very old and part of the establishment that voters are rejecting. Chuck cleared the field of anyone except Platner and Mills, and here we are. Platner needs to go, and so does Chuck Schumer.
But then you have Mark Robinson. Roy Moore. Donald Trump. They didn’t drop out. One got crushed, one lost a squeaker, the other was elected president … twice.
So true and disgusting. I hate that anything resembling virtue is seen as weakness. You can be a fighter and strive to be a good human being. Both can be true.
JD, or whatever he's calling himself these days, can have a hot cup of "shut the fuck up". The man has no principles, and it's an indictment of our nation that such a man can ascend to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
The trick is arriving at a single set of standards. Currently, the Dems have many standards. Too many to arrive at guiding principles. Which is probably worse.
I think the implication here is that we should expect more from party leaders, elders, gray hairs, professionals, etc. That's true. But the inescapable fact is that 77 million people (and more on a weighted basis in the states) keep voting for moral degenerates. This is a problem that goes way beyond "the party" and for that reason I'm not sure how to fix it or if it even can be fixed.
But only if the candidate is one of them. When it's not, then they decry the lack of morals and character. The mind of the GOP base voter is heavily compartmentalized. This is why they can be weapons grade hypocrites and not experience any cognitive dissonance.
Not only morally degenerate in their personal lives, but morally and legally compromised in the manner in which they conduct themselves as elected officials in the duties of their office. See: Ken Paxton.
For whatever set of reasons, the Democratic Party has lost its ability to circle the wagons around its own creeps.
Mind you, this is the same party that once successfully defended Bill Clinton, a serial sexual predator and a man of profoundly skeevy morals; this is the same party that rallied around the feckless, reckless Ted Kennedy and kept him in the US Senate for years (although he had to give up his dream of the presidency) even after he left Mary Jo Kopechne dead at Chappaquiddick.
Somewhere after the turn of the 21st century, perhaps in an appeal to the women's vote, Democrats became harsher on their sexual miscreants: to the extent of knifing Al Franken in the back and driving him out of the US Senate even though he was guilty of just about nothing at all, the target, in fact, of a right wing dirty op.
The Republicans, meanwhile, postured as Great Christians right up until 2016 when it became clear Donald was going to be their candidate, at which point they decided he was a figure out of the Old Testament, a depraved sinner sent by God: one of many depraved sinners in the GOP, including Ken Paxton, and realized they could go on blaguing about what Great Christians they are even as they committed the most atrocious sins.
I don’t disagree, but it says as much about GOP VOTERS as anything. And though I don’t expect or want my candidates to be completely pure in character — those types are invariably pearl-clutching moralists — I do expect them to have a sense of shame and remorse. Even Teddy got sober and didn’t defend his awful behavior.
I wonder if Platner, who obviously has some speaking talent, had been up front from the beginning, might still be running (assuming he would have made it through the primary). The rule politicians, particularly GOP politicians, has gotten from Trump is never admit or apologize. Just keep defiantly lying.
Donald had it dinned into him by his mentor, the infamous Roy Cohn: deny everything, admit nothing, never apologize, never concede a loss. If challenged, attack.
In that schema, utterly amoral ruthlessness is the hallmark of a winner, and even more than Cohn, Trump is a living embodiment of Lombardi’s dictum that winning is the only thing. For people who see themselves as part of a despised minority, that’s the hero-champion to stick with.
Yes; the fact that the outrageous Franken thing happened [and the two jackasses who did it, NY's Senators, are both still in office] is one of the prime reason why people like me opposed Platner being forced out initially. It seemed to stink to high heaven.
Not any more. "When the facts change, my opinion changes. Why? What do you do? "--Orwell.
MAGA has no shame. It's wrong that they get away with it most of the time. But its their brand. They are proud of breaking the rules both informal and formal.
One of the biggest struggles I see in the Trump era is fighting back against the MAGA-level acceptance of ‘everything is good as long as the candidate is on my team’. There was a lot of that in the acceptance of Platner as a candidate. I hope when there is a next time, people decide it is right and good to say no to a Nazi tattoo. That really should have been enough.
At first glance, I read the title as "A Case for Recklessly Endangering the Senate." Thank you, Sam Stein, for not writing that article!
My biggest issues is how do these guys think they should run for political office when there might be even a hint of a scandal in their background? Is the thirst for power that great or is there some sort of character deficiency that they think their history won't be found out or won't be an issue? Neither option is great.
My assumption is that he truly doesn’t believe he did anything wrong. Mind you, I am not saying he didn’t do anything wrong, just that he probably believes that. I get the feeling though that he may be realizing this is a bridge too far this time
As usual, there will be only one winner of the World Cup this time around. All other teams will be losers, though there will be opportunity to claim 'a good run" in varying degrees. As far as I can tell, there will be only one team that is both beaten and disgraced: USA, thanks to the President of the United States.
I was thinking last night about the type of candidate likely to be attracted to run in an almost existentially important election and where it would be more about what needs doing and less about their character. The more benign sort is someone who truly cares about what's at stake, knows he has some flaws but gives them less weight than he normally would because the stakes are so high. Less excusable: someone drawn to the personal power and the space that excuses their bad behavior.
It's maybe not totally different than the psychology driving people to run in more normal times, but the usual brakes and counterweights don't seem nearly as effective. That someone could know there were these kinds of accusations out there against him (true or not) and choose to run, be *allowed* to run, is a sign something isn't working. And I hope the people vetting candidates are paying attention. If this is what the people want, we need a different way of spotting problems like this before we get to that point.
I am glad to hear it looks like Graham Platner will step back. I know it feels unfair (is unfair) when Trump and so many others are getting away with the same things. But it does me good to see we still demand better than that.
“I couldn’t help but think back to the Jimmy Kimmel suspension in September of last year, following a tasteless crack about Charlie Kirk in the aftermath of his assassination.”
I went back and watched the Kimmel clip and I can’t see what it was he said that was “tasteless.” The only thing I can see MAGA getting upset about is Kimmel exposing Trump’s lack of sympathy for Kirk and his obsession with monuments to his greater glory.
Exactly. He made a joke at the expense of *MAGA*, and noone else. Naturally, the "Can't tell a joke any more" snowflakes couldn't deal, so they threw a hissy fit.
In today's digital world, how could anyone be so stupid as to try to run for office when you have that in the background. Nothing is hidden, and unless you are a Guardian of Pedophile supporter, things like this matter.
We also have to accept the fact that no candidate in the future will ever be able to keep up some kind of squeaky-clean image. Trump embraced that and went 100% the other direction, crowing about how corrupt and awful he is, and enough people liked that, whether he's being "authentic" or just "owning the libs" that he got elected two, almost three, times.
Suggested approach for Maine Democrats when (not if) Platner drops out. Just a few weeks ago in the Dem Governor primary, three candidates emerged as the strongest competitors to the eventual winner: Nirav Shah, Shenna Bellows, and Troy Jackson. They just demonstrated voter support. Why not have the three compete in caucuses and a convention. (Troy Jackson is a strong Platner supporter). Then we can avoid the "Biden/Harris" problem of a dictated choice, and all of them have campaign staffs and have been vetted.
I agree this would be the best course. My worry is that Schumer will get involved and they will try and run Mills. That would most assuredly cause us to lose that seat.
That would be the worst case scenario but reading the chatter, it seems unlikely. I think Schumer and Mills recognize it would go over poorly.
Your words in their ears.
Is the attitude Mills takes going to be help or hindrance?
I think that is an important question as I do believe she has a role to play here and hopefully it will be to help this transition.
Mills would win because come general election the primary fever types have little influence.
Age is a message board on political websites issue. Not an overall Maine voter issue.
2024 while people were rightfully scared of Joe Biden’s age issues no one in Maine thought twice about electing the 80 year old Angus King Jr.
Part of the reason she dropped out is that Platner polled better against Collins than she did. There is no guarantee that enough Platner supporters would throw their votes to Mills. Age was, in fact, a reason given by voters for not supporting Mills.
I think they would not but I’m not from Maine
Yesterday I was of the opinion that they should just put in Mills, but today I've changed my mind. Platner absolutely HAS to drop out, but the Dems 100% can not just instead give Maine voters the person they pretty emphatically did not want in his place. Two things are clear to me: Platner can't win, and Maine Democratic voters have no interest in Mills as the nominee. I don't know where that leaves them, but I think if they put Mills in there, she'll lose just like Platner would.
She would lose by more than Platner would and depress Matt Dunlap's numbers in the Second Congressional District. I personally like Janet Mills but she cannot be the candidate.
Shumer is already involved, both him and that godawful Gillebrand.
The Maine democratic leadership seem pretty capable to me. They don’t need Chuck Schumer or Kristen Gillibrand.
Platner was never going to be a good senator. He is a flawed human being who shouts a lot but has never fought anything politically.
He is the equivalent of the pyramid scheme, NFT, Trump crypto. He made the young people feel good and made them think they knew something no one else did. When in fact everyone knew this guy was garbage from the beginning. His resume fit the Proud Boys better than the senate.
Now it’s time to get an adult to actually win this race.
Did you ever attend one of his rallies.? he went all over the state of maine, holding town halls and letting folks ask him questions and giving them good answers.
Susan collins hasn't held a town hall in over 20 years. you can goggle that fact! The reason platner was embraced by mainers (he received more votes in the recent primary than anyone ever has!)- is that most Mainers really, really, really want to be rid of Susan Colins as our Senator. Now we'll have to put up with her being "concerned" for another 6 years. and by the way, platner made the old folks feel good, too.
And by the way, Platner fucked over all those people who trusted him by running when he knew he had these kinds of skeletons in his closet. He's a piece of shit who was lying to you and it's time you guys recognize that and turn your anger towards him. This is his mess and his fault.
Voters wasted Janet Mills', who actually stood up to Trump and lived to tell about it. Platner could have started out in state politics instead of the US Senate.
Rallies don’t win elections. In most senate races the candidate with the most rallies has zero correlation to winning. Neither do primaries determine general election winners.
Hershel Walker dwarfed Raphael Warnock in terms of rallies. Dr. Oz had huge rallies. They lost.
I never attended a Platner rally or a Hershel Walker rally. Why would I?
Maine elected Angus King easily at 80 years old in 2024. Janet Mills was a 80% candidate to win the general if Platner hadn’t come along.
Things like rally size and tv appearances and town halls are irrelevant toward winning general elections. Your own words show that … Susan Collins wins without the big rallies.
lol. "hoity-toity folks": what happened???
I saw him as shadow-MAGA from the get-go. But we USAnians love us our grifters and problem drinkers.
I agreed with this from the day his name and tattoo went public. "I was drunk when I got it." No kidding. So what's he going to do next time he's drunk? Well we found out: rape. We need Platner to drop out. He needs to get into AA/
Or not as the success rate for AA is exactly the same as the success rate for not doing AA.
Touché!
Amusing that someone asked you if you ever attended one of platner’s rallies. That’s akin to saying that one voted for trump simply because of a “fantasy” trump rally.
It seems that many folks who still support platner just don’t get it, to put it kindly. 🙏
A town hall, where people can ask questions of the Candidate or office holder, is much different than a campaign rally. Noone is singing and dancing to the "YMCA" at a town hall event. Maybe attend one sometime to see the vast difference.
Yes. Town hall meetings are different. Still bs is bs. Need not say more
He definitely is not the candidate with the best chance of defeating Collins anymore though, not since it's come out that he's a rapist, and that's the point. And you can't blame anyone but Platner for that since he definitely knew all this shit about himself and still decided to risk it by running.
This is exactly like the Joe Biden issue in 2024, where a selfish, vain candidate harmed the party and the country by deciding to run when they very obviously shouldn't have. Both Biden and Platner have fucked over the Dems and the country by pissing away what could have been winnable elections. Hopefully the Maine Democratic Party can clean his mess up better than the Dems did in 2024. But really this is on Platner just like it was on Biden for putting everyone in this disastrous situation.
All snark aside, if she wanted to really torpedo him, wouldn't she have done it when the NYT interviewed her before the primary? Or she REALLY could have screwed him over by waiting until after the drop out date.
Its like you haven't even thought the conspiracy theory through.
Bro, get a grip. Planter hasn't led Collins outside the margin of error in a single poll. He might be a slight favorite, but hes one minor scandal away from blowing the easiest Dem Senate race outside of California in the last decade.
Oh, wait. Whoops. Wrong tense.
SMH
Probably no more than Trump's history of sexual assault, and Kavanaugh's history of sexual assault affect their ability to be a good Republican President and a good Supreme Court Justice.
I mean, he'll probably be no worse than any other sexual predator we've sent to Congress.
I hope you threw up in your mouth a little when you wrote that sentence.
Like Clinton, JFK, RFK, or Teddy Kennedy.
Wow, it's almost like you think there's no reason to even try to do better.
Meanwhile, Susan Collins is responsible for the harm and deaths of thousands of women, look at mortality rates since Roe vs Wade was reversed, and she gets a pass.
I didn't ever vote for a single one of them. Nor would I.
JFK is far and away the most overrated POTUS in US history (I'd put him well into the lower half, unpopular opinion as that may be).
Clinton was a little better, but not exactly top tier.
I get your point. But if we abandon all standards of decency for office why don't we just let the trumpelsteins stay?
Because the Republicans are stripping every hard fought benefit the working class has won over the past 30 years. There will be no health care for low income people, many of whom will die. They have put 1,000's of people in concentration camps that you can't even get near without being arrested. When we go to inspect those detentions centers and they find them empty surrounded by mass graves, you can feel it justified because you kept another imperfect Democrat out office
So, you thought it was okay to be a NAZI, if he could beat Susan Collins.
Now you’re saying it’s okay to be a NAZI rapist? If Democrats aren’t better than MAGA, there’s no reason not to vote MAGA.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
You can disagree with his logic, but it is not shameful. It's just a different ethical tradition. Utilitarian theories suggest that when you can choose between smaller injustices and larger ones, you choose the smaller one. A more Kantian logic argues that you can't excuse the smaller injustice because. . .slippery slopes. I personally think Platner needs to step down but I understand the frustration of those who rightly note that our party has much higher standards than the other party and our party is losing. At some point, being better than them could cease to matter when their boots are permanently stepping on our necks.
We have real NAZIs putting 1,000s of people in concentration camps right now. Storm troopers who answer only to Stephen Miller who murder the innocent without reprimand. I hope when they find many detainees dead, you can feel like it was worth because at least Platner didnt get in office.
Agreed 100%. These people are so focused on their hatred of Israel and Jews that every other issue fades away for them. They don't care if he's a rapist, they don't care if he's a Nazi (hell, on that one they might see it as establishing his bona fides). All they care about is that he hates Israel.
I have no love for what Israel has been doing under Bibi either, but it's far from my most important issue with regards to American politicians. I'm far more worried about the shit Trump is doing here in America than what Bibi is doing in Israel. I hope the Israelis vote Bibi out and the courts there throw him in jail, but none of that is on any ballots here in America.
Why so many on the left have made this their single issue of importance, I'll never understand. My best guess is propaganda on TikTok or something? Why do so many people care THIS MUCH about Israel here in America? We have far more distressing issues to worry about with our own government than to ignore that in favor of something some other country in the Middle East is doing.
So you are saying we can't have a compelling candidate who hasn't raped his girlfriend?
Thats a sad commentary on the Democratic Party if true.
Thought experiment: What if Platner were credibly accused of *murdering* someone? (Let's say the case was botched by law enforcement and will never go to trial, but a reasonable person can look at the evidence and think it's damn likely that he did it.) Would you also question whether that affects his ability to be a good senator?
The point is... most people will decide *at some point* that a candidate is simply too bad a person to be rewarded with an elected office, or to be trusted with the power of that office. People differ on where they'd draw that line, but I think it's safe to say that "credibly accused of rape" will do it for most people... certainly enough to lose a competitive senate race.
Your ethical reasoning is impeccable and it's hard for people who want to consider themselves good people to argue with it. But I would ask you to re-read and reconsider this statement: "I think it's safe to say that "credibly accused of rape" will do it for most people."
Does something not strike you about that sentence? It is completely factually untrue based on actual recent events.
A jury of his peers found Trump guilty of sexual assault in 2023. His accuser was credible: E Jean Carroll was a far better victim from a prosecution standpoint than Jenny Racicot, (sad to say and don't jump on me people, this isn't about me, it's about juries) because she had never previously had a relationship with Trump and she was willing to make her accusation to his face in front of the world. This was after more than 25 other women had accused him of various forms of molestation and years after he was caught ON TAPE bragging about his assaults.
But a little over a year later, he won the popular vote. So, I think it is actually safe to say, based on evidence and not conjecture or instinct, that credibly accused of rape (or even actually convicted of rape) will NOT do it for *most* people.
To be clear, I think Platner probably did it and he should step down. But rlritt is asking: Does it make sense to cling to standards of personal behavior for electeds when the rest of our society seems to have given up the very idea that such standards matter at all? Isn't it like boxing with one hand tied behind your back?
Sarah and Tim pointed out yesterday that sleazy allegations have indeed taken down other Republicans, such as Roy Moore. So, maybe the reality is that "credibly accused of rape will do it for most people UNLESS the candidate is Donald Trump." If that's the case, this madness will someday end when Trump ends.
>>So, maybe the reality is that "credibly accused of rape will do it for most people UNLESS the candidate is Donald Trump."<<
Well, that's it exactly... and I don't think it's hard to see why.
By 2023, Trump had a base of supporters who were fully invested in a Trump mythology that says: Trump is a great man surrounded by enemies who will stop at nothing to take him down. They'll steal an election from him. They'll cripple his presidency with impeachments and hoaxes about Russian collusion. They'll concoct fake criminal charges to try to get him thrown in prison. And, of course... they'll put up some lying floozy to sue him on bogus sexual assault claims.
People argue about whether it's fair to describe Trump's base as a "cult," but that's the basic idea. After the first Trump presidency, followed by a "stolen election" narrative that swept up a great many of them, Trump supporters saw themselves in an "us against the world" narrative where Trump could do no wrong and allegations against him could only be crooked and false. By the time the Carroll decision came down, they weren't even open to thinking it was valid.
So, yeah: I do think Trump is the exception to the rule. There are a lot of scuzzballs in politics, but so far only one with his very own full-on cult.
That's more likely if Platner stays IN. You can yell about the unfairness of it all day, but if he stays in, he'll lose. (Frankly, the Nazi Tattoo Guy was already going to be a tough sell, and rightly so.)
This is like a rerun of Biden 2024 when I was pleading with anyone who'd listen that he needed to drop out because he was *going to lose* and how that was going to be *BAD* because we were going to get Trump. In return, I got a lot of nonsense about how unfair it was for the media to focus on his age, and how Trump was old too. Way to miss the point by a mile. How many times do we have to do this?
Two completely different things: Biden was unpopular. The "unfair" arguments were denial. Platner is actually popular. The assumption that a different candidate has a better shot against Collins works in a world where a convicted rapist did not win the popular vote for the presidency two years ago. I myself don't know the math here--but the assumption Collins victory is more likely if Platner stays in seems like an assumption and I'm not sure whether that scenario is more or less likely than the other.
He's lost all his institutional support and won't get any party money--he needs to step down. (He also needs to spare us all from the ongoing melodrama.) But I don't think we know whether a different Democratic candidate--a squeaky clean one--will actually attract more voters.
Planter staying in guarantees a loss. Replacing him with a credible candidate salvages a chance to win a D+7 state.
I would like to ask... did you think that what Brett Kavanaugh was alleged to have done was disqualifying from being a Supreme Court justice? And more to the point did you believe his late breaking accuser, Christine Blasey Ford? I think the situations are quite similar.
Yep. Same goes for how Eric Swalwell was pressured to drop out of the California governor's race for similar accusations. If this shit is going to be disqualifying for people, it should be disqualifying for ALL people. I take some pride in the fact that Democratic voters have this as a red line they will not cross. I wish Republican voters did as well, but they don't. If anything, accusations like this seem to elevate them in the eyes of GOP voters. Seeing all these leftists want to circle the wagons around a rapist with Nazi tattoos really illustrates the bottom of the horseshoe in politics.
At the very least, even from just a pragmatic standpoint, leftists really need to realize that Platner absolutely can not win now with these allegations against him. Why they want him to stay in the race when he has no chance of winning makes no sense to me. They are openly advocating for Susan Collins to win by taking this approach. They're very much like the people who were staunchly in favor of Biden staying in the race after that debate.
I mostly agree with you except that these folks don't think that Collins will win if Platner stays in, and I'm not *completely* sure they are wrong. We are assuming that to win in Maine, the Democrat has to attract folks who voted for Biden in 2020 but also for Collins. But what if the Dem could also win by attracting folks who voted for Trump in 2024? Those folks probably don't take rape allegations against their chosen candidate all that seriously because they voted for Trump. On balance, I would prefer he step down--and won't it be nice to have a candidate not plagued by scandal who we don't suspect is just an asshole? But the electorate's behavior here is not necessarily that predictable.
I said this in another comment elsewhere, but Democratic voters almost universally are not going to vote for a rapist. Trump voters will, that's obviously true. But like I said elsewhere, the only "Dem voters" who would vote for a rapist are the bottom of the horseshoe leftists who would be most likely to flip MAGA of anyone on the left (hence, Trump voters). I said they are not really "Dem voters" at all, as they'd never really vote for anyone in the Democratic party, but instead prefer to loudly complain about the Dems and then abstain from voting as a form of protest, unless the person running as a "Dem" is really there to destroy the Democratic party and remake it in Bernie's image.
So yes, Platner could still get those people, but that's a very slim slice of the pie. If you lose basically all the mainstream Dem voters by running a rapist, then they're not going to win a general election. Not when an actual Republican who rubber stamps everything Trump wants is on the ballot against them. Platner's chances of winning now are zero.
They aren’t the same. The attempted rape against Christine Blassey Ford occurred over 30 years ago and society was different regarding sexual assault. In Platner’s case, the accuser was interviewed 6 months ago and never mentioned rape. I don’t think society has changed in 6 months.
I have to disagree. At least for the purposes of my question to get at "what is a disqualifying behavior/allegation" they are reasonably similar. Both are a late breaking allegation of a sexual assault where the victim says they wrestled with coming forward before deciding to because they felt it was in society's best interest, with enough supporting evidence that it seems reasonably plausible that it is true, and where the purported victim doesn't seem especially angry or bitter or motivated by vengeance or a desire to see the man prosecuted. A situation where it also seems at least somewhat plausible that the male perpetrator might not remember it because of alcohol? And where this is plausibly derailing a rise to high office that otherwise seemed all but certain? Those seem like situations to me that are at least analogous.
The difference you are pointing out (and I admit I'm reading between the lines) seems to be that you believe one woman and not the other. That's your right of course and you could be right, but frankly, I personally find it VERY hard to read the politico story and think that there isn't at LEAST a very good chance that her story is true. I hope you've done a lot of thinking about which circumstances lead you to believe someone claiming they have been assaulted and which not to believe so you can apply them in a consistent manner. I know I have over the last few years.
The question is which story do you believe, the one 6 months ago where she never mentioned rape or the one where she claims rape? Also, has she reported the alleged rape to the police or only Jake Tapper?
I wouldnt have voted for Kavenaugh because he is a conservative whose values are help the rich and the hell with the poor. If Kavenaugh were a liberal and promised to vote to help people keep health care and close down immigrant detention centers and abolish ICE. Then yes I would have voted for him. But if Collins remains she will vote with Trump and fund ICE and allocate money for concentration camps.
Thanks for replying! I admire your consistency. One last question because I'm curious... Imagine for a moment that you can know with perfect certainty that a candidate you agree with politically in this situation WILL win and defeat an incumbent Senator who will buckle to Trump. Imagine too that you can perfectly know the heart and mind and previous history of both candidates. You are essentially omniscient about these people and the election outcome if they both run.
In this scenario is there ANYTHING your preferred candidate can do or have done, believe or have believed that would disqualify them in your mind? Phrased another way, and with a little less abstraction, would ANYTHING stop you from supporting Platner? If so, what would that be?
Speaking only for myself as a Dem, who believes the Democratic Party supportswomen, I’d say his pattern of abusive speech, his Nazi tattoo, and his sexual assault, because I find her very credible, all speak to someone with poor judgment, if not to misogyny and tendencies toward violence. To support his candidacy, he would have to have disclosed all of this at the start of his campaign.
On neophytism (is that a word?): I think the combination of the weakened party structure (thanks SCOTUS and social media!) combined with a certain political neophyte who won the presidency in 2016 has yielded yet another unforeseen consequence: the death of political expertise as an asset in the consultant class.
Tom Nichols should write a book about this or something.
Consent of the governed requires politicians who believe in consent. What would you like them to force on you?
Well, E. Jean Carroll came out with her Trump-encounter many years after the fact. Personally, I consider her a foolish woman who misunderstood who she was dealing with and let herself be lead into a dangerous situation. That said, I also believe her account. The world knows who Trump is now, so what's OUR excuse?
If I, beyond a doubt, knew that Platner would vote to defund ICE and to close detention centers, that would be a no brainer. The US cannot support a government that has armed Gestapo who are above the law even if they murder unarmed people, and support concentration camps where children are separated from their parents, and people are starved.
People this no longer a choice between pro labor Democrats and pro business Republicans.
There is no doubt that Trump and MAGA and poor deluded Susan Collins are fascists.
The NYT reported that the Maine Democratic committee has already said they will not just decide who is put on the ballot themselves. The report said that they are considering either a pop-up convention or a caucus. Fingers crossed they make this as democratic as possible (small D). I also hope that Platner gets input into this. As fatally flawed as his candidacy is, he has energized Maine Democratic voters and that is a critical piece of this.
Sarah and Tim made the point on their livestream yesterday that whatever oppo the Republicans have on him, they’d be holding it until after the deadline to drop out. They’re not the ones who dug this up. If this is what we’re finding out now, imagine what they could be holding onto for later?
There is a lot of corroborating evidence. The man has been dishonest about other shoes dropping. And unlike the GOP, we do have red lines. I don’t know what happened. Neither do you. But the place to adjudicate that is a court room, not a senate race on which may hinge the fate of the nation.
Apparently, she felt she couldn’t talk to the police, but had no problem going on television after the primary. The proper place is the courthouse.
Is this woman taking him to court? Has he been arrested?
Nope. Not arrested. But the GOP hasn’t even unloaded their opposition research yet and his fundraising numbers were already slumping after the sexting info came out and before this. Large swaths of the left have un-endorsed him. He’s done. And if he doesn’t know that and fails to step down, the next four months will be a constant stream of this.
Platner can’t win after this.
Trump is a cult leader, they’re not very common. His cult followers don’t care.
Does he excite Biden-Collins voters?
I doubt they'll be voting for sexual assaulter
It's a mistake to compare Republican voters to Democratic voters like that. Because Republican voters don't care about stuff like sexual assault does not automatically mean that Democratic voters won't either. The only "Dem voters" who genuinely don't care about sexual assault allegations are the far leftists who represent the bottom of the horseshoe and who are most of a threat to flip MAGA. They're also the people least likely to actually vote for any Democrat on a ballot, as instead they prefer to voice their complaints and abstain in protest. But the majority of people who would actually pull the lever for a Democratic candidate are not going to vote for someone who's an accused rapist. So acting like running such a candidate is not a big deal because of Trump is just wrong.
It would be wonderful if it could be shown that the woman, whether a victim of Plattner or not, was paid to come out with her story by some R operative.
No need to make her a double victim, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion of what may be doing on behind the scenes.
Troy Jackson is polling higher than Collins.
Troy Jackson just finished 3rd in a dem primary.
Here is the Wedgewood Polls Survey Ernest is referencing:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D7onbq7aV59X8lq2-YatdLNakqqCYTnB/view
Deadline is in 6 days though to put forth a name.
No it is not GP has 6 days to withdraw. Then Dems have 2 weeks to name a replacement candidate.
Actually, only the drop-out deadline is the 13th, new name has to be chosen by the 27th. That 2 week gap is gonna be HUGE to get this done correctly.
Thanks for the clarification! That wasn't clear on the NPR report yesterday.
Up till now, it would have taken a close reading of the actual Maine statute. It's disappointing that mainstream media couldn't get this info quickly. A phone call to officials in Maine should have cleared it up quickly.
The indie journalists I follow all had the boring but important timeline/process details correct. It’s been the MSM that’s been purposefully vague.
There is much lazy vagueness.
Why purposefully? There's no benefit to anybody. Lazy, clueless or in a rush. But not on purpose.
I got those exact correct dates in about 17 seconds yesterday using Google's shitty AI! I double checked on Maine.gov. No close reading required.
I don’t see how caucuses and a convention could be held by the end of this month, even in a relatively small state like Maine.
If Taylor Swift is truly committed to liberal democracy, she will loan her wedding planning team to Maine Dems.
Thanks for the only chuckle I have found in this story.🥂
turnout would probably be low, only the most engaged party members, who are following the news closely enough to respond to seek out participation. that's still better than an executive decision tho.
Kitzsu - doesn’t Maine have a tradition of town meetings for local governance? Could be some culture of participation different from states I’ve lived in, which could be tapped into to make this effort more feasible there than would be most places
It's a tight time frame indeed. I'll admit that I don't know the rules, but it seems that local caucuses could be held and the votes from those gatherings tallied rather than holding a convention.
Yes, that is what would make the most sense.
Think back a few years. Remember the pandemic? Spring 2020? Triage centers were set up in tents on the street. Every school system in this country (OK not South Dakota, but everybody else) went online over night. A majority of the restaurants switched to takeout virtually overnight. Every grocery chain started doing online ordering and curbside pickup. The funeral homes? Remember the funeral homes, how they managed? Every business that was open installed plastic shields between staff and customers. Distilleries began manufacturing hand sanitizer. My friends started sewing face masks! And setting up online spreadsheets to keep track of which store had toilet paper. . .or chicken breasts. . .
People can turn on a dime in an emergency. You rent a few high school gymnasiums--they're empty now-- and town hall meeting spaces, you train a few volunteers, you print a few ballots--Boom, you've got caucuses.
They need to hbave some sort of convention, yes, but on what legit basis can they limit it to three handpicked candidates?
'and have been vetted.' Sure about that? As disappointed as I am in Platner, please remind me just what the DCCC does for a living, especially before they ask, in deep humility, for another contribution for the fifth or sixth time today.
Or, just have a caucus where any person in Maine could be chosen.
But the people who make this choice need to choose someone who represents the progressive populism of Platner, or this will be a disaster. The people he excited will stay home.
If the Democratic Party wants to replace Collins with someone qualified for the job, the party needs to get on board with the progressive agenda Platner ran on.
There’s not time. The decision has to be made in less than two weeks
The party has until 7/27, which is 19 days from today. There is time.
Perhaps in the search for authenticity, it would be wise not to vote for someone who is authentically an asshole.
The problem is that a lot of people seem to prefer assholes, as long as that asshole is on their side or is thought to be.
Bingo. They like their asshole
That is a wonderful turn of phrase
I could argue that people are used to assholes in their daily life and have accepted that politics right now is a bunch of assholes so let's get our own in there. We don't hold assholes in our own life accountable a lot of the time so why are we suprised that it is cascading into our politics?
Well we're told all the time that "both parties are the same", or similar BS by the MSM
Daniel Patrick Moynahan coined the phrase : Dumbing down of America. He used it in a different context but along came DJT. And he gave it new meaning; intellect and morality.
He ran in the wrong party.
If he wants a political future after this, he'll end up in the GOP. He's done in the Democratic Party, though.
Another way to think about this: What is it about our political system that seems to attract sociopaths? Is there a way to do it differently that wouldn't keep giving us that result?
Edit: Since writing this, I read this excellent essay from Jess Piper. Maybe the problem is that only sociopaths are willing to do what it takes to survive our horrible political process: https://jesspiper.substack.com/p/vetting
Came here to say something similar. Is being a sexual assaulter a prerequisite for male [mostly] politicians? It seems that whatever causes someone to be one, is the same cause for the other. Power, I guess.
They’re attracted to power.
Sociopaths are, IIRC, over-represented in politics and corporate leadership.
The best way to get rid of a lot of this crap would be to institute selection by sortition for citizen assemblies. It would deliver a representative sample of the population, rather than the extremes. It would eliminate the cost (fiscal and psychological and to the truth) of election campaigns. It probably would not give us results any worse than what we are currently getting.
Agreed, but the search for an outsider is not some weird fixation of progressives. It's a response to the empirical state of politics in 2026.
"And how was it that political neophytism was treated as an asset and not a liability?"
Easy: because being a political neophyte is an asset. It's Platner's other stuff (like the asshole-ness) that were the liabilities.
Not just 2026. Reagan ran on being a Washington outsider. It was definitely part of Carter's appeal after Watergate. It has been invoked by many candidates since. We want effective politicians who don't seem like politicians.
Tell it to TrumpWorld.
Trumpers are pretty open in their belief that the indulgence they give to Trump should not extend to other people.
"Trumpers are pretty open in their belief that the indulgence they give to Trump should not extend to non-Trumpers" Fixed that for you.
Exactly. Platner should say FU to the Democrats and run as a Republican. He'd win in a landslide.
In Maine?
Idk
Trump followers are a cult. They’ll overlook anything.
Yes, we Dems need blue collar workers to just VOTE for us, not actually have the audacity to run for office, warts and all. (Yes, sarcasm).
Well, there are warts and then there is full-blown, body parts falling off, leprosy. And I think that credible accusations of rape is full-blown, body parts falling off, leprosy.
But if we exclude assholes are we really being transparent and fair? /s/
Why? Trump got elected. No one seems to care that he was just ordered to pay Carrol for attacking her in a dressing room. If he were Democrat he'd be forced to resign. But a Republican can literally can get away rape and probably murder.
Yes, which is a large reason why I vote democrat, not republican. Character matters. Actions matter. Yeah its unfair the other side gets to just throw out character complaints. Gtf over it. Life isn't fair. We all agree on the end goal, but how many principles are you willing to throw out to get there?
Get back to exactly why we oppose Trump and his administration so much, which at a very basic level can be boiled down to self aggrandizement and lack of principles.
I could possibly live with the self aggrandizement and lack of principles. It's the shooting my fellow citizens on the street that I actually have a problem with.
Yeah obviously. And I think that’s the most outrageous thing his administration has done so far.
But this discussion was in the context of who you support as a candidate, and events in 2026 are irrelevant to why he seemed unsupportedablle from the start, in 2016, as a candidate.
Trump wasn’t OK to a lot of Republicans. They started this newspaper.
and the Hollywood Access tape, and the reporting on ogling partially dressed young girls in the Miss America pageant, and the potentially explosive Epstein revelations if that ever happens........I guess Trump is just SO awesome, sent by God himself to save the world, that he has total and complete moral immunity. GAAAAAAH. What has happened to society??!! Why are we even debating Platner, and what-abouting him? There MUST be someone else!!!
Assholes come in all shapes and sizes. Quiet and polite ones, too.
Plus, and I can speak to this as an asshole, if you aren't an asshole, I bet you have one to call when you need one.
I don't, actually, but there are times I really wish I did.
Was it obvious at the start? I don’t think so. Mind you, the bad news did start piling up. I ignored it at first but it’s too much now.
Perhaps in their search for authenticity the Ds should put together a team of proctologists to do their pre-election vetting for them?
And the next time they feel the need for a postmortem on a lost election just keep it simple and do a colonoscopy.
Have you seen our Congress and president?
Since our hosts have not heard of soccer, Professor Deutschmeister is here to offer them, and you, a timely lesson in non-numerical mathematics:
A) DJT opted to make himself an active part of the World Cup proceedings +
B) Everything DJT touches, dies =
_______________________
C) The USA is bounced from said World Cup immediately afterward.
Group discussion amongst yourselves as to the relevance of cause and effect in the proceedings.
Class dismissed.
Trump absolutely put the team in the wrong headspace for competing effectively.
It looked like Belgium was particularly motivated to win. The presidential involvement likely was something along the lines of bulletin board material for them to go out and embarrass us as much as they could. I'm sure their fans are particularly pleased today.
All fans of comeuppance are pleased today.
Except it wasn't the team that deserved the comeuppance.
When my wife first heard the score she said, Good! Nothing against the American team but Trump enshitifies. Like he always does. And yet 36- 37% support him
This is my view. It probably rallied them to play that much harder and better. But also, they are probably the better side. Also, they probably had most of the rest of the world pulling for them, if karma or prayer or whatever makes a difference.
Full disclosure: I went to WNBA match (Connecticut at Minnesota) instead of watching the match. Had wrestled with what to do before the Trump fiasco.
Bingo! Bulletin board material! There is nothing like Motivating the other side.
The entire rest of the world was rooting for Belgium. The entire rest of the world is happy today (at least the soccer fans).
DJT and Infantino managed to make even the Flemish and the Walloons forget that they don't like each other. They united the Belgians!
I feel bad for Balagan. Yeah, he got to play, but not with his head held high. Ultimately, Trump's 'favor' infantilized him
In his statement after the red card, he said he thought the call was wrong but it's the ref's call to make and players respect that principle. Then Trump corrupted his sportsmanship.
He will go back to England--where he lives--and Monaco--where he plays-- and try to forget all about us.
Hopefully he can remember his teammates. But Trump poisons everything.
Those watching the game with me last night all agreed that the American team seemed unsure, maybe shaken...not like the team we watched win a couple of days ago. The reason, we all concluded, was the news that the president intervened to get the suspension lifted. How embarrassing it was for them.
ETTD. It's almost like it's a law of physics.
The NY Knicks -[13 game win streak blown up by Trump] tried so damn hard to warn the US World Cup team, but did they listen?
At this point, "almost" seems superfluous, ya know....;)
Yeah, I think you're right.
I have suggested elsewhere that it IS a law of physics :)
Add sport to the list of subjects Trump doesn't know a thing about. He thinks about the World Cup like he thinks about his golf tournaments.
(Remember that caddies used to call him 'Pele" behind his back due to his frequent kicking of balls.)
It was hilarious how he admitted that he didn't even know what a red card was but then pivoted to posing as an expert on what's an improper call and said he knows sports really really well.
And I would bet that his MAGA followers don’t know what a Red card meant. They give him a pass on everything!
I don't know much about soccer either, except that when I suggest improvements my English friends take great offense. I see why you might want even an inadvertent "high spikes" be a foul; I don't see why it should be a red card plus suspension.
His not knowing what a red card is and admitting it likely endeared him to his followers. That's how it works.
Commander in cheat!
The USA team wound up being a victim of Trump's sticking his nose in where it didn't belong. 1) They no longer were standing on their own merits but were like the kid whose well-connected parents got them a job/university. They suddenly had less personal power since they got special treatment, due to Trump's corrupt influence. Balagan in particular would have been conflicted even if only on a subconscious level. A 'favor' not asked for but foisted upon him 2) Any win by the US team would have been tainted 3) Belgium had a real fire in their belly and may have been fiercer opponents. Trump degrades everybody.
I also notice that it’s only Americans insisting that Balogun’s red card was incorrectly given or that the US had “an airtight case for appeal”. There is no appeal against these things in the World Cup; the ref’s decision is (except apparently when the US president starts making threats) final and whether you agree or not tough. It’s how football works.
England fans are still angry about Maradona’s handball being ignored by the ref which enabled him to score knocking England out of the 1986 World Cup in the quarter finals 40 years on (hilariously I’ve just discovered that there’s a fairly lengthy Wikipedia article on the controversy named “Hand of God” -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_hand_of_God). But we had to live with it.
Football is not like American sports where violence by players is either encouraged or gets you a brief spell in the sin bin at worst. A red card is a serious thing; especially in an international tournament where every game is vital and a suspension can be devastating. Not that my opinion matters but personally from the video and frame by frame it doesn’t look unreasonable to conclude Barogun deliberately stamped on Muharemović‘s ankle. At the very least it was an overly aggressive tackle of the sort football authorities have been cracking down on heavily in recent years.
To give a feel for how strongly the rest of the world feels about this. Despite none of the British teams being directly affected, Trump’s interference and FIFA’s capitulation is a front page story on all but two of the main British papers today (including the broadsheets). The other two go with intra-Royal family shenanigans relating to Harry’s visit to the UK.
The US getting thrashed 4-1 is being categorised as karmic comeuppance. It was probably the best outcome for the USMST (and FIFA for that matter). Had they won things really could have started spiralling out of control. At the very least the US team would forever be labelled the Trump cheats and booed and jeered wherever they played. I can’t come up with a good terrace chant myself but football fans can be quite imaginative about these things.
This is exactly right. For the integrity of the World Cup, the best outcome was Belgium beating the U.S. in a decisive way. Which is exactly what happened. I'm a fan of U.S. soccer, but I wouldn't have wanted to win depending on the corruption of FIFA and Trump. Now we're back to the tournament -- which has been really good -- and as I'm typing this, Egypt is leading Argentina at the half!
Alas, they played the second half ...
Really good comment but I do have to point out that the English keep their football-related violence off the field.
True enough. Although it has improved in recent years.
For domestic professional football the Hillsborough disaster of 1989 was a real watershed moment. While it didn’t immediately stop hooliganism the subsequent reforms in the way stadiums were set up (seating only, no alcohol other than in the corporate boxes and strict crowd limits) and matches were policed (especially police getting serious about breaking up the organised gangs who only went to games looking for a fight) slowly made a difference. Growing up it seemed that every Saturday during the season there would be one or more riots or other serious violent incidents. Now that’s thankfully almost vanishingly rare.
The record of England fans at international tournaments is more mixed but has been slowly getting better. Possibly due to a combination of the last few World Cups being held in authoritarian countries and the cost of attending putting it out of reach of the type of people who go to matches looking for trouble. Some argue that we’re still dogged by the reputation we earned in the 1980s (the Heysel disaster in particular) and these days don’t behave on average any worse than fans from other countries but are judged more harshly because of our appalling historical record.
You are right of course. But it's still really different from American sports, where opposing fans sit together, watch together in bars, etc. I have held season tickets for Mizzou college football, and now for the Minnesota Twins, and there's nothing but pleasant rivalries.
My first English football match was Burnley v. Man City in 1994, so First Division, at Maine Road. I was told by my in-laws to not show my claret and blue scarf until I was inside the stadium, and I had actually never seen such a large security presence anywhere before, especially of mounted police. And of course, we couldn't leave the stadium until after all the home supporters had had time to leave.
I have been to matches at Turf Moor many times since then. The first time I went, my parents in law were worried I would be offended by the songs, but I was able to reassure them that I couldn't understand a single word anyway, so no problem. But as far as I know, it's still the case that home and away supporters sit in completely different parts of the stands, and the away supporters are locked in until the crowd clears.
It has just always struck me as odd that we Americans, who are so violent as a culture, have a healthy and fun relationship with sports, compared to English football.
Oh yeah. Supporters are still segregated by team. Having grown up with that always being the case it’s one of those things that doesn’t strike me as strange in the same way it might a non-European from a different sports fan culture. It’s standard practice in I think all, certainly most, European countries, not just Britain. Each team gets allocated a section of the stadium and sells their tickets to their fans.
It’s not legally obligated as far as I know - although British police do have power to bar entry to people if they think it might cause trouble - but still considered best practice and, even ignoring the security issues, probably a tradition at this point so fans are all cheering for the same side together. At least now you’re unlikely to suffer more than a bit of verbal mockery if you happen to end up in the wrong section due to going with friends who support the other team or using someone else’s season ticket. 40 years ago you’d be lucky not to get stabbed.
I’m more of a casual fan these days and not attended a match in person in years so don’t know how heavy handed the police presence is now. It probably varies depending on who’s playing and the reputation of their fans.
I do remember going to see Arsenal v West Ham at Upton Park (then West Ham’s home ground) as an Arsenal supporter for an FA cup match in 1989 (the same FA cup series that ended up being scarred by Hillsborough, so before things started improving). There were (going off an entirely impressionistic estimate by a 17 year old me) at least twice as many police as at the average Arsenal home game. The atmosphere was pure menace. I have never felt as worried about my personal safety as I did that cold January Sunday afternoon. It ended up being a 2-2 draw and the Hammer’s supporters were not happy about it. It was more than 2 hours after the match finished before police had cleared the West Ham fans from the area and started letting the Arsenal fans out.
Interesting that it's so focused on football. I've been to a number of cricket internationals of various stripes, and it's not like that at all. It's really great that they have improved the situation around football. My in-laws, as Burnley supporters, always tried to get tickets in the home supporter section when attending away matches and just avoided wearing identifying clothing and kept their reactions quiet, rather than sit with the Claret away supporters. Seems sad to me.
Although it does not apply in this case every time I hear chants of U S A I want to bellow An Ti Fa. I’m not against our military or our athletes, but I am furious about republicans deciding who has free speech.
I watched the game in which the red card was issued. The tv analysts, some of whom were not American, said the red card was uncalled for and that use of the super slow motion video made the act seem more intentional and worse than it really was. They said a yellow card would have been ok to use.
Fair enough. Like I said it’s just my opinion and you know what they say about opinions…
I guess the Soccer gods have as little regard for Trump as does Mother Nature.
It is not nice to fool mother nature!
Additional question. Should the USA ever be allowed to host again? Also can somebody tell me were the pre game flyovers on for the US team? That doesn’t seem to me the was a host nation should behave.
Belgium was always the better side, and it would have taken a Herculean effort on the part of USMNT to get past them. Trump taking the wind out of the American sails and giving Belgium lots of incentive to embarrass us on the world stage just made it exponentially harder, and the Americans were outclassed.
I'm waiting in bated breath how and where DJT will affix blame for the America blowout loss. And he will! Rick Wilson came up with the best description of Trump: everything Trump touched dies.( except his wallet)
Americans couldn’t win. If they actually won it was because they cheated. If they lost, it was because DT inserted himself into the equation. Guaranteeing them a loss. They were doomed the minute he made that phone call. As we all are.
Sam: "In a new, devastating report from Politico on Monday, a woman who once dated Platner said he sexually assaulted her nearly five years ago. The details are both disturbing and well-documented. Her substantiation alone—Facebook messages supporting her account and corroboration from another ex-boyfriend whom she told about it—gives her account credibility. That Platner denied the accusation is far from convincing. At a certain point, the pattern of behavior becomes impossible to dismiss, even if the details are obscured by the fog of memory."
I've been waiting for this particular shoe to drop. Imagine how arrogant you have to be to run for Senate with the majority in the balance with this many skeletons in your closet. Platner obviously thought he could weather this. After all, he probably looked at Donald Trump and concluded you can be a piece of shit and still have a 50/50 shot at winning. That sort of thinking leads to ruin. Planter needs to go, and if he doesn't drop out on his own, he needs to be forced out.
It's that "fire in the belly"...or close.
He's a "man of action". Or something like that.
Ask E. Jeane Carroll about it... .
Yup. And Trump didn't pay a price for that. 77 million people were willing to overlook what he did.
Talarico in Texas is being called a girl and a trans. He's a seminarian with a clean record.
paxton is the middle of divorce on biblical grounds. Going off to Iceland with his mistress for the 4th. Corrupt as hell and out loud and proud about it. Should've served time.
Democrats police themselves, republicans don't. For the rethugs it's a source of manly pride. And Democrats lose.
I just don't know how to square this.
Because I'm mean when it comes to stuff like this, I think a Democratic super-PAC should generate an AI video of Paxton and Trump participating in a drug-fueled orgy. Voiceover: "This is what Ken Paxton *really* thinks of the Ten Commandments. He's a modern day Caligula, but worse."
Platner ran in the wrong party. Republicans accept this.
Action on woman! :(
That arrogance seems to have been encouraged by a lot of other people, too. The ones who approached him to run in the first place, various early supporters and Democrat-haters who continued to support and defend him even in the face of mounting indicators, etc.
I hope the activists who hate insider politics and the voters who support them have learned a lesson about the value of vetting.
Yeah, they can all piss off, too.
🍊set a terrible example. No doubt Platner figured he could meet that low standard.
DJT weathered this, twice!
Good article. But Sonny, you fell into a trap. "I couldn’t help but think back to the Jimmy Kimmel suspension in September of last year, following a tasteless crack about Charlie Kirk in the aftermath of his assassination. " Actually it was NOT a crack about Charlie Kirk! Not even a little. It was a crack about MAGAs reaction to it. [Kimmel: "We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it."]. NEVER concede to the reality distortion that MAGA has tried to enforce on everyone.
Thank you Ben! I get pissed off every time someone in the press mischaracterizes Kimmel's remark and they do it here often. There was nothing wrong with what Kimmel said and it was completely accurate. He cast no aspersion on Kirk whatsoever. He was talking about Fox.
I don't mean to offend any USA soccer fans, but America losing to Belgium after Trump's blatant corruption of the game gives me hope that the arc of the moral universe really does bend toward justice.
I feel bad for the team. They are one of the many victims of Trump's meddling.
100% true. And why does Trump meddle so much? The answer can be found in a quote from today's Morning Shots - he happens to be "a narcissistic president who believes the world revolves around himself." What infuriates me the most is that, currently, the world DOES revolve around Donald J. Trump. Because of his insecurities, he has to control center stage at all times and in order to maintain his carnival barker persona he has to say or do one outrageous thing after another to make sure he stays in the limelight. His presidency doesn't consist of him actually doing any of the work that a normal president would do to "protect and defend" the Constitution or work with Congress to make life better for all Americans. No, he sleeps late every morning, gets up and does as many interviews, press gaggles, and staged personal appearances as he can manage for the day, then goes to bed and stays up all night posting ridiculous opinions on Truth Social or re-posting inflammatory or laudatory memes. In doing so, he has managed to create a mediascape where his presence is the dominant feature 24/7. Some say it is because of his massive ego - but I don't buy that. Most natural leaders have a healthy ego, but also enough confidence in themselves to not have to live perpetually in the public eye. They are not like Trump, who has to create events and controversies to guarantee people pay attention to him. The internet and social media are just the tools of his trade. I wish the "press" did not give in to his whims and desires for constant adulation and that the tech giants and their algorithms didn't spew it out ad naseum. I, personally, long for the days when you could go weeks at a time without giving a thought to what the president was doing or saying, much less being shocked and aghast every single hour of every single day. It is exhausting. Unfortunately, we have brought this upon ourselves by accepting and eagerly participating in the technology that makes it possible. Trump knows how to expertly take the most advantage of this, thereby ensuring that the world does, indeed, revolve around him - to the detriment of the nation and our standing in the world, as evidenced by his most recent meddling fiasco in the World Cup competition.
They were gonna lose anyway. Belgium has a better team.
It’s almost like the cosmos said, “may the team with better waffles, chocolate, and gooey-fruit-syrupy beer-like beverages win.”
Frites! You forgot the frites!
With mayo, FTW!
It was always going to be a huge uphill battle for USMNT to beat Belgium. Trump just made it much, much harder.
Let's not forget Chuck Schumer's role in this. He decided that Janet Mills should be the next Senator from Maine. She is a capable and talented woman, who nevertheless is very old and part of the establishment that voters are rejecting. Chuck cleared the field of anyone except Platner and Mills, and here we are. Platner needs to go, and so does Chuck Schumer.
I presume Platner will drop out, as Swalwell did.
But then you have Mark Robinson. Roy Moore. Donald Trump. They didn’t drop out. One got crushed, one lost a squeaker, the other was elected president … twice.
What’s wrong with this picture?
One party has standards. The other laughs at standards and revels in nominating moral degenerates.
So true and disgusting. I hate that anything resembling virtue is seen as weakness. You can be a fighter and strive to be a good human being. Both can be true.
One party is a bunch of misogynists and the other isn't....oh wait, the other is a bunch of childless cat ladies according to the #2 misogynist.
JD, or whatever he's calling himself these days, can have a hot cup of "shut the fuck up". The man has no principles, and it's an indictment of our nation that such a man can ascend to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
And MAGA Mike is two heartbeats away. Unreal.
He's an empty vessel, which is precisely why he's Speaker under this president.
LOL, after electing Trump TWICE? I think we've been indicted, convicted and sentenced to life in prison before even getting to JD.
The trick is arriving at a single set of standards. Currently, the Dems have many standards. Too many to arrive at guiding principles. Which is probably worse.
I think the implication here is that we should expect more from party leaders, elders, gray hairs, professionals, etc. That's true. But the inescapable fact is that 77 million people (and more on a weighted basis in the states) keep voting for moral degenerates. This is a problem that goes way beyond "the party" and for that reason I'm not sure how to fix it or if it even can be fixed.
But the GOP base loves authenticity!
But only if the candidate is one of them. When it's not, then they decry the lack of morals and character. The mind of the GOP base voter is heavily compartmentalized. This is why they can be weapons grade hypocrites and not experience any cognitive dissonance.
They equate authenticity with a perpetual middle finger towards their opponents.
But when someone calls them to the carpet for their moral vacuity, they consider that "tyranny".
Or they are poor victims and it really isn’t their fault!
Ah, the JVL observation. GOP base voters do not have agency.
Not only morally degenerate in their personal lives, but morally and legally compromised in the manner in which they conduct themselves as elected officials in the duties of their office. See: Ken Paxton.
Don't forget clarence thomas and kegger kavanaugh .
For whatever set of reasons, the Democratic Party has lost its ability to circle the wagons around its own creeps.
Mind you, this is the same party that once successfully defended Bill Clinton, a serial sexual predator and a man of profoundly skeevy morals; this is the same party that rallied around the feckless, reckless Ted Kennedy and kept him in the US Senate for years (although he had to give up his dream of the presidency) even after he left Mary Jo Kopechne dead at Chappaquiddick.
Somewhere after the turn of the 21st century, perhaps in an appeal to the women's vote, Democrats became harsher on their sexual miscreants: to the extent of knifing Al Franken in the back and driving him out of the US Senate even though he was guilty of just about nothing at all, the target, in fact, of a right wing dirty op.
The Republicans, meanwhile, postured as Great Christians right up until 2016 when it became clear Donald was going to be their candidate, at which point they decided he was a figure out of the Old Testament, a depraved sinner sent by God: one of many depraved sinners in the GOP, including Ken Paxton, and realized they could go on blaguing about what Great Christians they are even as they committed the most atrocious sins.
I don’t disagree, but it says as much about GOP VOTERS as anything. And though I don’t expect or want my candidates to be completely pure in character — those types are invariably pearl-clutching moralists — I do expect them to have a sense of shame and remorse. Even Teddy got sober and didn’t defend his awful behavior.
I wonder if Platner, who obviously has some speaking talent, had been up front from the beginning, might still be running (assuming he would have made it through the primary). The rule politicians, particularly GOP politicians, has gotten from Trump is never admit or apologize. Just keep defiantly lying.
Donald had it dinned into him by his mentor, the infamous Roy Cohn: deny everything, admit nothing, never apologize, never concede a loss. If challenged, attack.
In that schema, utterly amoral ruthlessness is the hallmark of a winner, and even more than Cohn, Trump is a living embodiment of Lombardi’s dictum that winning is the only thing. For people who see themselves as part of a despised minority, that’s the hero-champion to stick with.
Yes; the fact that the outrageous Franken thing happened [and the two jackasses who did it, NY's Senators, are both still in office] is one of the prime reason why people like me opposed Platner being forced out initially. It seemed to stink to high heaven.
Not any more. "When the facts change, my opinion changes. Why? What do you do? "--Orwell.
It seems to me like 2016 is around the time when I stopped even considering voting Republican. Until that point I tended to look at both parties.
I would say Paxton is watching with bated breath, but his heavy breathing seems focused on his Christian influencer mistress in Iceland…
I don't want to like this because its so full of ick and ew. It's funny and true though.
Jeri- I can only imagine how much worse Paxtonmania apologencia is in-state. We may win this one, tho🫰🏻
Was just reading about him and his mistress … in London. Lubbock wasn’t good enough?
Trump is a cult leader. They get away with a lot.
Platner ran in the wrong party.
MAGA has no shame. It's wrong that they get away with it most of the time. But its their brand. They are proud of breaking the rules both informal and formal.
Everything Trump touches dies. Why should the USMNT's 2026 run be any different?
I feel bad for Balogun though. He didn't ask for or deserve any of this. He's been a stand-up guy throughout the entire process.
Trump emasculates every man he 'helps'. Don't think he doesn't love that.
One of the biggest struggles I see in the Trump era is fighting back against the MAGA-level acceptance of ‘everything is good as long as the candidate is on my team’. There was a lot of that in the acceptance of Platner as a candidate. I hope when there is a next time, people decide it is right and good to say no to a Nazi tattoo. That really should have been enough.
The Access Hollywood tape should have been the end of Trump, too, but here we are.
At first glance, I read the title as "A Case for Recklessly Endangering the Senate." Thank you, Sam Stein, for not writing that article!
My biggest issues is how do these guys think they should run for political office when there might be even a hint of a scandal in their background? Is the thirst for power that great or is there some sort of character deficiency that they think their history won't be found out or won't be an issue? Neither option is great.
The sort of abuser who ignores consent and forces themselves on partners is probably also going to force themselves on voters ...
My assumption is that he truly doesn’t believe he did anything wrong. Mind you, I am not saying he didn’t do anything wrong, just that he probably believes that. I get the feeling though that he may be realizing this is a bridge too far this time
As usual, there will be only one winner of the World Cup this time around. All other teams will be losers, though there will be opportunity to claim 'a good run" in varying degrees. As far as I can tell, there will be only one team that is both beaten and disgraced: USA, thanks to the President of the United States.
Surely FIFA knows that at the end they must present Trump with a participation trophy?!
The last time FIFA gave Trump a prize, he ended up starting a war with Iran.
Don’t worry. It will be in gold. FIFA is on Felon’s side.
White men don't get properly vetted, but a man of color is maligned when he's done nothing wrong.
Pick a new Democrat Candidate and keep going.
Republicans better keep mouths wide shut considering their Pedo PINO.
I was thinking last night about the type of candidate likely to be attracted to run in an almost existentially important election and where it would be more about what needs doing and less about their character. The more benign sort is someone who truly cares about what's at stake, knows he has some flaws but gives them less weight than he normally would because the stakes are so high. Less excusable: someone drawn to the personal power and the space that excuses their bad behavior.
It's maybe not totally different than the psychology driving people to run in more normal times, but the usual brakes and counterweights don't seem nearly as effective. That someone could know there were these kinds of accusations out there against him (true or not) and choose to run, be *allowed* to run, is a sign something isn't working. And I hope the people vetting candidates are paying attention. If this is what the people want, we need a different way of spotting problems like this before we get to that point.
I am glad to hear it looks like Graham Platner will step back. I know it feels unfair (is unfair) when Trump and so many others are getting away with the same things. But it does me good to see we still demand better than that.
“I couldn’t help but think back to the Jimmy Kimmel suspension in September of last year, following a tasteless crack about Charlie Kirk in the aftermath of his assassination.”
I went back and watched the Kimmel clip and I can’t see what it was he said that was “tasteless.” The only thing I can see MAGA getting upset about is Kimmel exposing Trump’s lack of sympathy for Kirk and his obsession with monuments to his greater glory.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2025/09/17/jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-comments/86209731007/
Exactly. He made a joke at the expense of *MAGA*, and noone else. Naturally, the "Can't tell a joke any more" snowflakes couldn't deal, so they threw a hissy fit.
In today's digital world, how could anyone be so stupid as to try to run for office when you have that in the background. Nothing is hidden, and unless you are a Guardian of Pedophile supporter, things like this matter.
I think it's some kind of sociopathy. Rational people would just not expose themselves to this.
We also have to accept the fact that no candidate in the future will ever be able to keep up some kind of squeaky-clean image. Trump embraced that and went 100% the other direction, crowing about how corrupt and awful he is, and enough people liked that, whether he's being "authentic" or just "owning the libs" that he got elected two, almost three, times.
Sadly what you say is true.