“Will Graham Platner survive?” is now the biggest question in politics. Most pundits seem to think the answer is no.
After yesterday evening’s New York Times’ bombshell report about his “My Totenkopf” Nazi tattoo, history of domestic violence, sexting, serial cheating, and a very bizarre plan to “punish” burglars, at a minimum, Graham Platner is the walking wounded. With apologies to the Black Knight, ‘tis more than a scratch.
But finished?
Nope. At least, not yet.
First of all, the Times report could’ve been a lot worse. If you’re a dyed-in-the-wool Democratic primary voter, Platner’s not-so-youthful “indiscretions” weren’t half as bad as Donald Trump’s “grab ‘em by the p****” quip — and they pale in comparison to their wacked-out conspiracy theories about President Trump, Epstein Island, and innocent children. (Don’t laugh: 64% of Democrats believe Trump knew about and participated in Epstein’s sexual abuse.)
That’s their frame of reference!
“Trump did worse, yet the Republicans stuck by him” will 100% be a big part of their thought process. Which is something Platner’s campaign will surely exploit. (More on that below.)
In fact, Will Upton of the Daily Caller was so underwhelmed by the New York Times’ report, he concluded that the fix was in: This was actually done to help Platner.
Let me be clear: the New York Times story was not journalism. It was a soft catch-and-kill operation. It was a favor to Platner’s campaign, a disservice to readers, and an insult to the women who say they were hurt by him.
One of those victims, Lyndsey Fifield, is my friend.
And what is a “soft catch-and-kill” operation?
Before my journey back into journalism, I spent a long stint working in political communications and public relations. I know how to arrange a catch and kill, and more importantly, I know how to set up a soft catch and kill when a more definitive end cannot be arranged.
The term ‘catch and kill‘ refers to a shady practice where a public relations firm or consultant works with a friendly news outlet that was pitched or ‘stumbled’ upon a negative story about a client to effectively ‘catch’ and then ‘kill’ the story — or delay it until it no longer has impact.
A ‘soft catch and kill’ works similarly, though it mostly involves the publication still running the story in a timely manner, but the details are softened or buried deep in the narrative to soften the bite. The outlet can claim it did its job, but they’ve given the target just enough wiggle room to survive.
The Times’s goal here was not to fairly give hearing to allegations against Platner; it was to play Fifield for a sucker, give her story just enough air that the Democrat Party’s cretin media and consultant class could zero in on it and crush it.
Upton’s (excellent) analysis is well worth your time, but I must quibble with two parts: First, it never occurred to me that there’s anything “shady” about a PR pro pitching a delicate story to the friendliest possible outlet. (If that says something damning about my character, well, what can I tell ya?) To me, getting ahead of a story by giving it to someone you trust is just common sense.
And second, industry slang can vary wildly, but I’ve always used “catch and kill” to mean the practice of an outlet (like the National Enquirer) buying the rights to a story — and instead of publishing it, using it to leverage a relationship for more stories. It buys the tabloid access, goodwill, and (knock on wood) a string of exclusives that are more valuable than the dead story. Basically, it’s a long-term investment in a celebrity relationship.
That’s not really what happened here. (Perhaps Upton’s industry slang differs from mine.)
Second — and more importantly — I don’t think this was orchestrated by the Platner campaign. Left to its own devices, I’m sure Team Platner would’ve preferred to keep all this quiet ‘til after the Democratic primary. (And then maybe do a news dump on July 14 — which is, conveniently enough, one day after Maine’s deadline for replacing Senate nominees. That way, Platner’s nomination is safe and it’ll be “old news” by November.)
Instead of this being pushed by the Platner campaign, I’ll shave with Occam’s razor: I’m guessing a dude with a Nazi tattoo, a Kik account, drunken outbursts, and multiple angry exes didn’t exactly have the world’s cleanest paper trail, and the New York Times learned about it ’cause lots of people were yapping.
But Upton is absolutely correct about the Times burying the lede and minimizing the most damning revelations. His defense of his friend, Lyndsey Fifield, was especially stirring — and bolstered by Fifield’s own X post:
I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists.
As they left my home they asked that I not talk to any other outlets and I insisted then and repeatedly over the following weeks that I would keep my word…
— Lyndsey Fifield (@lyndseyfifield) June 5, 2026
My own divining of the tea leaves isn’t that the “shady” Platner campaign executed a “soft catch-and-kill,” but that the New York Times is a liberal publication with a liberal newsroom, liberal reporters, liberal editors, and a liberal worldview. This is who they are.
They didn’t bury the lede because Platner’s campaign told ’em to; they did so because this is how institutional media bias works.
Graham Platner will rely on three PR tactics to stay in the Senate race. None of ’em are hard to execute. In my humble opinion, there’s a better-than-average chance they’ll work, and Platner will remain on Maine’s ballot through Election Day.
But he now has a glaring Achilles’ heel — and there’s one thing that could destroy him in an instant.
Tactic One: Argue that most of the allegations aren’t that bad (and all the ones that are “that bad” aren’t true). As Upton noted, this argument was certainly strengthened by the Times’ oddly muted positioning.
“The New York Times spent months researching me and that’s all they could find! Big deal! Vote Platner for Senate!”
In fact, his campaign will try to spin it as refreshing honesty: Unlike those “career politicians,” Platner is a real person who’s lived a real life — but at least he’s being honest about his past. (Never mind that he only became honest when journalists were gonna run the story anyway.) He hasn’t hidden from his history as a PTSD-addled military veteran who drank too much and was a lousy boyfriend. But that was then.
This campaign is about the future.
Tactic Two: Trump did worse. And if Trump won’t resign in shame, then why should Platner?
In the Democratic mind, Donald Trump is half Rasputin, half Jason Vorhees: an un-killable, unstoppable monster who tap-dances on political landmines without getting hurt. Never before in American history has a politician gotten away with so many scandals! Why, it’s outrageous! (And if you whisper, “What about Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton?” they’ll stick their fingers in their ears and scream at the top of their lungs.)
Frankly, they’re jealous. They view their own party as the Wimp Party and wish it’d show a backbone. Because of the pervasiveness of Trump Derangement Syndrome amongst Democrats, this is actually Platner’s easiest argument.
It’s so easy, he only has to imply it.
The first two tactics were utilized immediately in Graham Platner’s MS NOW interview last night:
These are serious accusations. They are also false.
Throughout this campaign, I’ve been open about a very dark period of my life, when I struggled with undiagnosed PTSD. I’m not proud of the man I once was, but I’m proud of the man I am today, and of the movement we’ve built. pic.twitter.com/WYefmTVIDS
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) June 5, 2026
I watched his entire interview. But I wasn’t his target audience, because I’m not a Democratic primary voter. Republican opinions don’t matter (yet).
Platner’s ONLY mission is to stay in the good graces of the American Left.
And for the most part, he succeeded. He’s not without PR skills and/or charisma; there’s a reason why he initially caught fire. Platner wasn’t perfect on MS NOW, but that’s less to do with his shortcomings as a candidate and more to do with the glaring contradictions in his story:
Chris Hayes: “How is it that your ex-girlfriend was texting people that you had a Nazi tattoo in August but you didn’t know until October?”
Graham Platner: “They didn’t tell me that.”
Who didn’t tell you that you had a literal Nazi tattoo? It’s your tattoo! pic.twitter.com/X9a1YPnTXo
— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) June 5, 2026
My guess is, the Platner campaign will wait a few days before launching tactic #3, which is…
Tactic Three: Point to the polls and argue that Platner can still win — but ONLY if the Democrats stay together and unified.
The reason they’ll wait is simple: This argument will have more teeth if it coincides with a NEW poll that shows Platner still in the lead (or at least competitive) in his Senate race.
And that’ll probably happen. On June 4, the UMass Lowell/YouGov poll had Platner at 48%, incumbent Susan Collins at 43%. Between Collins’ traditional underperformance in polls and Democratic desire to flip the Senate, the post-scandal fallout is unlikely to be more than 10 points.
Which still puts Platner within the margin of error! Hey, do we Democrats want to win or not?
Remember, the presidential polling data barely budged after Joe Biden’s abysmal 2024 debate performance. Politics is now a team sport; Americans are stubbornly loyal to their team.
Don’t expect Platner to suddenly crater.
So, when the next round of polls come in, Platner’s peeps will brag about “weathering the storm” and that “the people have rejected these sleazy personal attacks.” ‘Cause otherwise, why is he still neck-and-neck with Collins?
Polymarket currently has Platner as the 97.4% favorite to win Maine’s Democratic nomination — and a 55% chance the Dems will flip Collins’ seat. It’s still an ultra-competitive race.
That’s critical, because the Dems don’t give a damn about Platner as a person. (He hasn’t been around long enough to build an emotional connection.) They’re invested in him because they want to win the Senate — and as long as he can help ’em, they’ll keep him around.
But that’s the extent of their relationship.
Jay Jones sent text messages about murdering his enemies (plus their children), and he was just elected attorney general in Virginia. If Jones could win, why not Platner?
Who cares about anything else? Just win, baby!
Recommended: Poll Stunner: Support for Gay Marriage DROPS. Was the Trans Issue the Poison Pill?
It all comes down to electability. If Platner can convince the Dems that he’s still electable, he stays. They’ll love him and forgive him.
If he can’t, he’s roadkill.
But because of these scandals, there’s now one Achilles’ heel that could wreck his candidacy in an instant: If liberal America’s top tastemakers say he’s unacceptable.
If AOC, Bernie Sanders, Rachel Maddow, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama declared that a Nazi-tatted nutjob with a history of domestic violence has no place in the Democratic Party, it’s over for him. It would signal to the Dem’s base that Platner is a political loser — he can’t unify the party, he’s killing our anti-Nazi, “believe all women” brand — and the jig is up.
Pull the plug and move on.
Timing-wise, Platner is fortunate: Because of the falsehoods and lies of Joe Biden’s mental decline, the Dems have fewer tastemakers with the credibility to call Platner onto the carpet. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer already spent their capital; now, their coffers are dry. Platner’s repudiation will have to come from others in the party — in particular, liberal women.
That’s his biggest fear.
As a white hetero male, Platner is especially vulnerable to being blackballed by Democratic women.
If they declare him unacceptable, it’s a PR deathblow. There’s no coming back from it. Because he is a white hetero male, Democratic women outrank him. That’s what happens when your movement is built on identity politics.
AOC (and a handful of others) could quickly trigger a domino effect.
Platner has three paths for survival, just one for defeat. Which means, he’s probably going to survive.
At least ‘til Election Day.
One Last Thing: 2026 is a critical year for America First. It began with Mayor Mamdani declaring war on “rugged individualism” and will reach a crescendo with the midterm elections. Nothing less than the fate of the America First movement teeters in the balance.
Never before have the political battle lines been so clearly defined. Win or lose, 2026 will transform our country.
We need your help to succeed!
As a PJ Media VIP member, you’ll receive exclusive access to our behind-the-paywall content, commenting privileges, and an ad-free experience. VIP Gold gets you the same level of “insider access” across our entire family of sites (PJ Media, Townhall, RedState, twitchy, Hot Air, and Bearing Arms). That means: More stories, more videos, more content, more fun, more conservatism, more EVERYTHING!
And if you CLICK HERE and use the promo code FIGHT you’ll receive a Trumpian 60% discount!
Thank you for your consideration.
