Prominent Democrats Publicly Distance Themselves from Maine Senate Candidate Platner

Graham Platner entered the Maine Senate race as a populist sensation: an oyster farmer and Marine combat veteran running against billionaires and the political establishment, endorsed by Bernie Sanders and outraising a four-term Republican incumbent. On the eve of the June 9 primary, he is something else entirely — a candidate engulfed by allegations of physical abuse, extramarital sexting, offensive Reddit posts, and a tattoo resembling a Nazi SS symbol, whose own party cannot agree on whether to stand by him or cut him loose [1][2][3].

The result is a public fracture among national Democrats that has exposed fault lines between the party's progressive and moderate wings, tested the limits of institutional loyalty, and raised a question with no comfortable answer: What happens when your best chance to flip a Senate seat is also your biggest liability?

The Allegations: A Cascade of Controversies

The scandals surrounding Platner have arrived in waves, each compounding the last.

The first major story broke in late 2025 when the Wall Street Journal reported that Platner had exchanged sexually explicit text messages with multiple women during his marriage [4]. His wife, Amy Gertner, had reportedly informed a campaign aide about the exchanges shortly after Platner launched his Senate bid [5]. Gertner has since publicly defended her husband, calling the media focus on their marriage "shameful" [6].

Then came the Reddit posts. Thousands of now-deleted comments resurfaced, including posts that critics said blamed sexual assault victims and contained racist language [7][3].

The tattoo controversy followed. A skull-and-crossbones tattoo on Platner's chest was identified as closely resembling the Totenkopf, a symbol used by the Nazi SS. Platner said he got the tattoo while drinking in Croatia in 2007 as a young Marine and did not learn of its Nazi association until reporters raised questions [3]. But former girlfriend Lyndsey Fifield told the New York Times that Platner had referred to the tattoo as "my Totenkopf" years before the issue became public — a claim Platner denies [8]. He has since covered the tattoo with a Celtic knot and images of his family's dogs [3].

The most serious allegations came on June 4, 2026, when the New York Times published interviews with three former romantic partners who described Platner's behavior as "toxic" and said he "does not respect women" [1][8]. Fifield alleged that while they were dating roughly a decade ago, Platner "regularly grabbed her by the shoulders — sometimes hard enough to leave marks," and during one argument "twisted her arm behind her back, shoved her into a bedroom, and held the door closed" [2][8].

Platner has denied these allegations. He told Maine Public the claims were "just not true" and characterized his relationship with one accuser as casual, saying "she was someone I had a casual relationship with" [1]. On MSNBC, he said he "absolutely" took responsibility for elements of his past, describing periods after his combat tours as "very dark" times marked by heavy drinking and untreated PTSD, but he denied having been physically violent or intimidating toward former partners [1].

No police reports or formal legal proceedings related to the abuse allegations have been publicly reported.

Sanders Stays Silent, Fetterman Breaks Ranks

The divergent responses from two of the Senate's most prominent figures have come to symbolize the party's split.

Sen. Bernie Sanders endorsed Platner and appeared alongside him at a "Fighting Oligarchy" tour stop at the University of Maine on May 24, 2026 [2]. When Fox News Digital asked Sanders whether he believed the women accusing Platner of abuse, Sanders declined to answer, stating: "I think it's important for us to focus on the issues facing working families a little bit more than Graham Platner's marriage" [2]. On June 9 — primary day — a reporter at the U.S. Capitol asked Sanders directly: "Senator, do you believe the women accusing Platner of abuse?" Sanders did not respond and continued waiting for the elevator in silence [9].

Sen. John Fetterman took the opposite approach, becoming the most prominent Democrat to publicly repudiate Platner. In an interview with Fox News Digital, Fetterman said: "You know, candidates have baggage. In his case, he is baggage that incidentally might be a candidate" [10]. He called Platner a "creep" on CNN [11] and questioned his judgment regarding his online conduct: "He was dropping dick pics for a decade and he was on Kik for a decade... What was your safeguards to make sure that you weren't interacting with underage people?" [10]. Fetterman declared: "I'll be the one Democrat to refuse to defend that mess" [10].

The exchange escalated into a public feud. Platner responded at a town hall by saying he did not want to go to the Senate and "just sort of be John Fetterman, and... just sort of be an a--hole" [12].

A Party Divided: Progressives Hold, Moderates Waver

The pattern of responses reveals a factional divide. The progressive wing has largely maintained support for Platner, while moderates have distanced themselves or broken away.

Sens. Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have kept their endorsements in place [13]. Sen. Ruben Gallego has also continued to back Platner [14]. Rep. Ro Khanna appeared at a get-out-the-vote rally for Platner in Bar Harbor, arguing that Maine voters "knew that he had these chapters" and "are willing to extend him grace and redemption" [14]. Khanna also cited Platner's PTSD from two tours in Iraq as context for his past behavior [14].

On the moderate side, Sen. Elissa Slotkin expressed fatigue with defending problematic candidates [13]. Rep. Madeleine Dean said Platner had "disqualified himself" [15]. Rep. Jake Auchincloss called the tattoo and related commentary "personally disqualifying" and said it would be "a mistake for the Democratic Party to embrace him" [16].

A senior Democratic Senate aide told Time magazine: "We are stuck," adding that "Schumer warned us of this. We did not listen" [13].

The rhetorical pattern among those distancing themselves is notable: individual Democrats have freelanced their criticism rather than issuing any coordinated party statement. There has been no formal denunciation from Senate leadership or the party apparatus — a posture that allows individual members to protect their own brands without triggering a full-scale confrontation with Platner's grassroots base.

The DSCC's Silence

The institutional response — or lack of one — has been conspicuous. Neither Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer nor the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, chaired by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, has publicly commented on the Platner controversies [13][17]. The DSCC did not respond to requests for comment from Time magazine, NBC News, or multiple other outlets [13][17].

Platner himself has said he received no outreach from Schumer, Gillibrand, or DSCC staff, though he said he would welcome their support in a general election [17].

The DSCC's earlier involvement in the race actually favored Platner's primary opponent: a union representing electrical workers in Maine urged the committee to stop promoting Gov. Janet Mills over Platner during the primary [18]. That dynamic — in which the institutional party tried and failed to steer voters toward its preferred candidate — helps explain the current paralysis.

Democrats have "no formal mechanism to force him to leave the race," according to Time's reporting [13]. However, if Platner wins the primary, he would reportedly have until mid-July to withdraw voluntarily, which would allow party leaders to appoint a replacement candidate [13].

Follow the Money

Despite the controversies, Platner's fundraising has been formidable. Federal campaign finance reports show he has raised $16.3 million this cycle, compared to $15.1 million for incumbent Sen. Susan Collins [19][20]. He has spent $14.1 million — double Collins' $7 million in expenditures [19].

Source: FEC / Bangor Daily News

Data as of Jun 1, 2026CSV

After Gov. Mills suspended her primary campaign in late April, Platner raised $1.5 million in seven days [19]. And after the abuse allegations broke in early June, his campaign reported a 27 percent surge in small-dollar donations from Mainers [21]. His average donation in the fourth quarter was $25, with more than 182,000 individual contributions [19].

Major individual donors include George Soros and Alexander Soros, each of whom gave the $7,000 maximum, as well as Pat Stryker, Jon Stryker, and Jennifer Pritzker — a fact that critics have noted sits uncomfortably alongside Platner's anti-billionaire campaign rhetoric [22]. Union PACs have also been a significant source of organizational fundraising [19].

No major national Democratic donors or party committees have publicly rescinded contributions or announced clawbacks.

The Race Without Platner

The question of alternatives looms over the entire debate. The Democratic primary ballot includes David Costello, a 65-year-old former government official who previously challenged Sen. Angus King in 2024 [23]. Costello has pitched himself as "a well-rounded and experienced option," but polls showed him trailing Platner by as much as 38 points after Mills' withdrawal [23][24].

Gov. Mills, who suspended her campaign on April 30, reminded voters this week that her name remains on the ballot and she is still technically a viable candidate — though her campaign infrastructure has been largely dismantled [24].

Source: UMass Lowell Poll (May 2026)

Data as of Jun 4, 2026CSV

In the general election matchup, a UMass Lowell poll conducted from May 13-26 showed Platner leading Collins 48% to 43%, with a margin of error of ±4.9 points [25]. The Cook Political Report and Sabato's Crystal Ball have both rated the race as competitive, with ratings fluctuating between Toss-up and Lean Republican [26]. Maine is a state that Kamala Harris carried in 2024, making the Collins seat one of Democrats' top pickup opportunities [26].

The realistic window for a replacement candidate is narrow. If Platner wins the primary and does not voluntarily withdraw by mid-July, Democrats would face the general election with him as their nominee regardless of party leaders' preferences [13].

Precedent and Context

Party abandonment of Senate candidates over conduct allegations is rare but not unprecedented. The most direct comparison is the 2017 Alabama special election, when national Republicans distanced themselves from Roy Moore after sexual misconduct allegations — and Moore lost to Democrat Doug Jones in a deep-red state. In 2022, Republicans stood by Herschel Walker in Georgia despite revelations about his personal life, and he lost the runoff to Raphael Warnock.

On the Democratic side, the party pushed Sen. Al Franken to resign in 2017 over groping allegations, a decision that remains internally contentious. The Platner situation differs because he is a candidate, not an incumbent, and because the party has no procedural lever to force his exit before a primary vote.

What Comes Next

The June 9 primary will determine whether Platner becomes the official Democratic nominee. If he wins — as polling strongly suggests — the party faces a choice it has so far avoided: rally behind a deeply controversial candidate in a winnable race, or allow individual members to continue freelancing their distance while the institutional party stays quiet.

For progressives who have staked their credibility on Platner's populist message, the calculation is straightforward: winning the Senate majority matters more than any single candidate's personal failings, and voters deserve to make their own judgment. For moderates, the risk is equally clear: associating the party brand with a candidate facing abuse allegations, a Nazi-linked tattoo, and sexting scandals could cost credibility far beyond Maine.

The DSCC's silence may itself be the strategy — avoiding a formal position that would either alienate Platner's grassroots supporters or tie the party to his baggage. But as Fetterman's "baggage" line and Sanders' elevator silence both illustrate, the absence of a coordinated response has not prevented the party's internal divisions from becoming public. It has simply ensured that each Democrat defines the terms of their own discomfort.