Trump's nonstop sowing of distrust in electoral outcomes is so corrosive to a democracy. California needs to dedicate more resources to speeding up their vote count, but if they produced full results fifteen minutes after the polls closed, Trump and the right would still question the outcome, saying "there's no way to be able to determine the winner that quickly".
An under-discussed aspect of the unique awfulness of Platner's candidacy is that he's hardly the everyman he portrays himself to be, and the Collins camp will tee off on that, along with all the other red flags. He comes from privilege. He attended Hotchkiss prep. His parents bought him a home. His income from oyster fishing is de minimis, and appears to largely be derived from sales to his parents' restaurant. He's spent much of the last decade mingling in progressive circles in D.C. He's inauthentic and inorganic, and no matter how much facial scruff he's got, or how deep his voice is, it's unlikely he'll be able to outrun the facts.
Yes, the claims of "authenticity" bother me a lot, just as the claims of Trump's "authenticity" did. That word seems to refer mostly to performative masculinity and being a loudmouth.
I'm more troubled by the reactions of some "progressive" Democrats to Platner's candidacy than I am to him actually. They are ripping the mask off the misogyny on the left, the dismissive attitudes toward women, making hay out of the fact that the woman with the most incendiary (but far from only) claims about Platner has been a Republican operative. Sure, if that were the ONLY thing against him that might hold some water but it isn't. And I'm having flashbacks to when Bernie Sanders suggested it might be worth trading away some of women's reproductive rights to get Medicare for "all." Another reason so many women don't trust the Bernie Bros.
And with the amount of stuff that has come out against Platner, it's almost assured that more would come out once he was elected. What then? Al Franken was cut loose and pushed out of office for far less than a whole bunch of what Platner has been accused of (and as you said, has NOT taken accountability for). It really troubles me how dismissive these "progressive" firebrands are about people's (usually women's) qualms about Platner.
The Espaillet thing is head-scratching too. I assume there's one little thing they're hanging their attack on (did AIPAC spend money in his campaign? This seems to bother them excessively, even though AIPAC's spending is independent of the candidate). Espaillet is ranked one of the most progressive members of the House with progressive scores of 97%-more than 98% according to Progressive Punch, higher than Ilhan Omar or Ayanna Pressley, of the sainted "Squad." (He's tied with Valerie Foushee whom some "progressive"groups are also trying to defeat in her primary, but white male progressives are notorious for disrespecting Black women.)
Trump's nonstop sowing of distrust in electoral outcomes is so corrosive to a democracy. California needs to dedicate more resources to speeding up their vote count, but if they produced full results fifteen minutes after the polls closed, Trump and the right would still question the outcome, saying "there's no way to be able to determine the winner that quickly".
An under-discussed aspect of the unique awfulness of Platner's candidacy is that he's hardly the everyman he portrays himself to be, and the Collins camp will tee off on that, along with all the other red flags. He comes from privilege. He attended Hotchkiss prep. His parents bought him a home. His income from oyster fishing is de minimis, and appears to largely be derived from sales to his parents' restaurant. He's spent much of the last decade mingling in progressive circles in D.C. He's inauthentic and inorganic, and no matter how much facial scruff he's got, or how deep his voice is, it's unlikely he'll be able to outrun the facts.
Yes, the claims of "authenticity" bother me a lot, just as the claims of Trump's "authenticity" did. That word seems to refer mostly to performative masculinity and being a loudmouth.
I'm more troubled by the reactions of some "progressive" Democrats to Platner's candidacy than I am to him actually. They are ripping the mask off the misogyny on the left, the dismissive attitudes toward women, making hay out of the fact that the woman with the most incendiary (but far from only) claims about Platner has been a Republican operative. Sure, if that were the ONLY thing against him that might hold some water but it isn't. And I'm having flashbacks to when Bernie Sanders suggested it might be worth trading away some of women's reproductive rights to get Medicare for "all." Another reason so many women don't trust the Bernie Bros.
And with the amount of stuff that has come out against Platner, it's almost assured that more would come out once he was elected. What then? Al Franken was cut loose and pushed out of office for far less than a whole bunch of what Platner has been accused of (and as you said, has NOT taken accountability for). It really troubles me how dismissive these "progressive" firebrands are about people's (usually women's) qualms about Platner.
The Espaillet thing is head-scratching too. I assume there's one little thing they're hanging their attack on (did AIPAC spend money in his campaign? This seems to bother them excessively, even though AIPAC's spending is independent of the candidate). Espaillet is ranked one of the most progressive members of the House with progressive scores of 97%-more than 98% according to Progressive Punch, higher than Ilhan Omar or Ayanna Pressley, of the sainted "Squad." (He's tied with Valerie Foushee whom some "progressive"groups are also trying to defeat in her primary, but white male progressives are notorious for disrespecting Black women.)