SHAPIRO: Maine Senate gamble raises questions about standards

Has partisan loyalty begun to outweigh every other consideration?

Published Jun 06, 2026  •  Last updated 30 minutes ago  •  2 minute read

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner. Photo by Eric Lee /Getty Images

The Democratic Party’s approach to Maine’s Senate race has sparked a debate that extends well beyond the state’s borders.

Article content

At the centre of the controversy is Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner, whose campaign has been dogged by a series of damaging allegations and personal scandals.

Article content

Recommended Videos

Article content

Reports have highlighted Platner’s past online activity, including the presence of a tattoo some have characterized as Nazi-related, inflammatory comments on public forums, sexually explicit social media posts and allegations involving inappropriate online communications. More recently, questions have emerged regarding his use of messaging platforms and claims of extramarital sexting.

Yet, despite the mounting controversies, Democratic leaders and activists continue to argue that defeating incumbent Sen. Susan Collins remains the overriding priority.

That argument has puzzled many observers, given Collins’ reputation as one of the most moderate Republicans in the Senate. Over the years, she has frequently broken with her party on high-profile votes. Collins voted to convict President Donald Trump during his second impeachment trial, opposed efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, voted against major Republican legislation, and joined only a handful of Republicans in supporting the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Article content

Article content

For critics of the Democratic strategy, the contrast is striking. They argue that Collins, while far from a progressive favourite, has repeatedly demonstrated independence from Republican leadership. Nevertheless, Democrats maintain that her seat must be flipped, even if doing so requires supporting a deeply flawed nominee.

The scrutiny surrounding Platner has intensified in recent weeks. Reports have cited claims from individuals close to the campaign about his personal conduct. At the same time, investigative stories have examined his online activity and his use of messaging applications associated with anonymous communication. These revelations have added to an already growing list of concerns surrounding the candidate. Despite those issues, some Democratic figures have publicly defended Platner. Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, appearing on Face the Nation, emphasized Platner’s military service and acknowledged that he had made mistakes, while arguing that the larger issue was the political direction of the country and Collins’ role in supporting the current administration.

Article content

For critics, however, that response illustrates a broader problem in contemporary politics — the willingness to excuse almost any behaviour when the stakes are framed as sufficiently high. In their view, the message is simple: Defend the candidate, regardless of the controversy, because the alternative is politically unacceptable.

The Maine race has therefore become more than a contest between two candidates. It has become a test of whether parties are willing to apply the same standards to their own nominees that they demand from their opponents. Those who question Democratic support for Platner argue that the party’s insistence on backing him, despite the controversies, undermines its ability to criticize Republicans on issues of character, judgment and moderation. If political victory becomes the only standard, they contend, then the limits of acceptable conduct become increasingly difficult to define.

That, ultimately, is the larger question raised by the Maine Senate race — not merely who should represent the state in Washington, but whether partisan loyalty has begun to outweigh every other consideration.

Read More

1. 

   SHAPIRO: No, Iran and China are not ‘winning’
2. 

   SHAPIRO: When political violence becomes acceptable, it becomes inevitable

Article content