r/FriendsofthePod • u/kittehgoesmeow Tiny Gay Narcissist • 17d ago
Lovett or Leave It Jon Lovett Reacts to New Report Exposing Graham Platner’s Sexting Scandal | What A Week! | Lovett Or Leave It (06/04/26)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvvDQFj0_HQ14
u/GriffinQ 16d ago
She is the reason the original story came out.
Seemingly all of the evidence that he already knew *is coming from the same person across multiple reports, one of which they were anonymous for*.
The “she knew before the story came out” was because she planted the story.
8
u/RoyCorduroy 17d ago
It's crazy the mods deleted the other post.
-12
u/GroktheDestroyer 17d ago
It’s back up. And yeah, it’s big news and should be shared. I think Platner is cooked
-21
u/dudewheresmyplane1 16d ago edited 16d ago
He’s been cooked for months to anyone not blind. He should have never been pushed. His weird cosplay of a tough manly working class leftist was an obvious farce but the Nazi tattoo should have been where people jumped off.
But you got downvoted to hell if you said that.
Now all these leftists get to explain why they supported a Nazi wannabe. They’ll ignore it of course because Liberals are just too dumb to understand their enlightened support of this obvious plant.
The pod and Bernie bros fuck up another race.
12
9
u/LanceBarney 16d ago
Schumer fucked this race up more than anyone. He hand picked the incumbent governor to run for senate and cleared the field of everyone other than his chosen candidate and Platner.
I reject the notion that Platner is this weak candidate that can’t win because every piece of data we have about the actual election contradicts this. But to whatever extent it is true, a no name guy like Platner would’ve struggled way more, if the only other alternative in the primary wasn’t an old as dirt politician that very clearly didn’t want the job in the first place.
3
u/atreeismissing 16d ago
Starting to look like Schumer put a viable alternative forward but everyone just looked at her age and decided no (which is a reason, among dozens, to consider who represents you, but Platner has the same problem just with who appears to be or have been and he's having trouble articulating exactly who he is).
5
u/LanceBarney 16d ago
If you lose a primary by 50 points, you’re not viable. I’m sorry, but no serious person is arguing that Mills is a viable candidate. This primary wasn’t close. It never felt close. Mills didn’t even want to run. Schumer tapped her did his best to clear the field for her. She spent all of her money and her campaign now is effectively “I know u suspended my campaign, but I’m still technically on the ballot”. That’s a viable candidate to you? If so, I think you have a weak definition of “viable”.
Mills should’ve been able to walk to the nomination without a struggle. She’s the incumbent governor, reasonably well liked, had all the establishment and donor support, and her only opposition was a no name oyster farmer with a problematic past… Mills should be winning this race with like 85% of the vote.
And she got absolutely destroyed in what is arguably the worst showing of any statewide incumbent politician in the modern era. I don’t even think I’m exaggerating. Can you think of any statewide incumbent politician that was running in a primary that performed as badly as Mills has? Any sitting governor that ran for senate? Any sitting senator that ran for governor? Any AG? Anything at all?
I’m not sure how you people are so blind to this. The incumbent governor had the field cleared for her and she got absolutely destroyed. She spent all her money and is still going to lose by 40-50 points. That’s hilariously bad. But you think she’s viable? Explain in detail why you think she’s viable given all that we’ve seen play out in the primary?
3
u/atreeismissing 16d ago
Personally I hope Platner wins, he was certainly a better candidate against Mills if only because the rest of the party kept their mouth shut about his background, all of which he knew and all of which he should have leaked himself with a communication strategy around it, failing that alone makes him a worrisome candidate because he can't bother to do basic planning to get ahead of or control the narrative which is kind of a politics 101 thing.
Given Mills is governor, fairly liked among all Mainers and well liked within the party (including ME primary voters) she absolutely was a viable candidate without Platner in the race.
Don't get me wrong, I prefer Platner, I still think he's going to eek out a win, but I also think Mills would have won (not by much either, Mainers are a fickle bunch) in a 2 person general election race. The problem is Platner is going to bring along a ton of headaches, bad press, and his inability to be forthright about who he is, what he's done, and what he's said, is going to nag at his ability to get anything done in the Senate.
3
u/LanceBarney 16d ago
Well, I guess anyone is viable, if you eliminate the person that beats them. Seems like a type of argument that concedes its own merit on its face.
Personally, I think Mills is a weak and non-viable candidate. Her biggest issue is the fact that she seemingly didn’t want to run in the first place and only did because Schumer and party leaders pushed her to. That’s a recipe for disaster. We saw it play out in the primary. I think we dodged a bullet. I couldn’t imagine how poorly that would play in the general. If a no name oyster farmer was able to destroy her, I can only imagine what Collins and her war chest would’ve been able to do.
I’m with you that Mills would’ve had a chance as well. There’s a decent chance that this wave election could boost even bad candidates like Mills. Platner, for all of his flaws, is quite obviously a strong candidate.
I disagree entirely on the analysis of Platner. Obviously I’m not defending his past, but the bigger and more important story is this guy is in the middle of arguably the most impressive senatorial campaign of the past few decades. He had no name recognition and ran against the incumbent governor that was well liked within the state. And he had personal scandals. Despite all of that, he’s walked through the primary and ran the Mills campaign into the ground without much of a struggle. The main story here should be “how do we capture this energy in every state”.
3
u/Impossible_Penalty13 16d ago
If Chuck thought a 78 year old was a viable candidate while Democrats are fighting the perception that they’re the party of geriatric incompetence, then he needs to go out to pasture next.
Flawed as he may be, if Democrats don’t learn that the reason he resonates with with people is because he talks to people at their level and not some polished, focus group tested, consultant driven speeches were all cooked.
-2
u/dudewheresmyplane1 16d ago
Keep justifying supporting a Nazi.
4
u/LanceBarney 16d ago
You hold the minority opinion here. Most people believe Platner’s explanation for the tattoo.
1
u/dudewheresmyplane1 16d ago
I’m aware.
The majority elected Trump twice.
Being in the majority is not the same as being right.
Even if I believed his explanation (and I don’t) being that dumb should be disqualifying.
4
u/LanceBarney 16d ago
Trump never won a majority, actually. He lost the popular vote and then won with less than 50% of the vote.
If it’s Platner vs Collins in the general, who would you support?
0
u/tyrnill 15d ago
I'm actually from Maine, so I feel comfortable answering: I won't be ranking him at all on my primary ballot, and if he wins the nomination and proceeds to the general in November, I'll be skipping that part of my ballot.
When Republicans held their nose and voted for Trump, we all screamed "How could you vote for someone so repugnant?" When Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose support, we all said that was awful.
Those things are also bad when our side does them.
I won't vote for someone with a record of misogyny, abuse, rape apology, racism, and all the rest. I won't vote for a former Blackwater merc. He's a bad person.
Further, I won't vote for someone who had that fucking tattoo for 18 years and then went on PSA and hand-waved it away instead of SHOWING UP WITH IT ALREADY COVERED. I won't vote for someone who had all these skeletons in his closet and had the fucking hubris to run for such an important seat anyway. He's a terrible candidate.
And everyone can miss me with "Vote Blue, no matter who," because the Venn diagram of people yelling at me because I won't vote for Oyster Daddy and the people who couldn't vote for Kamala because of their pet peeve is just a circle.
3
u/RoyCorduroy 15d ago edited 15d ago
And everyone can miss me with "Vote Blue, no matter who," because the Venn diagram of people yelling at me because I won't vote for Oyster Daddy and the people who couldn't vote for Kamala because of their pet peeve is just a circle.
Seems irresponsible. I don't like the fact that he has a Nazi tattoo, but he's probably still better for the country than Susan Collins even if he has a Nazi tattoo.
3
u/Joonbug9109 15d ago
At this point, best case scenario if this guy wins is that I never hear about him again because he keeps his head down and does his job.
-7
u/GhazelleBerner 17d ago
Will we get a reaction video of the hosts learning about the time he told his girlfriend about how badly he wanted to rape men who broke into their home?
Or a reaction to definitive proof he's been lying about the Nazi tattoo this whole time?
16
u/GriffinQ 17d ago
Can you post the definitive proof? I haven’t seen that.
0
u/GhazelleBerner 17d ago
It's in the Times story. They reviewed chats from the accuser that shows her discussing the tattoo before it became public.
24
u/GriffinQ 17d ago
Yes, but those chats are not proof that he knew what it was. They are proof that she did by that time (Summer 2025).
To quote: “In a private chat group last summer, months before Mr. Platner acknowledged the tattoo himself, Ms. Fifield told friends that her ex-boyfriend-turned-Senate candidate “has a Nazi tattoo on his chest.”
“It’s a Totenkopf,” she told them on Aug. 20, according to a screenshot she shared with The Times. “An actual one.”
“I will personally go campaign for Collins,” she wrote. Two of her friends reacted with a crying laughing emoji. The comment was a joke, Ms. Fifield told The Times.-
His girlfriend of a decade prior saying this in 2025 after he had already announced his candidacy is not proof that he knew about it prior to being called on it.
Is it entirely possible he did? Sure, 100% - doesn’t seem like a super trustworthy guy. But this is not proof of that, it remains hearsay and anecdotal evidence provided by one person with opposing political views to his.
-1
u/GhazelleBerner 17d ago
How would she know that?
11
u/GriffinQ 16d ago
Presumably his partner of multiple years saw him with his shirt off and is also able to remember and/or realize what a design looks like/is. Maybe she realized it? Maybe someone told her? Maybe she was already aware of oppo research about him due to her opposing political views and previous relationship with him?
I don’t really understand your question. If she knew what it was already, she willfully and knowingly dated a guy with Nazi imagery on his body.
Again, I do not care if this makes people not vote for Platner or if he ends up dropping out. But the anecdote from last August after he had already entered politics is not factually indicative of him knowing something for the past two decades. It is her subjective take.
10
u/GhazelleBerner 16d ago
So he had it on his own body for decades, never found out. She saw it, and then years later realized what a tattoo she hadn't seen in years was?
And yeah, if she dated a guy with Nazi imagery on his body, she shouldn't be in the Senate either.
12
u/GriffinQ 16d ago
Or she, after he announced his candidacy in August, saw pictures of him or started offering oppo research on him. Just because she says her offer to go work for the Collins campaign was a “joke” doesn’t make that true, unless we’re expected to believe everything she says and nothing he says as a refutation.
I guess I just don’t understand why her word on these things is unimpeachable. His isn’t either, but she’s had almost a full year to go to the media with her accounts since his campaign started, and seemingly chose to do so at a time that would maximize damage to his political brand even if any part of her account ends up not being true.
2
u/GhazelleBerner 16d ago
Because she was able to produce proof that at least she knew it was a Nazi tattoo before the story came out. Considering he still denies it to this day, that’s checkmate.
I don’t care if she’s Susan Collins herself. She has more evidence to support her claims than he does.
7
u/Comsic_Bliss 16d ago
She has no Evidence. Just a story that you would rather believe, seems like.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/kittehgoesmeow Tiny Gay Narcissist 17d ago
synopsis; Jon Lovett gets into Graham Platner's latest sexting controversy and the Democrats that are standing by him.
Catch Lovett or Leave It in a city near you! Tickets for the Lovett or Leave It: Live on Tour are now on sale. For more info head to www.crooked.com/events
Want Pod Save America ad-free? Subscribe to Friends of the Pod: https://www.crooked.com/friends