Warren, Why?

The Platner fiasco puts a spotlight on progressive strategy, and the Massachusetts Senator in particular

In May 2016, I wrote a long article for Politico Magazine, discussing Senator Elizabeth Warren’s “long game” of creating a Democratic Senate majority in which she and her causes would hold sway. Ten years later she continues to play, having achieved party control, barely and briefly, after her failed 2020 Presidential campaign but lost it four years later. Though she received a leadership position and top spot on the Banking Committee, her caucus is still led by Chuck Schumer, who took control eight months after my article appeared. Her clear aim this cycle (as for many progressives) is to not only win enough seats to put Democrats back in the majority, but to win those seats with candidates willing to replace the New Yorker with someone more to her liking. (Possibly herself, although probably not.)

In pursuit of that goal, Warren made four key endorsements in Senate primaries. One, Juliana Stratton, was successful and will undoubtedly go on to win Dick Durbin’s former seat. Two others have not worked out so well: Zach Wahls lost his primary in Iowa, and Mallory McMorrow recently dropped out in Michigan. One more, Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota, is polling well for a tough primary net month.

And then there’s Graham Platner in Maine.

Platner, a progressive darling who secured the nomination to take on Republican Susan Collins in November, may well have dropped out by the time you read this. After a wild campaign in which every impressive gain was offset by a troubling revelation, the finale of Platner’s improbable journey seems at hand. Even Warren has called on him to drop out (following a slew of other Democrats, but before Bernie Sanders). It appears that the floodgates holding back additional shocking headlines have been breached.

If Platner withdraws with sufficient haste, the Maine Democratic Party gets to name a replacement nominee. Warren, and various other progressive leaders and organizations, have demanded that party insiders and establishment figures allow change-minded outsiders to have a say in that selection. (It also seems likely that Platner’s delay in dropping out is because he is negotiating to have a say.) Their argument is that Maine Democrats signalled in the primary that they want a fightin’ outsider backed by national progressives, so they should get another one.

That’s what Warren and her allies are saying in public statements. To me, it seems that Warren and her allies want someone who, like Platner, favors replacing Schumer as caucus leader — whereas the Maine Democratic Party, working with Kirsten Gillibrand-chaired Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, is apt to make a Schumer-friendly choice.

From the party’s perspective, however, it seems to me that Schumer has done more to demonstrate his nominee-picking prowess than Warren and the progressive organizations. Schumer appears to have put the Senate majority in play by recruiting and fundraising for Roy Cooper in North Carolina, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and Mary Peltota in Alaska. Last month he went public with his support of Haley Stevens in Michigan; he is thought to have quietly backed Josh Turek in Iowa.

One of his few apparent miscues, however, was in Maine. His candidate, governor Janet Mills, might have looked like a good general election foe for Collins, but her utterly lackluster campaign helped pave the way for the questionable candidacy of Platner.

Still, it’s one thing to back a proven pol such as Mills who underperforms, it’s another to back an unvetted and sketchy newcomer who turns out to have multiple horrendous known or credibly alleged acts of bad character in his past. Even if that candidate performs well on the hustings and meets the political Zeitgeist.

Warren, in particular, not only endorsed Platner, but did so at a key moment in March as he faced pressure over past comments about women; and then spoke at an April rally where “an unspoken but obvious theme of the rally was support for Platner by Maine women,” as the progressive Beacon put it. Warren, the highest-profile female officeholder to support Platner, placed herself directly in the role of validator for a candidate accused of misogynistic attitudes and behavior — who, it turned out, was toxic enough to ultimately lead Warren to urge him to drop out.

Yes, there were others who endorsed Platner until it became untenable this week, including U.S. Senators Ruben Gallego, Martin Heinrich, and Bernie Sanders. But Warren’s support was at a different level, and held a different meaning.

And so it leaves us with questions. How did Warren come to believe that Platner was of sound character? Did she rely on any vetting beyond what little we know of? Did she consider any other potential Democrats, before choosing Platner? Or actively dissuade any from running, after she did? Can her supporters trust her judgment on other candidates, such as Flanagan — and will she change her process to avoid backing bad apples in the future?

Without some answers, my takeaway is that Warren, and allied groups such as Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) and March On PAC, adopted Platner solely because he was willing to oppose Schumer for Leader — and were willing to betray their ideals and risk the balance of power for that, up until it became politically nonviable to do so.

Some of her followers might feel that the goal of replacing Schumer, and increasing Warren’s influence within the Democratic caucus, are worth that risk. Others, I suspect, might not. Either way, it now becomes part of one’s assessment of Senator Warren, until she persuades otherwise.