Politicians, progressive organizations and celebrity supporters are rushing to distance themselves from Graham Platner, raising questions about whether they were hypocrites, grossly uninformed or simply willing to overlook anything that might help defeat Susan Collins

The politicians, progressive organizations and national personalities that helped transform Graham Platner from a little-known oyster farmer into Maine’s Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate are now scrambling to distance themselves from the candidate they spent months promoting.

Some have formally withdrawn their endorsements. Others have called on Platner to leave the race without acknowledging the role they played in putting him at the top of the Democratic ticket.

A few former supporters, including influential public figures and organizations, have attempted to walk a narrow line between defending Platner, withholding judgment and avoiding a direct answer about whether their endorsements remain in effect.

That silence is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

Platner is facing multiple allegations of sexual misconduct, including an accusation from a former girlfriend who claims he sexually assaulted her in 2021. Another former partner has accused him of removing condoms during sex without her consent.

Platner has denied the allegations. He has not been charged with a crime, and the accusations have not been proven in court.

Politically, however, his campaign appears to be collapsing.

The larger question facing Maine Democrats is no longer simply whether Platner will withdraw before the July 13 deadline that would allow the party to replace him on the November ballot.

It is how so many elected officials, progressive organizations, union leaders and nationally known personalities concluded that Platner was qualified to represent Maine in the United States Senate despite a long list of publicly reported controversies.

Were they hypocrites who ignored the standards they regularly demand of Republicans because they believed Platner could defeat Republican Sen. Susan Collins?

Were they grossly underinformed about a candidate they endorsed, funded, promoted and presented to Maine voters?

Or did they know about the warning signs and decide that winning control of the Senate mattered more?

None of those explanations reflects well on the political movement that built Platner’s candidacy.

Sanders, Warren and Other Democrats Head for the Exits

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders was among Platner’s earliest and most important national supporters.

Sanders helped transform Platner into a national progressive figure, bringing his “Fighting Oligarchy” tour to Portland in May for a rally attended by approximately 1,700 people. Sanders presented Platner as part of a working-class movement against corporate power, political insiders and wealthy elites.

After the latest allegations became public, Sanders said he had spoken with Platner and recommended that he step aside.

Although Sanders did not initially use the precise words “I rescind my endorsement,” urging Platner to withdraw represented the functional end of his support for the candidate’s continued campaign.

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren formally withdrew her endorsement and called on Platner to leave the race.

Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego also rescinded his endorsement, while California Rep. Ro Khanna withdrew his backing and said Platner should end his campaign.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, another prominent figure within the national progressive movement, also called on Platner to withdraw.

Former Maine Senate President Troy Jackson, who had supported Platner, joined the calls for him to leave the race and has since taken steps to explore becoming the replacement nominee.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Kirsten Gillibrand have demanded Platner’s withdrawal. National Democratic leaders have made clear that the party’s Senate campaign organization will not financially support the Maine race if Platner remains the nominee.

The Maine Democratic Party has also called on Platner to withdraw, saying multiple women have made serious and credible allegations against him.

The retreat has been swift.

The willingness to accept responsibility for building Platner’s candidacy has been far less apparent.

Democrats Supported Platner Through Earlier Controversies

Many of the political leaders now demanding Platner’s departure remained with him through months of damaging revelations.

Platner had faced criticism over offensive and inflammatory online comments, reports involving sexually explicit messages, allegations of abusive conduct from a former girlfriend and a tattoo associated with a Nazi-era symbol.

Platner said he had not understood the tattoo’s historical meaning and later covered it. He also denied allegations that he abused a former girlfriend.

In June, the Associated Press reported that one former girlfriend accused Platner of grabbing her hard enough to leave marks, pulling her from a cab and twisting her arm behind her back while preventing her from leaving a room. Platner denied those accusations.

Those controversies were public before the newest allegations emerged.

They did not prevent national Democrats and progressive organizations from continuing to promote Platner as the candidate who could defeat Collins and help deliver control of the Senate to Democrats.

Platner went on to win the Democratic nomination decisively.

Party leaders then presented him as a central part of their national strategy to capture the minimum four seats necessary to overcome the Republicans’ 53-47 Senate majority. Maine was considered one of the party’s indispensable targets.

That political calculation is now impossible to overlook.

Only after the newest allegations threatened to make Platner electorally unsustainable did much of the Democratic establishment discover that character and personal conduct might be disqualifying.

Stephen King Endorsed Platner and Initially Hoped He Would Stay

Platner’s campaign also received support from Stephen King, Maine’s best-known author and one of the most influential liberal celebrities in the country.

King publicly backed Platner and said he voted for him in the Democratic primary.

When the latest sexual-assault allegation became public and Democratic officials began abandoning the candidate, King initially appeared unwilling to join them.

“Graham Platner may drop out. I hope he doesn’t,” King wrote in a since-deleted post on X.

King followed that message with a comparison suggesting that if Americans knew everything about the private lives of members of Congress, the House and Senate chambers might be empty. He also invoked the biblical warning that the person without sin should cast the first stone.

Those comments placed King among the few nationally prominent Platner supporters initially willing to defend his continued candidacy after the newest allegation emerged. The Bangor Daily News identified King as one of Platner’s remaining defenders as elected officials and political organizations withdrew their support.

The backlash was immediate.

Critics accused King of treating an allegation of rape as though it were simply another personal flaw, lapse in judgment or ordinary political imperfection.

Others questioned whether King would have offered the same appeal for patience and forgiveness if a Republican candidate had faced an identical allegation.

King subsequently deleted the post saying that he hoped Platner would remain in the race and attempted to clarify his position.

“Not defending Grah Platner,” King wrote, misspelling the candidate’s first name. “If he committed rape, he should bow out. Just making a comparison.”

King’s clarification stopped short of an unequivocal withdrawal of his endorsement. He did not clearly call on Platner to leave the race, as Sanders, Warren, Khanna and other political supporters had done.

Instead, King was left occupying an uncertain position between continued support and outright rejection.

His response raises many of the same questions now facing the broader progressive movement.

Why was King’s first instinct to defend Platner’s continued candidacy instead of directly confronting the allegation against the candidate he endorsed?

Why did he invoke forgiveness before the facts had been fully examined?

Would King have shown the same restraint if the accusation had been directed at Collins, President Donald Trump or another Republican politician?

King’s partial walk-back only came after intense public criticism. He deleted his clearest expression of support but did not plainly rescind his endorsement.

Maine voters are therefore entitled to ask where he stands.

Does Stephen King still believe Platner should represent Maine in the United States Senate?

Does he believe Platner should withdraw?

Or does his position depend on whether Platner remains capable of defeating Collins?

Other Celebrity and Public-Figure Supporters Remain Quiet

Platner’s rise was not powered by elected officials alone.

He benefited from favorable attention and support from progressive personalities, activists, political commentators and nationally known public figures who viewed him as an anti-establishment candidate capable of defeating Collins.

Ben Cohen, the co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s and a longtime supporter of progressive political candidates, appeared in campaign-related material connected to Platner’s political movement.

Television host Bill Maher was also publicly associated with favorable commentary about Platner and his anti-establishment appeal.

As of Wednesday, July 8, no verified public statements could be found showing that Cohen or Maher had formally withdrawn their support following the latest allegations.

Silence should not automatically be counted as continued support.

It should not, however, allow influential public figures to escape scrutiny after they used their names, reputations or platforms to encourage voters to trust a political candidate.

Celebrity endorsers do not hold elected office, but their influence is real.

When a candidate is rising, celebrities appear in videos, attend events, issue endorsements and lend their credibility to the campaign.

When that candidate becomes a liability, they should not be permitted to quietly disappear without answering basic questions.

What did they know about Platner when they supported him?

What efforts did they make to examine his record?

Which revelations, if any, caused them concern?

Why did the earlier controversies fail to produce the same moral outrage now sweeping through Democratic politics?

King at least addressed the controversy, although his initial defense and subsequent walk-back created more questions than answers.

Cohen, Maher and any other public figures who promoted Platner should state clearly whether they continue to support him, whether they believe he should leave the race and whether they conducted any serious examination of his background before encouraging Maine voters to place their trust in him.

The Maine People’s Alliance Helped Build Platner

The Maine People’s Alliance played a particularly significant role in legitimizing Platner’s candidacy.

The organization’s member-led board voted unanimously in February to endorse Platner in the Democratic primary against Collins.

The alliance describes its endorsement process as being led by a team of members rather than imposed from the top. It says candidates are evaluated on issues including democracy, education, the environment, economic opportunity, gun safety, health care, housing, justice reform, labor, taxes and transportation.

Platner was not merely an outside candidate who happened to receive the organization’s approval.

The Maine People’s Alliance promoted him through campaign events, town halls and get-out-the-vote operations.

In May, the alliance held a town hall at its Lewiston office featuring Platner and Secretary of State Shenna Bellows as its endorsed candidates for the U.S. Senate and governor.

The organization later advertised a get-out-the-vote kickoff featuring Platner and Bellows.

The alliance also promoted polling showing Platner holding a large primary lead and argued that attacks against him had backfired.

Its involvement extended far beyond placing Platner’s name in an endorsement press release.

The Maine People’s Alliance helped vet him, validate him, organize around him and sell his candidacy to progressive voters across the state.

Its unanimous endorsement communicated that Platner had been examined carefully and deemed worthy of representing Maine in the United States Senate.

As of Wednesday morning, the organization’s endorsement page continued to identify Platner as an endorsed candidate.

That leaves the organization with serious questions to answer.

Did its endorsement process uncover Platner’s earlier inflammatory statements and personal controversies?

Were the members who voted on the endorsement informed about all publicly available allegations?

Did the organization conduct an independent background review, or did it rely primarily on information supplied by Platner and his campaign?

Was Platner endorsed because the alliance believed he possessed the character and judgment required of a United States senator?

Or was he endorsed because he embraced the alliance’s political ideology and appeared capable of defeating Collins?

If the Maine People’s Alliance now believes Platner is unfit for office, it should explain what changed.

If it continues to support him, it should say so openly.

The organization cannot credibly describe its endorsement process as rigorous while refusing to account for how a candidate with so many public controversies received a unanimous vote.

Unions and Progressive Organizations Also Face Questions

The Maine People’s Alliance was not alone.

Unions and progressive organizations offered Platner institutional credibility, volunteers, organizing infrastructure and access to voters.

Those groups were not passive observers.

They helped make Platner a viable candidate, defended his political message and presented him to their members as someone worthy of representing Maine.

They now have an obligation to explain whether their endorsements remain in effect and how carefully they examined the candidate before offering their support.

It is not enough to quietly remove a name from a website, issue a vague statement about taking allegations seriously and move on to the next Democratic nominee.

Organizations that claim to speak for workers, women, marginalized communities and survivors of abuse must explain how they evaluated Platner and why earlier warning signs did not cause them to reconsider.

Where Is Matt Dunlap?

Maine State Auditor Matt Dunlap, the Democratic nominee for Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, has also been identified as one of the remaining elected officials associated with Platner.

Dunlap appeared publicly with Platner during the campaign and was photographed embracing him following Dunlap’s congressional-primary victory.

As the political fallout intensified, Republicans criticized Dunlap for apparently continuing to stand by Platner.

However, no detailed statement could be found from Dunlap directly reaffirming his endorsement after the newest allegations.

Dunlap should clarify his position.

He either believes Platner remains qualified to represent Maine in the Senate, or he does not.

Maine voters should not have to determine the answer through silence, photographs or carefully crafted campaign statements.

Were They Hypocrites or Were They Not Paying Attention?

The Democratic Party and progressive political organizations have spent years insisting that allegations of sexual abuse must be taken seriously.

They have argued that powerful men must be held accountable, that character matters and that political expediency cannot be allowed to outweigh the experiences of women who come forward.

Those principles were supposed to apply even when doing so was politically inconvenient.

The Platner scandal is now testing whether those standards were sincere or merely partisan weapons.

His supporters cannot credibly claim that every warning sign emerged at once.

Platner’s online comments, tattoo, reported messages and previous personal allegations had been publicly discussed before many Democratic leaders embraced him as their nominee.

They knew, or should have known, that they were supporting a candidate carrying extraordinary political and personal baggage.

Yet they continued.

They defended him because they shared his ideology.

They promoted him because he energized progressive activists.

They embraced him because polling suggested he might defeat Collins.

They overlooked controversy after controversy because control of the United States Senate was at stake.

Now that Platner may no longer be useful, many of those same supporters are presenting themselves as shocked guardians of morality.

Maine voters are entitled to question that transformation.

Were Sanders, Warren, Khanna and other Democratic leaders hypocrites who applied one moral standard to their opponents and another to a candidate who might help them capture the Senate?

Was the Maine People’s Alliance’s endorsement process fundamentally inadequate?

Were unions and progressive organizations so focused on defeating Collins that they failed to investigate the man they were asking their members to support?

Were Stephen King and other celebrity supporters so attracted to Platner’s anti-establishment image that they failed to look more closely?

Or did all of them know about the warning signs and decided that winning was more important?

Those questions will remain even if Platner withdraws.

Replacing him may solve the Democratic Party’s immediate political problem.

It will not erase the choices made by the politicians, organizations and public figures who helped create it.