I was thinking more in terms of his ability to win, rather than how effective he would be as a senator. And yes, I think due to his name recognition he would have a better chance of beating Collins than whoever the Maine Democratic Party ends up selecting.
I suspect that by this point Jackson’s got plenty of name recognition for nearly anybody likely to be voting in Maine.
I predict that electing Stephen King as senator would have a terrible ending…
That could very well be. But it would start off well 
.
More seriously, it brings up the issue of “politician” really being two separate jobs, that of running for office and that of governing, and that someone who would be really good at one of those things might do a not so good job at the other. The question then becomes which of those two things is more important at this time for the US Senate. Given how closely divided we are, I give the edge to the ability to win elections rather than the ability to govern well. Mostly because at the end of the day, a placeholder type senator can simply vote straight party line and still do an effective job by merely doing nothing more difficult than that.
They can. But would they? And which party?
That was my take on the article as well. I took it as another example of a Democrat who is more interested in purifying the Democratic Party than winning. I don’t get it. Even the most extreme wings of the party have a hell of a lot more in common with each other than with the Republicans.
With such an incredibly compressed timeline, we were never going to get the perfect candidate. Jackson has a good track record (he has been the Democratic leader of the Senate for more than 10 years), and he has worked on good legislation. Given the structural disadvantages Collins will face in this cycle, I don’t think we need an Obama to win. As long as he doesn’t have any major scandals, I think he will win.
He is a Democrat, but he is also 78. While i am in favor of the voters electing their choice, that is a thing that will be brought up over and over.
Right.
Summary
Now that it’s all settled, I would like to give Maine Democrats and Dems in general a pat on the back. I think this difficult situation was actually handled very well. We dismissed the bullshit manufactured “scandals”, and then we quickly recognized an actual scandal and responded appropriately. Progressives didn’t try to handwave the serious allegations away. Centrists did not take Platner’s withdrawal as an opportunity to try to put in a candidate who doesn’t have the progressive stances the voters clearly wanted. Now the party is united behind a more qualified candidate. Good job, us.
Summary
Well, I don’t agree that Platner’s previous scandals were “manufactured”, but I’ll certainly agree that the process of replacing him has gone remarkably smoothly and agreeably.
Summary
I concur. Some were not “manufactured” like the Tattoo, but simply blown out of all proportion. But the claims by the GOP Operative were the very definition of “manufactured”.
But once a serious allegation was made (altho rather late in the game IMHO) we took action, demanded he withdraw0 and he did.
Summary
You do know that the lady who eventually came forward and was believed because she was a Democrat desperately did not want to out herself as a rape victim, but eventually felt compelled to precisely by comments like this one?
Summary
Which sucks for her, but there’s no way I’m believing anything anyone associated with the current Republican party has to say on literally any subject. Much the way you, for example, were not taking anything a guy with a Nazi tattoo says at face value.
Well said.
Summary
I did not think we should make the guy with a Nazi tattoo a Senator. And you know what? I don’t think that the lady who accused Platner of rape should be a Senator either.
If Platner alleged that an establishment Democrat sexually assaulted him, I don’t think we should dismiss it out of hand.
Summary
I thought we were moving on? Oh well, interesting posts.
Summary
I’d certainly hope that the people responsible for investigating that stuff would do their jobs and not dismiss it out of hand. But as I’m not one of those people, if Platner came out tomorrow alleging that an establishment Dem sexually assaulted him, I wouldn’t believe him, either. At least not based on his own word. If the people’s whose job it is to investigate this stuff look, and find there is something there, I’ll change my assessment - just as I did when they investigated the second set of allegations against Platner and found them more credible.
My understanding is that people did look into the original accusations, and couldn’t substantiate anything. Possibly they half-assed the investigation, or lied about what they found, but as of right now, I don’t have a specific reason to think that happened.