General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWSJ: The Strategist Behind Platner's Rise Explains His Vetting Process
I don't usually post videos but holy shit lmao.
ETA: It's a 90-second video from the Wall Street Journal interviewing Dan Moraff, a "senior strategist" on Platner's campaign who was partially responsible for vetting the candidate. This whole thing was not ready for prime time.
Bumbles
(622 posts)So many of us were led astray by this moron. Lesson - do your own due diligence.
In our desire to find someone, anyone, who could replace Collins, we put on blinders and accepted someone, anyone, presented to us. Platner has a lot of good attributes that made it possible to jump on his bandwagon. What a tragic waste.
Boo1
(714 posts)Willfully blinded themselves. The information was there about the kind of person he is.
2naSalit
(105,240 posts)I am not surprised yet horrified that this even got off the ground.
Shiny new object makes many leave the sensible choices behind.
WhiskeyGrinder
(27,459 posts)2naSalit
(105,240 posts)Done for effect, I guess because you can't really hear all the actual words they say. I knew people like that in college and in business and I saw it as a sign that they were not really worth my time. It's like they really don't want you to hear what they are saying because there's something wrong in what they are saying or imparting. I usually chose to find someone else to conduct my business with rather than deal with whatever their issues were. I find that so annoying that it was my goal to get them to stop talking or get away from them.
DemocracyForever
(403 posts)so people where hungry for a new approach. To say that the vetting of Platner was inadequate is an understatement. Someone who's been credibly accused of rape with solid corroborating evidence must now end his campaign.
Ocelot II
(131,965 posts)and not by morons who ignore what they do find. If that squeaky, vacant twerp is what passes for a "senior strategist" I'd hate to see the junior ones. The firm they hired didn't even find some of the problematic stuff in Platner's background, and what they did find this numpty just passed off as unimportant: "The voters don't want people grown in vats," he squeaked, as if none of it mattered as long as the candidate looks good and says the right things. Same with Eric Swalwell - why did he even try to run for Governor with a whole cemetery full of sexual assault skeletons in his closet?. Why does this kind of behavior keep getting overlooked? Is it because the men who do the vetting don't think it matters?
Jose Garcia
(3,571 posts)Maine Democratic primary voters knew who this guy was, and nominated him anyway. Primary voters are unfortunately not very representative of the average voter. This is why Republicans are stuck with Ken Paxton and Democrats may be stuck with Platner.
Solly Mack
(97,518 posts)"vat-grown people"
2naSalit
(105,240 posts)Could talk, they'd sound more intelligent than that clown.
I'm still not entirely convinced that he's not a plant.
Solly Mack
(97,518 posts)2naSalit
(105,240 posts)dalton99a
(96,480 posts)yellow dahlia
(6,998 posts)It helps to explain why Platner was a flawed candidate.
littlemissmartypants
(35,764 posts)If you want to embed a YT Shorts on DU...
Replace the
Shorts/
With
watch?v=
And you get...
Voila!
❤️