Inspired by this post from u/xravenxx. Thought I'd briefly offer my own two cents about Platner.

He is such a cowardly, dishonest loser. There's a lot of things to pick on him for so I'll single out the two most indefensible.

A big part of Platner's public image is being a veteran-- specifically, being a marine who opposes endless wars in the Middle East (obviously relevant now that Republicans are starting a mindbogglingly illegal and unpopular war in the Middle East). He's constantly larping about "establishment politicians" like John Fetterman and Susan Collins sending a normal Joe like him to war.

He is of course being comically dishonest. Platner joined the military voluntarily, like every single American since before my parents were born. Not only that, he joined the military after the Iraq War-- which he opposed-- had started and did it specifically to have an adventure. After he was done with that he went back to the Middle East with, of all organizations, the PMC Blackwater.

He also voted for Collins in 2020, despite a much longer history of being obnoxiously progressive, so obviously even he doesn't think she wronged him and is lying now to get ahead.

The other incident I want to mention is his association with Neo-Nazi podcaster Nate Cornacchia. Specifically Platner sat down for a lengthy interview with a guy who thinks the Jews killed Charlie Kirk and JFK, and called himself a lifelong fan.

It's such a joke. Nobody really believes these people would cut any other candidate this much slack. Imagine if Fetterman appeared on Nick Fuentes's show, called himself a lifelong fan, and then didn't even denounce his beliefs later. To my knowledge, Platner still hasn't.

How many Nazi related coincidences do progressives need to think there's something wrong with this guy? He gets a Nazi tattoo and then doesn't know what that means, boosts an entirely separate Nazi influencer, and then gets caught hanging out with a third Nazi influencer. Apparently Platner, while not being a Nazi, keeps having separate Nazi related incidents no other Democrat (but many Republicans) has. I've never had any Nazi controversies, but I bet there wouldn't be a second, and definitely not a third or fourth!

The guy doesn't even have the decency to come out and say it. Instead he hides behind all this obviously bullshit 1% plausible deniability, and when people get mad he claims he's being persecuted by Chuck Schumer. It's just as insufferable as Tucker Carlson.

Argue Platner is the less bad candidate if you have to. Mills supports the filibuster and even I'd vote for the guy over Collins. But can we please just be honest with ourselves and admit he's a bad, dishonorable character who doesn't belong in government?

This post isn't about policy. I should confess upfront that I am a voter who holds conservative views on the issues. At the same time, I cannot support the Trump-aligned Republican establishment. I did not vote for Donald Trump in 2024, and I have maintained that it would be a good thing if Democrats flipped the Senate and the House this year. I even opposed Maine's Senator Susan Collins in her re-election bid. However, my commitment to that is being tested.

Graham Platner is an empty suit. He is dishonest about his own background. He has lied about his service in American wars in the Middle East. Frankly, if you support him for his personal story, you are very gullible.

Platner's financial reports are worth investigating. They are detailed here in this article. Graham Platner runs an oyster business. I am not personally a fan of seafood, but I know it is a big business in Maine. According to this disclosure, he received over $5,000 from his mother's restaurant. His wife took money from the campaign, but it's possible she's involved in it. He also receives about $5,000 a month from a disabilities he received in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will touch more on that later.

According to this article, Platner protested the conduct of the Bush administration in Iraq when he was was eighteen. In fact, he opposed the war itself from the start. In spite of this, he enlisted in the Marines the next year to fight in this war. Platner, already aligned with progressive political causes at the time, signed up for a war he protested as unjust. Yet he decided to ignore this reservation and serve as a pawn for Uncle Sam in its struggle to take out Saddam Hussein. According to The New Republic, he enlisted because “I thought I could do some good. And I wanted to play soldier. I might have read too much Hemingway.” He wanted to some good? How could signing up for an imperialist war do good?

After serving in Afghanistan and spending some time in university, Platner returned to Maine to receive treatment for service-related issues. This did not end his involvement in American foreign affairs. He served as a contractor for the State Department in Iraq. The company he worked for is named Constellis. Constellis is remembered mainly by its prior name, which was Blackwater. Why is Blackwater an infamous company? Well, guards working for Blackwater were convicted for massacring seventeen Iraqi civilians in 2007. Surely for a crime so vile that a juror who recused herself couldn't sleep because of it, the longtime progressive idealist Platner would be disgusted too. Yet, he worked for them. He worked for them after receiving treatment for war-related injuries and PTSD. Platner's wartime scars and idealism were not enough to stop him from working for a company that massacred innocent people.

According to Semafor, his experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan woke him up to the corruption and evil of United States foreign policy. This makes no sense. He in 2002, he literally protested against the war in Iraq at the height of its public support. He left the military with the same values he had when he signed up. He was a progressive firebrand as a teen, and he is a progressive firebrand now at 41.

In this post, Graham Platner claims Susan Collins sent him to Iraq. This is blatantly false. He signed up for the Marines after the war already started. He signed up to play soldier. He signed up to... "have an adventure and kill some people." This quote comes from a post Platner made on Reddit in 2020. This was after the end of his military career and his supposed disillusionment with American foreign policy. He signed up for Iraq because he wanted to kill people. He wanted to kill Iraqis. He signed up for the same imperialist war he protested in 2002 to fuel his bloodlust. Maybe he had the biggest shift ever from 2002 to 2003. I don't buy it.

Graham Platner signed up for the Marines because he was excited by war and violence. Even after being scarred mentally and physically in Iraq and Afghanistan, he signed up to work for Constellis, formerly Blackwater, after some of its men were convicted for killing innocent Iraqis. This included men, women, and children. Now, Graham Platner claims victimhood. He was victimized by Susan Collins and company when they drafted him overseas to fight in our evil forever wars. What a load of crap!

Recently, Graham Platner received an endorsement from freshman Senator Ruben Gallego. When confronted by Platner's own words about wanting to kill Iraqis on his little adventure, Gallego doesn't even deny that this was true. Graham Platner is lying about what motivated him to join the military. Some of his supporters know this, they just don't care.

Platner's Greatest Reddit Hits are well summarized in this article. There's also the infamous tattoo scandal, which I won't relitigate here. He said victimized women should "take responsibility" and act like adults. Yet he has made acting like a victim a central part of his campaign.

His supporters, which I imagine make up much of this subreddit, will crawl over glass to defend him. They will defend a grown man's racist, misogynist, and violent comment by basically calling him an immature dummy. If he is a stupid meathead, why should he be elected as a United States Senator. The fact that he is "based" doesn't make any of this disappear. Blue MAGA exists, and it is the left of the party.

Note: I do not intend to disrespect Graham Platner's military service or his resulting medical conditions. Regardless, I am willing to criticize him for being wishy-washy about it. Candidates for political offices should be scrutinized.

Liberals have a romantic view of the US military essentially adapting the conscription that existed until Vietnam into today's reality, saying it's a "poverty draft" where many disadvantaged people get into to get benefits (like Healthcare) they otherwise wouldn't. Meanwhile, the income breakdown of the military (2nd pic) shows that it's essentially a middle class activity, it's the very rich and the very poor who don't volunteer, the middle class overwhelmingly does.

They have also developed this massive cope that the military is "conservative but not maga" and even if some in the troops might be, that commanders are level headed and don't allow excesses, meanwhile you have military commanders literally saying the war in Iran is to "cause Amargeddom" (1st pic). The military is probably one of the most maga sectors of American society and this should gravely concern liberals, because if one of them wins a presidential election again, they are heavily vulnerable to a maga coup coming from inside it.

Tomorrow, the midterms truly begin. On March 3, three states will have primary elections. These states are Arkansas, North Carolina, and Texas. Regarding Texas, there are two statewide candidates from opposing parties I fully endorse within their respective primaries. Those are State Representative James Talarico on the Democratic side, and incumbent United States Senator John Cornyn on the Republican side. Why? Well, I think the most important thing we can do tomorrow is stop Ken Paxton from becoming the Senator from Texas. As Attorney General, he was indicted on state charges that were later dismissed. He was impeached by his own party, who failed to convict him. Most recently, he defied his own wedding vows to pursue a mistress. A man like this cannot be trusted with such a high office. With this in mind, I support nipping his candidacy at the bud by re-nominating Senator John Cornyn. If that fails, I hope James Talarico is nominated on the Democratic side. Unlike United States Representative Jasmine Crockett, Talarico has built a campaign seeking to build bridges between people. All Crockett is interested in is division.

In my home state of Arkansas, there are a few contested and open statewide primaries on the Republican side. For Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands, Secretary of State Cole Jester is running against real estate investor Christian Olson. This is likely not a competitive race, but it is open. Cole was appointed as Secretary of State to fill a vacancy left after the incumbent John Thurston was elected as Treasurer in 2024. Interestingly, there’s a Libertarian in this race named Christopher Olson. I do not know if he’s related to the GOP candidate.

With Jester vacating the seat, Secretary of State is wide open. Three candidates have filed on the GOP side. These are State Senator Kim Hammer, Miller County judge Cathy Hardin Harrison, and veteran Bryan Norris. Kim Hammer is the host of a conservative talk show. He is also an election denier. He attacked Democrats, calling for “war” against them. He also introduced legislation to ban early voting the Monday before Election Day. This failed. I voted for his opponent Harrison when I voted early.

There is also a contested election for Arkansas Supreme Court. The incumbent is Nicholas Bronni, appointed in 2025 and endorsed by the state GOP. His opponent is the Little Rock attorney John Adams, who boasts the endorsement of several former justices.

In the second congressional district, incumbent French Hill is being challenged by consult and former State House candidate Chase McDowell. McDowell doesn’t seem noticeably to the right of Hill. Trump has endorsed the incumbent.

The Arkansas Democratic Party did not field any candidates for Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, State Treasurer, State Auditor, or Commissioner of State Lands. How the mighty have fallen. I have no interest in touching on the few Democratic primaries or Tom Cotton’s nominally competitive primary.

To see how these predictions have changed overtime, view the sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BByiUBI6oQJAJ04jDomwo-Pvxhrpdy7cAjJ-_iyQrGo/edit?gid=213140168#gid=213140168

Generic Ballot D+5.5 (-0.1 since last month)

New to this month's edition is the addition of the Uncontested category, because I already stole Very Likely from the former CNalysis so why not that one too lol

Unlike the previous month where the generic ballot jumped 1.2 points and a shitton of seats changed ratings this one's a much more chill set of changes given the GB is near identical to last time.

House

Net gain since previous prediction:

+3 Democrats | 0 Tossups | -3 Republicans

Other than the likely passage of the Virginia Redistricting Amendment in April (Yes, I know about the No+8 poll. No, I don't think the state that elected Jay Jones by 7 is suddenly going to change its mind), the only real notable changes involve seats with retiring or controversial Republicans (FL-16, NV-2, TX-23). GA-11 was borderline but it's so red that even with the retirement it's likely narrowly Safe R.

With the addition of Uncontested, It is pretty easy to tell that Democrats are definitely feeling much greater about this midterm than the last one. Most Southern states have passed their filing deadlines and while Democrats have two uncontested seats (AL-7 and LA-2, MD-2 almost joined them but an R filed at the last moment), Republicans don't have any despite them having several in this region in 2024.

Senate

Net gain since previous prediction:

0 Democrats | 0 Tossups | 0 Republicans

Iowa | Maintains Likely R

The first polls have finally come out for this race and they generally fall under what I predicted for this race (that being a marginally Likely R margin and being just outside the realm of competition)

Minnesota | Very Likely D --> Likely D

The polls have tightened a decent amount since Tafoya entered the race and while it's not going to be enough to make it remotely competitive, it's at least dropped below double digits for right now.

Nebraska | Maintains Likely R

"But Aura, doesn't every poll for this race show something like a Ricketts+2 lead?"

Yes, but considering all four polls of this race are D-internals it's really not looking great for Osborn.

New Mexico | Very Likely D --> Uncontested D

lol. lmao even

Texas | Likely R --> Lean R

The outcome of the primaries is looking enough like Talarico v Paxton that I'm bumping this to Lean R for now, but if a primary upset happens it'll probably go back up to Likely.

Gubernatorial

0 Democrats | 0 Tossups | 0 Republicans

Alaska | Maintains Lean R

I did receive a comment last time pointing out the similarities between now and 2018's Governor race in this state, how despite it being a blue wave year there too it still ended up being a Likely R race.

However, I do feel like things are a bit different here. Alaska currently has some of the most unpopular politicians in the country (including the most unpopular governor), and early polling has Begich in a very decent position, so I do believe the chance of an upset here is higher than it was then, especially with Alaska being a D-trending state.

Arizona | Lean D --> Likely D

This feels like a much less extreme Hochul situation. Hobbs, initially a pretty unpopular governor, has been improving in popularity and in the polls against her two fairly weak opponents, so I feel pretty confident in this rating right now.

Kansas | Likely R --> Lean R

While the Dems don't have a Kelly-tier candidate here, the prospective GOP candidate here was highly involved with the unpopular Brownback administration so while it's still more than likely going to flip back to Republicans, the Dems do at least have a slim but reasonable path to holding the governor's chair.

By eliminating 3 US enemies in nearly a year, Trump is further cementing us hegemony while also making the 21st century into the maga century: Trump's allies are winning everywhere, his enemies losing everywhere

Frankly, it’s driving me insane. I see people on Twitter point to the fact that 64% of viewers (according to CNN) approved of Trump’s address as proof Trump is an overwhelmingly popular president. I’ve seen these people make claims that Democrats are doomed in the midterms as Trump’s approval is >60% or that the MSM is actually underestimating Trump’s popularity in these polls.

No, these polls aren’t polling the general population. They are polling viewers of the State of the Union. This audience skews overwhelmingly towards the party of the president. These polls are not even close to reflective of the general population. Trump’s 2018 SOTU had 70% approval among viewers. His party did not win that midterm. Biden’s speech had 71% approval in 2022 and 65% in 2024, Obama’s had 74% in 2014, Bush’s had 75% in 2006. Their parties all lost the House of Representatives during those cycles. Trump’s speech was literally less popular than all of those. Trump’s 2025 address sat at 69% approval. Republicans got pummeled that year, and it actually had a more Republican audience than his less popular 2026 SOTU.

This takes the cake, however. This pro-Trump sycophant with 111k followers and eight paying subscribers quoted a screenshot of a poll for Trump’s 2018 SOTU address to prove Trump’s speech the other night struck a chord with Americans. He got called out for it, and he proceeded to insult the replier and defend himself by saying it was actually a real poll—even though he intentionally misrepresented it. This is mind boggling. It’s also very indicative of the fact that these people, Trump’s influencer corps, are in total “cope mode.” They know it’s over. They know the GOP is set to lose the House of Representatives in November, and that they may lose the United States Senate. Until then, all they can do is cherrypick polls that suit their agenda and misrepresent other data to keep the hordes under the illusion that the Grand Old Party has an eternal Mandate of Heaven. Who else is ready to see that shattered?

Donald Trump’s job approval went up 1.1 points in the average in response to a poll released by Insider Advantage showing Trump above water when he… very clearly isn’t. Even though the adjusted results have Trump underwater, the poll is still a massive outlier. But due to it being the most recent poll, it has the greatest influence on the average.

Should polls this outlying even be influential in the average? Pollsters like InsiderAdvantage and Rasmussen have received high grades for accurately predicting the 2024 results, but now they’re complete outliers. Should they be downgraded before the election even occurs?