A woman who previously dated Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner said he drunkenly forced her to have sex after she told him to stop, according to a Politico report released Monday, leading prominent supporters to pull their endorsements and throwing a must-win race for the party into turmoil.
Platner denied the allegation, but said he would be considering next steps for his campaign.
“Regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting but mindful of the political reality it will inflict, we’re taking the time to reflect on the best path forward,” he said in a video released on social media.
Jenny Racicot, who lives in Maine, told Politico that Platner entered her home in 2021 while drunk and assaulted her. Racicot said she had been in an on-and-off relationship with Platner, but she cut off contact with him after that night and told him the incident wasn’t consensual. A voicemail left at a number listed for Racicot seeking comment did not receive an immediate response.
Platner’s campaign did not immediately respond to an email and phone message from The Associated Press seeking comment.
“Any accusation of non-consensual behavior is categorically false,” Platner said in his video.
Still, the allegation sparked a flight away from a candidate who has long been controversial. Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat who’d stood by Platner even as the insurgent candidate was hit with prior allegations, said Monday’s was enough. “I’ve been very clear that sexual assault or violence against women is a red line,” Khanna said. “These allegations are very serious and credible. Graham Platner should drop out from the race. I am withdrawing my endorsement.”
Edit: holy shit, these comments are insane.
Regardless of what you believe with this, Platner likely cannot win anymore. He has a week to do the right thing and drop out before he's fully locked in. If he actually gives any sort of a shit (and doesn't just want power, like rapists seeking office tend to), he needs to drop out yesterday.
This is the nail in the coffin for his campaign. It's not time to defend him no matter what, because there's still a week where a new candidate can be put into place. Instead of being mad at people not wanting to vote for him, you should start vocally supporting another candidate.
She has evidence that she had some contact with Platner. But according to the narrative she describes, there couldn't have been any text messages providing direct evidence of the assault. She's saying that at the time, she sent messages to other people. But it's not like Platner texted her a confession.
But come on, it's 2026. You need to be a little more cynical, less naive, and have a properly calibrated bullshit detector. Did Platner assault her? Certainly possible. But it's also sus as hell.
And yes, it clearly is meant to be politically motivated. She may be a Democrat, but as we've seen, plenty of Democrats hate progressive candidates. And the timing is damning. She may be a legitimate victim, but if so, she's also cynically manipulating her rape for political points. She's literally using her sexual assault as a political poker chip. You don't perfectly time the allegation to have maximum political impact otherwise.
Idk, if I were assaulted by him I think I would wait to maximize damage, considering how difficult it is to get a conviction on SA charges.
How conspiracy minded do you have to be to think she texted her friend warning her about Platner years before his senate run in order to sabotage him now?
Why else would she say Platner assaulted her in this way other than he assaulted her?
Those messages don't actually exist anymore. We have only her word.
I wouldn't call this damning. People react to grief in complex ways. But it also means that you shouldn't spread misinformation about there being text messages. Yes, she claims there were text messages, but ultimately it's still just her word. These texts provide zero evidence, as they no longer exist.
She claims that a lot of evidence existed in the past, but that all of that evidence has been lost. Is that possible? Sure, that does happen in some cases of rape and assault. Some folks just want to move on. But it's part of a larger picture that together is pretty damning:
She deleted all correspondence with Platner that could corroborate her claim.
She showed emails to Politico from her therapist, where she mentioned Platner and the alleged assault - but those emails and therapy sessions are recent.
There is a man, a later romantic partner, that the victim supposedly told her story to - yet he's chosen to remain anonymous and Politico
There is a woman, a friend of the victim, who Politico says received messages from the victim saying to avoid Platner. Again, the person is anonymous.
So, all the supporting evidence is either deleted, not contemporary to the events, or from anonymous people that cannot be verified.
Because money and power are on the line.
This is a lie.
Taking quotes of context is slimey. You're lying by doing so. I mentioned how there were apparently text messages, but they had all been deleted.
There is one and only one contemporary record, and that's some vague facebook messages to an anonymous person that never explicitly say Platner assaulted her. She claims a lot of other evidence exists, but she conveniently deleted it all.
So, do you care to actually back up your point, instead of just casually throwing around slurs?
No, all of the text messages were not deleted.
She deleted the texts between her and Platner. Not the texts to her friends or the emails to her therapist.
I didn't throw a slur, get your eyes checked.
Issue is that none of that would be proof. They would be maybe at best supporting details to something more solid (like txts between the victim and accused).
Warning people about someone does not actually work as proof of the action you are accusing them of.
Now with that being said I would give it better then average odds that this did happen as she claims but that has more to do with my expectations of american politicians.
We don't need proof. This is the court of public opinion not a court of law.
I used to like Platner, but where there's smoke there's fire.
Oh, by all means torp the guy over this politically. But don't let claims go ahead without at least some proof.
The idea of "where there is smoke there is fire" is kinda problematic to say the least. Its not an idiom that holds out well, like "It takes two to tango" and “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”
HBO Velma this is one Scoob could solve. If the timing alone doesn't set off your bullshit detector I have a bridge to sell you.
I think youre going to find yourself on the wrong side of this one.