It turns out Graham Platner was touted by Democratic social media influencers who were secretly being paid by his campaign.
The phrase “it’s an op” – meaning an influence operation – is often, though not always, a marker of paranoia, a tendency towards conspiracy theories, or a belief in forces that are unseen and cannot yet be proven to exist.
Still, from the very start of SS-tattooed Democrat Graham Platner’s campaign for Senate, something seemed odd. The New York Times is not in the habit of writing a largely glowing profile of every long-shot, little-known Democrat who announces a bid for Senate. Platner was the harbormaster of Sullivan, Maine, population 1,246.
Yet the Times wrote its profile of Platner before he officially announced his campaign, in August.
In September, The New Yorker wrote its own 3,400-word profile of Platner, emphasizing how he “devoured books on military history.” (But remember, he insists he never recognized the tattoo on his chest as a symbol of the Nazi SS.) Again, The New Yorker almost never writes long-detailed profiles of little-known Democratic Senate candidates one month after they announce their bid.
Then in October, GQ – not primarily a political magazine, and not one that often spotlights candidates – published its own large spread of Platner with lots of photos.
Then in November, the culinary magazine Bon Appetit – again, not in the habit of covering obscure Senate candidates – wrote another glowing profile, this one entitled, “How Graham Platner Went From Working-Class Oysterman to Maine’s Zohran Mamdani.”
This is Beto O’Rourke-level national coverage, right out of the gate. In his early appearances, it was clear he didn’t know how the Senate appropriations process works. Why did so many major national media publications, with the precise coordination of a school of fish, suddenly and simultaneously decide that this particular “I became a Communist” Senate candidate was so worthy of laudatory attention and hype?
Collin Anderson of the Washington Free Beacon provides some much-needed answers.
Left-wing Democrat Graham Platner’s “grassroots” campaign for Senate in Maine has paid tens of thousands of dollars to a left-wing consulting firm that pays a “network of powerful online messengers”—better known as influencers—to promote Democratic candidates and causes on social media, campaign finance disclosures reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon show. One of the firm’s featured influencers has showered Platner with praise for attacking billionaires and accusing Israel of genocide and solicited donations for Platner’s campaign without disclosing any financial connection.
Good Influence does not list all of the influencers in its “network,” but its website includes headshots for some of its “creators.” They include Qasim Rashid, a Pakistani-born left-wing activist and self-described “human rights lawyer” who ran for Congress unsuccessfully in both Virginia and Illinois—and who has since emerged as a top online supporter of Platner.
…Mainstream media outlets have painted Platner in a similar light, with Politico citing his “grassroots energy” and the New Yorker suggesting his “grassroots organizing can beat the establishment.” None have reported Platner’s payments to Good Influence, including the New York Times, which last week published a piece on campaign payments to influencers that did not mention Platner.
A Good Influence spokesman said the firm “does not comment on its work for clients.” Platner’s campaign and Rashid did not respond to requests for comment.
So… it was, and is, “an op.” The right Democratic political consulting and media firm created an artificial buzz and persuaded all of these publications that Platner was The Next Big Thing™.
You see, that company is called “Good Influence” because it helps Democrats. If it were promoting Republican candidates, it would have to be called “Bad Influence.”