The Platner debacle in Maine raises a longstanding, if rare, dilemma in American politics: when and how should a party get to replace a defective candidate?
The earliest instance that I personally recall was New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli, who was elected in 1996 to fill the vacancy created by Bill Bradley’s retirement. He ended his 2002 re-election campaign at the 11th hour (September 30), in the wake of a corruption scandal and badly trailing Republican nominee Doug Forrester in the polls. Despite the timing and the clear letter of state election, the New Jersey Supreme Court allowed the party to replace him on the ballot with former Senator Frank Lautenberg, who won easily, 54-44.
I found the whole thing outrageous. The party’s nominating electorate had the opportunity to choose its candidate and chose poorly. The Democrat-dominated court, though, decided that, despite the deadline set by the legislature having passed, it was unfair to New Jersey voters to effectively have no choice in the general election.
I was somewhat surprised that I found no record of having blogged about the incident in the archives, until I researched to find the date. This all happened a few months before our January 2003 launch. We did, however, mention the incident multiple times over the next few years, including at least one post coining the phrase “Doing a Torricelli.”
There have been multiple incidents since. The most noteworthy, of course, was President Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 race on July 21. Even though I had called for him to do so in the wake of the debate disaster, I did note the unfairness of the Democrats getting a second bite at the apple. Trump had defeated the Democratic nominee, essentially by default, in a debate held well before they would normally be held and at Biden’s behest. He’d spent untold resources attacking Biden’s record. And now the Democrats got a do-over.
Of course, that one didn’t go as well as the Torricelli switcheroo.
I’m in a similar quandary here. Democrats* had decent human beings on the ballot. They chose the dirtbag. And now that the dirtbag looks certain to lose, they want a mulligan.
From a sporting standpoint, none of this seems kosher.
But I’m more sympathetic now than I was 24 years ago (!) to the New Jersey Supremes’ argument. This isn’t a mere sporting event, after all. It’s a contest to fill one of the 100 US Senate seats for 6 years. Potentially, it’s a battle for party control of half of our bicameral legislature.
Further, unlike the Torricelli case, both Biden and (potentially) Platner were supplanted in July, not October. Yes, it gives the party a reset and forces the opposition candidate to entirely retool their campaign messaging. And, yes, to the extent that their campaigns were comparative/negative rather than forward-looking/positive, it means they’ve wasted money on the bait-and-switch. Further, the departed candidate’s negative advertising wasn’t wasted; it merely benefited the substitute. But there’s still plenty of time to run a campaign.
Ultimately, the outcome is better: the voters get to choose between two plausible candidates. But the opposition candidate and party has a right to be salty about it.
*My point here isn’t a partisan one. While the examples that immediately came to mind involved Democratic candidates, I presume this has happened with Republicans as well.
