Democrats and Republicans Play Tit for Tat with Flawed Candidates

Texas Republicans have nominated a Senate candidate with a lot of baggage – Attorney General Ken Paxton. Previously Democrats handed the Maine Senate nomination to Graham Platner, a controversial candidate with a pile of his own baggage.

Paxton carries significant legal and ethical baggage. He faced securities fraud charges dating back to before he took office as attorney general. High-level aides in his own office accused him of bribery and abuse of office. In 2023, the Texas House impeached him on articles that included giving preferential treatment to a donor, misusing public resources, obstructing justice, and making false statements.

Although the Texas Senate acquitted him, the episode highlighted deep divisions within his own party. More recently, his wife filed for divorce amid allegations of an extramarital affair. Despite condemnation from some Republican leaders and a well-funded challenge from incumbent Senator John Cornyn, Paxton secured a landslide victory over incumbent Senator John Cornyn – thanks to an endorsement from President Trump.

Platner, on the other hand, brings a different set of controversies. The oyster farmer and Marine Corps veteran has a trail of old Reddit posts that surfaced during his campaign. He once described himself as a “communist,” agreed that “all cops” were bastards, used a homophobic slur, and suggested women should avoid blackout drinking to prevent sexual assault. He also had a Nazi-linked Totenkopf tattoo from his military days, which he covered when it was reported in the early days of his campaign. Incumbent Governor Janet Mills withdrew from the race citing lack of money, allowing Platner to claim the Democratic nomination by default.

Paxton wins a landslide victory over a longtime incumbent. Platner forces out the state’s governor. How is all that possible? In normal times these candidates would not even make the first cut.

Both parties have a history of nominating controversial candidates who struggle in general elections. In 2010, Delaware Republicans chose Christine O’Donnell, whose “I am not a witch” advertisement became a national punchline and cost them a winnable Senate seat. Missouri Republicans nominated Todd Akin in 2012 after his comments on “legitimate rape,” leading to a comfortable Democratic hold. Democrats have their own examples, such as nominating candidates with extreme views or personal scandals that alienate moderates in purple states. These choices often reflect base enthusiasm overriding broader electability concerns. Party activists reward ideological purity or anti-establishment credentials, even when the baggage invites relentless opposition attacks.

But there are cases in which considerable baggage proved no barrier to political success. Think Presidents Clinton and Trump.

Voters appear increasingly tolerant of flawed candidates if they align with their frustrations toward Washington. Establishment figures like Cornyn and Mills found themselves outmaneuvered by populist energy. Yet general elections test these nominees against broader audiences, including independents who may recoil from scandal.

Whether Paxton or Platner succeeds remains to be seen, but their nominations underscore a troubling pattern. Both major parties risk prioritizing internal grievances over the disciplined candidate selection necessary for sustained success. The American voters deserve better – but sadly, it is the American voters who put these folks in office.

So, there ‘tis,