I think he’s overly optimistic about his prediction of the Democrat Party’s disappearance (though the DSA is coming on strong), but the first half of Pinsker’s article rings true.
Scott Pinsker | 12:25 PM on July 07, 2026
Before I take a (well-deserved) victory lap, a confession: My predictive accuracy rate for Democrats is astronomically high, yet I’ve whiffed quite a bit predicting President Donald Trump’s next moves. (Certainly didn’t have Greenland, the Iran War ceasefire, or the White House ballroom on my bingo card.) But there’s an excellent reason why the Donkeys are so much easier to predict: The Democrats rely on traditional PR tactics, so if you figure out why a competent PR pro would play that card, it unmasks their entire agenda. After all, PR tactics aren’t random; they’re based on cause and effect.
Show me your PR tactics, and I’ll tell you your political strategy.
Since the mainstream media is ideologically aligned with the Democratic Party, leveraging PR tactics is — by far — the left’s most cost-effective vehicle for mass communication. Hey, when the New York Times publishes your propaganda above the fold on page one for free, there’s no need to waste money on a page-15 ad. (And we’ll have MUCH more to say about the Times’ propaganda in a sec.)
Donald Trump and the GOP don’t rely on traditional PR tactics. The mainstream media is simply too hostile; Republicans have been burned too many times. It’s why we’re better off relying on social media, conservative platforms, paid ads, testimonials, and the power of the presidential pulpit.
But if you’re an establishment Democrat, you work near-exclusively through the media. And that’s how I knew on June 1 that the Democrats — and not the Republicans — were the ones behind the Graham Platner scandal PR dump:
Be on the lookout for a Democratic dirty trick: If Graham Platner wins Maine’s June 9 primary (which he will) — but withdraws from the race by 5:00 p.m. on July 13 — the Democratic Party can choose his replacement.
[…]
The DNC establishment has a limited window to dump the scandal-tarred Platner and swap him with someone “safer.” But time is of the essence.
At stake is nothing less than control of the U.S. Senate.
Which means, between now and July 13, the Dems are highly incentivized to publicize ALL the Platner scandals they’re aware of, because one of two things will happen:
Graham Platner drops out in shame and is replaced by a DNC establishment favorite who’s safer, fully vetted, and more likely to win (and follow orders).Graham Platner stays on the ballot, but because the scandal(s) dropped in May/June, it’ll be “old news” by the first Tuesday of November.
It’s good, old-fashioned cui bono logic: If the Republicans had the goods on Graham Platner, we would’ve dropped the bomb(s) after July 13. In fact, we probably would’ve done what Virginia attorney general candidate Jason Miyares did in 2025 and released the info a month or so before the election, because that would maximize the pro-GOP fallout.
I don’t think it’s coincidental that the latest Platner scandal broke EXACTLY one week before the Dem’s July 13 deadline, and neither should you.
From leveraging major media outlets (like Politico and the New York Times) to timing the release of these scandals, this has all the PR fingerprints of a Democrat-on-Democrat hit job. Think about it: Platner’s first major media-driven scandal broke roughly a week before the June 9 primary; the second major media-driven scandal broke a week before the July 13 cutoff date for replacing him on the ballot.
The timing is too on-the-nose to be accidental, because in PR, things don’t move until you push ‘em.
It’s also suspect that the New York Times, in its first exposé of the Platner scandal, focused on the allegations of Lyndsey Fifield, a 40-year-old conservative. For obvious reasons, the allegations of a conservative woman against a far-left Senate candidate were easier for Platner’s base to dismiss.
That’s an observation Will Upton of the Daily Caller made:
[The New York Times’ story] was a favor to Platner’s campaign, a disservice to readers, and an insult to the women who say they were hurt by him.
[…]
The Times’s goal here was not to fairly give hearing to allegations against Platner; it was to play Fifield for a sucker, give her story just enough air that the Democrat Party’s cretin media and consultant class could zero in on it and crush it.
Politico’s reporting on Platner from yesterday, which focused on the credible rape allegations of a liberal Maine woman named Jenny Racicot, raises even more questions about the New York Times’ bias:
Racicot said she was contacted by The New York Times in the spring and shared off the record that Platner had assaulted her. She told the Times that she had some positive memories of her relationship with Platner but thought he did not respect women and had cut off contact with him after an incident in 2021 when Platner had come over drunk; but the Times article stated that Racicot “declined to elaborate” about what had happened, only describing his behavior as “reckless” and “unsettling.”
A spokesperson for the Times declined to comment. [emphasis added]
If Racicot is telling the truth — and she told the Times’ reporters point-blank that Platner had sexually assaulted her — then describing her rape as “reckless” and “unsettling” was journalistic malpractice. That’s a shocking, horrible, disgusting understatement! (The two Times reporters were Kate Glueck and Lisa Lerer.)
The Times has some explaining to do. (And some apologizing to do, too.)
But as of today, the Democratic Party establishment is ecstatic: Platner is done. When he didn’t quit earlier — and actually won Maine’s Senate primary (by a landslide!) — the establishment waited one week before the July 13 deadline and dropped bomb #2.
Kaboom!
Now, the Democratic establishment has what it always wanted: A free hand to pick Platner’s replacement. The DSA upstarts were discredited and humiliated; Chuck Schumer and his cronies were proven correct. Hallelujah!
It’s Christmas in July!
