Senate Race SHAKEN: Nazi Tattoo CANDIDATE Revealed!

dailyvantage.com — A Maine Democratic Senate candidate is fighting to stay in a high-profile race after revelations about a Nazi-linked chest tattoo and deleted Reddit posts that included a wish for a Purple Heart recipient’s death — and his own party is turning on him.

Story Snapshot

Graham Platner admitted to having a chest tattoo widely recognized as a Nazi symbol, saying he got it nearly 20 years ago and has since covered it up.
Deleted Reddit posts linked to Platner included a comment calling Purple Heart recipient Ted Daniels “dumb” and saying he “didn’t deserve to live” — a remark Platner refused to apologize for.
Senator John Fetterman publicly called Platner “an a**hole with a Nazi tattoo on his chest,” signaling rare and damaging intra-party criticism.
Democrats were reported as “largely silent” on calls for Platner to withdraw, leaving media and political opponents to drive the disqualification argument.

A Nazi Symbol, a Cover-Up, and a Candidate’s Explanation

Graham Platner, the Democratic candidate challenging incumbent Senator Susan Collins in Maine, confirmed to the Associated Press that he had a tattoo on his chest widely recognized as a Nazi symbol. He said he obtained it nearly 20 years ago and has since covered it up so it no longer displays the image. Platner claimed he did not know the symbol’s meaning when he got it, attributing the decision to ignorance rather than ideology. ^[1]

A developing report from WGME raised the stakes further, suggesting that Platner may have been aware for years that the tattoo resembled a Nazi symbol — specifically the SS Totenkopf skull — well before he covered it in November 2023. ^[3] That timeline matters: if Platner knew the tattoo’s meaning and continued displaying it publicly for years, his “accidental mistake” defense collapses. The cover-up occurring before the controversy became a major campaign issue adds another layer of questions his explanation has not fully answered.

Deleted Reddit Posts and a Refusal to Apologize

Alongside the tattoo controversy, deleted Reddit posts attributed to Platner surfaced and drew immediate condemnation. Platner admitted to owning the account and apologized for some past remarks, attributing the posts to anger, crude behavior, and in some cases intoxication linked to post-traumatic stress from his military service. ^[2] He acknowledged the posts were real — a significant concession that removed any possibility of dismissing the record as fabricated or misattributed.

The most damaging post involved Ted Daniels, a Purple Heart recipient. Platner reportedly called Daniels “dumb” and wrote that he “didn’t deserve to live.” When asked directly to apologize for that specific comment, Platner refused. ^[1] That refusal stands as the most politically toxic element of the controversy — not only for its content, but because it signals that Platner’s remorse has limits, and those limits stop precisely where the conduct was most severe.

Democrats Break Ranks as Party Stays Largely Silent

Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania delivered the most pointed intra-party rebuke, publicly calling Platner “an a**hole with a Nazi tattoo on his chest.” ^[1] Fetterman’s willingness to go on record with that language is notable — it strips away the usual political caution and frames the issue as a basic matter of character, not partisan positioning. When members of your own party use that kind of language publicly, the damage extends well beyond what any Republican opponent could inflict alone.

Democrat Senate Candidate Graham Platner had a Nazi-symbol tattoo controversy.

Deleted Reddit posts.

Anti-police rants.

Communist branding.

Now he is accused of mocking a Purple Heart recipient shot 4 times in Afghanistan.

And the 28 Democratic veterans in Congress? Silent. pic.twitter.com/clcs5Cq9Wq

— Mehek Cooke🇺🇸 (@MehekCooke) May 21, 2026

Despite Fetterman’s public broadside and reported pressure on Democratic leaders to withdraw endorsements, the party was described as “largely silent” in its institutional response. ^[1] That silence may reflect a calculation that openly abandoning Platner creates more chaos than quietly waiting out the controversy — but it also hands opponents a ready-made narrative: that Democrats will tolerate almost anything from their own candidates rather than hold them to the same standards they demand of others. For Maine voters, and for the broader electorate watching this race, the party’s muted response may prove as damaging as Platner’s record itself.