If you are anti-electoralist, how is that argument coherent? Can you explain what the harm is in voting for the lesser evil (even if they're still bad) if you're not treating it as your only level of political involvement?

Senators can literally just serve on committees and vote for bills. Are you worried he will not vote the way he says he will? Or is this about not electing someone with a bad past/values? Or is the concern he is not actually on the left (broadly, he's obviously not a socialist)?

Because if you're an anti-electoralist:

• worrying about him having legislative power is a bit odd, you don't believe in the electoral process.

• worrying about his past & values is either just about not liking the guy (fine, I don't either I think he's sus) or a concern about the way he'd vote - which again, doesn't make sense

• worrying about himnnot actually being on the left (fetterman 2.0) is competely valid, but... again... this is a concern about how he'd vote and the issues he'd support.

I do not like Platner. I think he's a very sketchy dude. If I were in Maine, voting for him would feel bad. What I am concerned about is the left purity testing itself so hard it purity tests shitty liberal senators from small states who say they want to make some small stand against fascist policies, war, and the capitalist class. I think it is counterproductove and a waste of time.