All eyes on Mills in Maine Senate race

TOP LINE
Democrats are eager to run for governor in Maine. For the Senate, not so much.
The Democratic primary for the open Maine governor's mansion continues to attract some of the top political talent in the state, but the race against longtime Sen. Susan Collins is still mostly quiet.
Democrats in the state insist there's no shortage of interest in challenging Collins, the perennially vulnerable but always victorious Republican. Rather, a number of prominent Democrats in Maine are considering a run, three strategists told Score.
'I think you will start seeing people jump into the Collins race,' said Adam Cote, a former gubernatorial candidate and longtime Democrat in the state.
But what's the holdup? Democratic Gov. Janet Mills hasn't officially ruled out a run, but hasn't exactly expressed interest, either.
'At this moment, I don't plan to run for another office,' Mills told reporters in November. But she said in the same interview 'things change week to week, month to month.'
Some Democratic strategists in the state are skeptical that Mills, 77, would ultimately want to run against Collins. But if she did, she'd be a formidable challenger, having won her last election in the state by 13 points.
If she doesn't, Mills will go down this cycle as the Democratic equivalent to GOP Govs. Chris Sununu of New Hampshire and Brian Kemp of Georgia, both of whom passed on runs for upper chamber despite heavy recruitment efforts from their party.
Meanwhile, as other contenders wait for their moment, Democrat Jordan Wood, the former chief of staff to former California Rep. Katie Porter, is raking in cash. Since launching his Senate campaign, Wood has raised $1 million despite this being his first attempt at public office.
That number represents significant interest from donors to flip the seat, but it's just a drop in the bucket of the overall spending the race will surely attract.
In a statement, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee did not acknowledge the current candidate situation, instead pivoting to attacking Collins.
'Susan Collins is already facing backlash in Maine for her record of threatening Social Security and Medicare, allowing chaotic tariffs that hurt Maine's economy and spike costs, and being the deciding vote for the justices who overturned Roe v. Wade,' DSCC spokesperson Maeve Coyle said in a statement. 'Mainers know Susan Collins isn't standing up for them, and in 2026, they will hold her accountable for selling them out.'
The lack of well-known names to take on Collins is starting to worry some in the state.
Steve Collins, a longtime local journalist-turned-columnist, is asking for one of the many gubernatorial candidates — Angus King III, son of independent Sen. Angus King — to switch races.
'This political newcomer could show that he's more than just a name by taking on a bigger role for his party and challenging U.S. Sen. Susan Collins,' Collins wrote in the Portland Press Herald earlier this month.
'To be a good governor, someone ought to have a keen understanding of state government before landing in the Blaine House,' he continued. 'To be a good senator? You just need common sense, keen political instincts and to read a decent newspaper from time to time.'
Following a number of unfavorable recent polls for Collins — including one in which just 21 percent of respondents said she deserved another term in office — Democrats think it could finally be their moment.
'Collins has done very well every cycle at different times,' Cote said. 'So early indications are that it's a bit different this time, whether it is or not, time will tell.'
Happy Monday. Reach me: @andrewjfhoward or ahoward@politico.com.
Days until the Virginia primary: 1
Days until the New York City primary: 8
Days until the 2025 election: 141
Days until the midterms: 505
Want to receive this newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You'll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day's biggest stories.
CAMPAIGN INTEL
VIRGINIA PRIMARIES — 'Big turnout for Democrats in Virginia's early primary voting gives party hope,' by the Washington Post's Gregory S. Schneider and Laura Vozzella. 'Nearly 158,000 people had cast votes in Democratic primaries as of Thursday — up from 124,000 at the same point in Democratic primaries four years ago, when the party had a hotly contested, five-way primary for governor, according to analysis of the latest available data by the Virginia Public Access Project.'
OFF TO THE RACES — Army and Navy Veteran Tripp Adams is joining the growing Democratic field in Michigan's 10th District, currently held by Rep. John James (R-Mich.). 'I'm running because Michiganders deserve a new generation of patriotic leadership that's committed to delivering results for our families and fixing our broken political system,' Adams said in a statement.
LEGAL CORNER — 'A federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump's attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S., siding with a group of Democratic state attorneys general who challenged the effort as unconstitutional,' AP's Christina A. Cassidy notes.
… 'Justice Department's early moves on voting and elections signal a shift from its traditional role,' per the Associated Press. 'They represent a shift away from the division's traditional role of protecting access to the ballot box. Instead, the actions address concerns that have been raised by a host of conservative activists following years of false claims surrounding elections in the U.S.'
OVER THE WEEKEND — Republican and Democratic politicians are warning about rising violence targeting elected officials in the aftermath of a series of attacks, including the killing of a state official in Minnesota on Saturday, my colleagues Giselle Ruhiyyih Ewing, Ben Jacobs, Natalie Fertig and Jessica Piper reported Saturday.
NYC MAYOR — 'Down the homestretch, Cuomo's allies unleash millions to topple New York City mayoral rival,' by POLITICO's Joe Anuta and Jason Beeferman.
NEW JERSEY GOV — 'The matchup for New Jersey's gubernatorial election is set, but looming over the contest will be a name that won't be on any ballot: Donald Trump,' NBC News' Steve Kornacki writes.
MEDICAID MESSAGING — 'A one-sentence gaffe from Iowa's junior senator has become a line of attack against Republicans nationally, with Democratic fundraising solicitations, political ads, social media and T-shirts now highlighting her words heading into the midterm elections,' the Wall Street Journal's John McCormick and Lindsay Wise report.
BATTLE FOR THE HOUSE — Voters of Tomorrow, a Gen-Z focused Democratic group, is spending $3 million on voter mobilization across 18 battleground House districts, per The Hill's Caroline Vakil.
DATA — 'While there are plenty of obstacles, the conditions for a successful third party could be coming into place,' The New York Times' Nate Cohn wrote on Saturday, following Elon Musk's floating of a third party during his spat with President Donald Trump.
CODA — HEADLINE OF THE DAY: 'The Clintons and Kamala Harris Descend on a Hamptons Wedding of Liberal Royalty,' by The New York Times' Theodore Schleifer and Jacob Reber.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Atlantic

29 minutes ago

• Atlantic

Trump Got This One Right

'Why are the wrong people doing the right thing?' Henry Kissinger is supposed to have once asked, in a moment of statesman-like perplexity. That question recurred as Donald Trump, backed by a visibly perturbed vice president and two uneasy Cabinet secretaries, announced that the United States had just bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. It is a matter of consternation for all the right people, who, as Kissinger well knew, are often enough dead wrong. The brute fact is that Trump, more than any other president, Republican or Democrat, has taken decisive action against one of the two most dangerous nuclear programs in the world (the other being North Korea's). The Iranian government has for a generation not only spewed hatred at the United States and Israel, and at the West generally, but committed and abetted terrorism throughout the Middle East and as far as Europe and Latin America. Every day, its drones deliver death to Ukrainian cities. The Iranian government is a deeply hostile regime that has brought misery to many. A nuclear-armed Iran might very well have used a nuclear weapon against Israel, which is, as one former Iranian president repeatedly declared, 'a one-bomb country.' Because Israel might well have attempted to forestall such a blow with a preemptive nuclear strike of its own, the question is more likely when an Iranian bomb would have triggered the use of nuclear weapons, not whether it would have done so. But even without that apocalyptic possibility, a nuclear-armed Iran would have its own umbrella of deterrence to continue the terror and subversion with which it has persecuted its neighbors. There is no reason to think the regime has any desire to moderate those tendencies. In his address to the nation on Saturday night, Trump was right to speak—and to speak with what sounded like unfeigned fury—about the American servicemen and servicewomen maimed and killed by Iranian IEDs in Iraq. It was no less than the truth. Shame on his predecessors for not being willing to say so publicly. When someone is killing your men and women, a commander in chief is supposed to say—and, more important, do—something about it. Trump was also right in making this a precise, limited use of force while holding more in reserve. Israel has done the heavy lifting here, but he has contributed an essential element—and no more. He was right as well (for the strikes were indeed an act of war) to threaten far worse punishment if Iran attempts to retaliate. The rush in many quarters—including right-wing isolationists and anguished progressives—to conjure up prospects of a war that will engulf the Middle East reflected their emotions rather than any analytic judgment. Iran, it cannot be said often enough, is a weak state. Its air defenses no longer exist. Its security apparatus has been thoroughly penetrated by Israeli, American, and other intelligence agencies. Its finances are a wreck and its people are hostile to their rulers. For that matter, anyone who has served in uniform in the Middle East during the past few decades knows that Iran has consistently conducted low-level war against the United States through its proxies. Could Iran attempt to attack shipping in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz? Yes—and members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy would die in large numbers in their speedboats or in their bases as they prepared to do so. The United States and its allies have prepared for that scenario for a long time, and Iranian sailors' desire for martyrdom has been overstated. Could Iran try to launch terror attacks abroad? Yes, but the idea that there is a broad silent network of Iranian terrorists just waiting for the signal to strike is chimerical. And remember, Iran's nuclear fangs have been pulled. True enough, not permanently, as many of the president's critics have already earnestly pointed out on television. But so much of that kind of commentary is pseudo-sophistication: Almost no strategic problem gets solved permanently, unless you are Rome dealing with Carthage in the Third Punic War, destroying the city, slaughtering its inhabitants, and sowing the furrows with salt. For some period—five years, maybe 10—Iran will not have a nuclear option. Its key facilities are smashed and its key scientists dead or living in fear of their lives. Similar complaints were made about the Israeli strike on the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981. The Israelis expected to delay the Iraqi program by no more than a year or two—but instead, the program was deferred indefinitely. As things go, crushing the facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, following a sustained Israeli campaign against similar targets, was a major achievement, and a problem deferred for five years may be deferred forever. As for Iran, in 1988 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini agreed to 'drink from the poisoned chalice' and accept a cease-fire with Iraq. He did so because the Iraq war was going badly, but also because he believed that the United States was willing to fight Iran: Operation Praying Mantis in 1988, following a mine explosion that damaged an American warship, involved the U.S. Navy sinking Iranian warships and destroying Iran's military installations. In 2003, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran reportedly paused its nuclear program. When American forces in Iraq finally picked up five elite Quds Force members in 2007, the Iranians pulled back from their activities in Iraq as well. The killing of Qassem Soleimani in 2020 elicited only one feeble spasm of violence. The bottom line is that Iran's leaders do not relish the idea of tackling the United States directly, and that is because they are not fools. The president is an easy man to hate. He has done many bad things: undermining the rule of law, sabotaging American universities, inflicting wanton cruelty on illegal immigrants, lying, and engaging in corruption. With his fractured syntax and diction (including the peculiar signature 'Thank you for your attention to this matter' at the end of his more bombastic posts on Truth Social) he is easy to dismiss as a huckster. The sycophancy and boastfulness of his subordinates, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth when briefing the attack, are distasteful. But contempt and animosity, justified in some cases, are bad ways of getting into his mind and assessing his actions. Trump has surprised both friends and critics here. The isolationist wing of the MAGA movement was smacked down, although its members probably include the vice president and top media figures such as Tucker Carlson. Trump has confounded the posters of TACO ('Trump always chickens out') memes. He has disproved the notion that he takes his marching orders directly from the Kremlin, for the strikes were not in Russia's interest. He has left prominent progressives, including a dwindling band of Israel supporters, confused, bleating about war-powers resolutions that were deemed unnecessary when the Obama administration began bombing Libya. We live in a dangerous world, and one that is going to get more so—and indeed, in other respects worsened by the president's policies. But Trump got this one right, doing what his predecessors lacked the intestinal fortitude (or, to be fair, the promising opportunity) to do. He spoke with the brutal clarity needed in dealing with a cruel and dangerous regime. The world is a better place for this action and I, for one, applaud him for it.

Boston Globe

30 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

Trump ignites debate on presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans

The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,' said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Advertisement Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional, and demanded more information in a classified setting. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that he received only a 'perfunctory notification' without any details, according to a spokesperson. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity.' Advertisement House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' The quick GOP endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill, which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.' Advertisement Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, also posted on X that 'This is not Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' said Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. Kaine said the bombings were 'horrible judgment.' 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Casar said. 'Enough.'

Buzz Feed

35 minutes ago

• Buzz Feed

US Bombs Iran And MAGA Weighs In

Last night, President Donald Trump announced that the US military had bombed three nuclear sites in Iran in a planned attack. Trump also took to Truth Social to congratulate the US military on the strike and announced that "now is the time for peace." Well, MAGA supporters are not holding back their frustrations and voting regrets about Trump's decision to involve the US in another war in the Middle East. Here's what they're saying over on the r/LeopardsAteMyFace subreddit. Republican lawmaker Marjorie Taylor Greene posted on X, stating, "This is not our fight." "I trusted you. I'm done with MAGA and all your bullshit." "I fully regret voting for this shit." "You betrayed us, your MAGA base. I voted for you THREE TIMES." "Trump needs to be impeached." "Donald Trump has completely failed us." "NO MORE WARS!!!" "I regret my vote and I couldn't apologize more for voting for this." "More than disappointed with this action." "He's betrayed the vast majority of his voter base." Latino for Trump voter: "You promised us NO War, and you just started one!!!" "If the United States enters war with Iran, as appears to be the case, I will regret my vote." "Very disappointed in President Trump." "I wish I never voted for @realDonaldTrump." And finally, "I trusted Trump to put America first... We have been betrayed." What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below.