logo
Susan Collins' Re-Election Prospects Dim

Susan Collins' Re-Election Prospects Dim

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME's politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox.
When someone crosses Donald Trump, the retribution tends to come fast and fierce. But when Sen. Susan Collins of Maine voted last week against his One Big Beautiful Bill, a tax- and safety net-cuts behemoth, the President was atypically silent. That may be the biggest indicator of just how much danger Collins is in as she faces re-election in Maine in 2026.
Collins' opposition was not enough to kill the giant domestic bill that may be the lone legislative lift of the 119th Congress. She was the 50th nay, which forced Vice President J.D. Vance's to provide a tie breaking 51st vote. Collins is seldom the deciding factor; she did not sink Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court and voted for all but one of Trump's second-term Cabinet picks. Her protest votes are as strategic as they are symbolic; FiveThirtyEight found she voted with Trump 67% of the time during his first term. Plus, on an early test vote on this bill, she let it proceed as she continued, unsuccessfully, to negotiate for carve-outs for rural hospitals.
Collins is the lone Senator up for re-election next year in a state that Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris carried in 2024. Democrats have yet to settle on a favored candidate to become the nominee although all eyes are on Maine Gov. Janet Mills, the tough-minded former prosecutor who stared down Trump at the White House and refused to comply with his administration's anti-transgender athlete orders. State Democrats have other options at the ready if the 77-year-old Mills passes and are primed either way to make Collins own the Trump record, especially her votes for his Supreme Court nominees in his first term. While she was re-elected after those votes, the Justices have since overturned a half-century of precedent on abortion rights in Roe.
Republicans in Washington, meanwhile, have seemingly endless patience with Collins and understand her savvy. Her tangles with Trump have been largely performative, not predictive. She is no John McCain, who with a single thumbs-down signal thwarted Trump's first-term effort to repeal Obamacare. Cynics say that Collins shows independence only when it doesn't really make a difference; no one on her side of the aisle really unloaded on her after the vote against the latest package. Most had her back, saying they understood her choice.
Collins, a powerful player and chair of the all-important Appropriations panel, is not terribly difficult to understand, politically speaking. She has never won re-election by less than 8 points despite her home state's fickle politics. The last time the state's majority vote went for a Republican presidential candidate was in 1988, also the last year a Democrat won a Senate race in the state.
But her net approval rating sank 12 percentage points—more than any other Senator's numbers—between the first and second quarters of this year, according to Morning Consult. Her disapproval number stood at 51%, up from a 44% average in the January-March window.
And she is definitely viewed less warmly than when she was at a comparable point ahead of her 2020 bid. In 2019, 52% of Mainers had a favorable impression of Collins, according to Morning Consult polling. Today, the number is 42%.
This suggests she's going to have a trickier time than when she was at the comparable point ahead of her last campaign. In 2019, ahead of her 2020 bid, her net positive numbers were 13 points. Today she's at a net negative of 9 points, according to the same pollsters. That means roughly 1-in-5 Maine voters have changed their minds about Collins in a state where her last victory was secured by less than 9 points.
As a practical matter, about 34,000 Mainers stand to lose health coverage as the bill was drafted. Her effort to secure $50 billion in earmarks for rural hospitals expected to be hit particularly hard by the legislation failed. Two solar projects in the state were put on hold even before the bill passed. Hospitals were already bracing for shifting services. Collins' no vote, in a rational world, made sense for her constituents.
But that may not help her. Among voters in Maine, a majority—including a majority of Republicans—says she does not deserve to be re-elected, according to polling from neighboring University of New Hampshire. A striking 71% of all Maine voters say this should be her last term, and 57% of Republicans agree, according to a survey taken in April. That's a simply brutal number.
Flipping ahead a few pages in the same UNH binder, things get even worse. Their survey finds Collins with a favorability number of just 12%, landing a 58% unfavorable number. Among Republicans, the gap is a 19% positive to a 43% negative.
The University of New Hampshire Survey Center found the bill was deeply unpopular, according to a June poll. A 58% majority did not want to see the bill pass, including 72% of independent voters.
Still, Democrats are realistic about what they face. While Collins has just $3 million in her account, she raised almost $31 million for her 2020 bid and won her 2014 campaign with less than $6 million in spending to notch 67% of the vote. Senate Republicans' campaign committee is, first and foremost, an incumbent-retention operation and will have her back.
Senate Democrats, meanwhile, are going to be defending tricky seats in Georgia, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Michigan, and Colorado. They would need a net pick-up run of four seats to take a majority, and the path to that would require upsets in Trump-backing states like Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Iowa, and Texas, plus holding every seat that is currently blue.
So Collins is facing some pretty lousy poll numbers and is going to be dogged by her no vote that had no real upside. The vote against Trump is not going to be the salve that cures her dour numbers. She defied Republicans but is not going to get any love from Democrats. She's going to be hounded by a bill she did not support. Plus, the headwinds are historic—and that's before Trump decides whether he will launch his own revenge.
Make sense of what matters in Washington. Sign up for the D.C. Brief newsletter.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Miranda Devine: Russiagate lies are being exposed — and everybody is watching, even the Dems
Miranda Devine: Russiagate lies are being exposed — and everybody is watching, even the Dems

New York Post

timean hour ago

  • New York Post

Miranda Devine: Russiagate lies are being exposed — and everybody is watching, even the Dems

Despite the best efforts of Russiagate-complicit media to dismiss as 'Russian disinformation' the latest revelations in this escalating scandal implicating Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the treasonous 'years-long coup' against President Trump, the public is paying attention and wants heads to roll. According to a Rasmussen poll released Monday, two-thirds of voters (65%) are following declassified releases over the past month by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Sen. Chuck Grassley 'very closely' (32%) or 'somewhat closely' (33%), repudiating the calculated media silence about the Obama administration's fake narratives and manipulation of intelligence to frame Donald Trump as a Kremlin stooge to cover up Hillary Clinton's wrongdoing. The poll of 1,172 likely voters, conducted July 29-31, shows 54% believe Obama administration officials committed serious crimes in 'manipulating intelligence,' with 37% saying it's 'very likely' and 17% saying it's 'somewhat likely.' A staggering 69% agree it is critical that the perpetrators be held accountable 'for the survival of our country.' Dems interested too Even more disturbing for Democrats is that it's not just Republicans who are concerned. The poll shows 56% of Democrats are following the investigation, 32% believe serious crimes were committed and 59% agree the perpetrators must be 'held accountable.' The respective Republican comparison is 75%, 83% and 86%. Hispanics are more cynical about the scandal than either black or white voters, with 66% saying serious crimes were committed and 74% wanting accountability, compared to 51% and 65% respectively for blacks, and 53% and 69% respectively for whites. Men are more concerned than women, with 74% vs. 59% following the revelations closely; 60% vs. 49% believing there is serious criminality; and 72% vs. 66% favoring accountability. It's a demonstration of the impotence of Democrat-allied media, like The New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC and CBS, who showered themselves with praise and Pulitzer Prizes for their since-debunked stories about Russiagate and are hoping their audience is willing to be duped again. But like the boy who cried wolf, no one is listening anymore. According to Gabbard's office, ABC, CBS and NBC spent a total of 2,284 minutes covering Russiagate, yet they have devoted only 2 minutes and 17 seconds on the disclosures of the last couple of weeks. Even when they mention the story, it's to try to debunk it. Obama administration CIA Director John Brennan and DNI James Clapper and Hillary Clinton lawyer Marc Elias have fanned out across their favorite media outlets desperately trying to extinguish public interest. 'I am imploring, like honestly, I'm just imploring the media, do not report this as a legitimate investigation,' Elias told MSNBC. 'Do not report this as 'They are opening an investigation into John Brennan' . . . Report this as the misuse, the abuse, the authoritarian takeover of the Department of Justice. That should be the headline.' Hah! Too bad for Elias, it's no longer 2016. The public — and Donald Trump — are wiser and more determined to put heads on pikes. The renewed scrutiny of the 'Obama administration's conspiracy to subvert Trump's 2016 victory and presidency,' as Gabbard puts it, began early last month, when CIA Director John Ratcliffe released a bombshell review of the Intelligence Community Assessment, ordered by Obama on Dec. 9, 2016, that falsely claimed Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help Trump. The review found Brennan, Clapper and then-FBI Director James Comey were 'excessively involved' in the ICA drafting, rushed its completion before Trump took office and forced the inclusion of the discredited Steele dossier, over the objections of the CIA's Russia experts, suggesting a 'potential political motive.' 'Treasonous conspiracy' That ICA was the genesis of Russiagate, casting doubt over the legitimacy of Trump's 2016 election and sabotaging his first term, with Obama the 'ringleader,' says Trump, and Democrat-allied media was crucial to its success. Every week, Post columnist Miranda Devine sits down for exclusive and candid conversations with the most influential disruptors in Washington. Subscribe here! What followed Ratcliffe's bombshell was a systematic release by Gabbard and Grassley of evidence that exposed the Obama and Biden administrations' weaponization of law enforcement and intelligence agencies against Trump. July 18: Gabbard releases a declassified report that finds that at a meeting in the Oval Office on Dec 9, 2016, Obama directed top national security officials, including Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Andrew McCabe, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch and Avril Haines, to create a new intelligence assessment saying Russians meddled in the election on behalf of Trump, contradicting multiple intelligence assessments to the contrary released previously. Gabbard describes the plot as a 'treasonous conspiracy by officials at the highest levels of the Obama White House to subvert the will of the American people and try to usurp the President from fulfilling his mandate.' July 23: Gabbard holds a press conference at the White House to announce that she has sent criminal referrals to the DOJ and FBI implicating Obama and his national security team in 'seditious conspiracy.' She alleges Brennan suppressed intelligence showing Russia was not favoring Trump. She also releases a declassified House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report that had been withheld even from the committee. It shows that in September 2016, Russia's foreign intelligence service had obtained DNC emails showing Clinton was suffering from 'intensified psycho-emotional' and physical problems. Russian spies also had a Clinton campaign email discussing a plan to tie Trump to Putin to distract Americans from Hillary's email-server scandal. July 30: Brennan and Clapper write an op-ed in The New York Times branding as 'patently false' allegations from Gabbard and Ratcliffe 'that senior officials of the Obama administration manufactured politicized intelligence, silenced intelligence professionals and engaged in a broad 'treasonous conspiracy' to undermine the presidency of Donald Trump.' Gabbard responds by releasing a whistleblower's account detailing the pressure applied to him to agree to a bogus assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump. 'I was pressured to alter my views,' the intelligence analyst-turned whistleblower claimed. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters His boss told him in January 2017: 'There is reporting you are not allowed to see, if you saw it, you would agree . . . Isn't it possible Putin has something on Trump, to blackmail and coerce him? . . . You need to TRUST ME on this.' The whistleblower tried repeatedly to report his concerns about the fraudulent ICA to multiple government officials, including the inspector general for the intelligence community and former special counsel John Durham, but was rebuffed and ignored. 'Consequences' 'There must be consequences,' White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller told Fox News host Maria Bartiromo on Sunday. 'Because, if we have a country where we can continue to have FBI careerists and CIA careerists, deep staters, who will fabricate and doctor evidence . . . to try to go after their political enemies, up to and including the president, if we continue to create the impression and the reality that there is not a criminal, a severe criminal penalty for such conduct, it will never stop,' he said. Yes, this is not about looking in the rearview mirror or pursuing petty vendettas, as Trump critics say. It's about holding the coup-plotters accountable as a deterrent, restoring the integrity of our intelligence and law enforcement institutions and righting a historic wrong committed against the American people.

Largest National Org Of OB-GYNs Cuts Financial Ties With Trump Admin
Largest National Org Of OB-GYNs Cuts Financial Ties With Trump Admin

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Largest National Org Of OB-GYNs Cuts Financial Ties With Trump Admin

The country's largest organization of OB-GYN providers announced this week that it will stop accepting funds from the federal government. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which has more than 60,000 members nationwide, will reject federal funding for all programs and contracts in response to the Trump administration's policies, Axios reported Friday. ACOG appears to be the first nationwide physician organization to cut ties with the Trump administration since President Donald Trump enacted his large-scale campaign to slash all federal initiatives for diversity, equity and inclusion. The national organization states on its website that diversity, equity and inclusion are part of the group's core values, which are integral to combating racism and oppression in medical care. The organization declined to expand on how this funding cut will impact its services but reiterated that ACOG remains committed to quality patient care and improving health outcomes. 'After careful deliberation, ACOG has made an organization-wide decision to stop accepting federal funding for all ACOG programs and activities for current contracts,' ACOG said in a statement to HuffPost on Friday. 'Recent changes in federal funding laws and regulations significantly impact ACOG's program goals, policy positions, and ability to provide timely and evidence-based guidance and recommendations for care.' The organization said it will continue to work with the Trump administration on policymaking decisions and advocating for OB-GYNs. 'We will evaluate opportunities to partner with the government in the future where our program goals align,' the statement reads. In response, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told HuffPost on Friday afternoon: 'Protecting the civil rights and expanding opportunities for all Americans is a key priority of the Trump administration, which is why he took decisive actions to terminate unlawful DEI preferences in the federal government.' The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to HuffPost's request for comment. ACOG has been at odds with Trump since his conservative Supreme Court repealed federal abortion protections. The fall of Roe v. Wade created a domino effect of state abortion bans that put pregnant people's lives in danger and threatened to criminalize reproductive health providers.

Tariffs are making money. That may make them hard to quit.
Tariffs are making money. That may make them hard to quit.

Miami Herald

timean hour ago

  • Miami Herald

Tariffs are making money. That may make them hard to quit.

WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump's extensive tariffs have already started to generate a significant amount of money for the federal government, a new source of revenue for a heavily indebted nation that American policymakers may start to rely on. As part of his quest to reorder the global trading system, Trump has imposed steep tariffs on America's trading partners, with the bulk of those set to go into effect Thursday. Even before the latest tariffs kick in, revenue from taxes collected on imported goods has grown dramatically so far this year. Customs duties, along with some excise taxes, generated $152 billion through July, roughly double the $78 billion netted over the same time period last fiscal year, according to Treasury data. Indeed, Trump has routinely cited the tariff revenue as evidence that his trade approach, which has sown uncertainty and begun to increase prices for consumers, is a win for the United States. Members of his administration have argued that the money from the tariffs would help plug the hole created by the broad tax cuts Congress passed last month, which are expected to cost the government at least $3.4 trillion. 'The good news is that Tariffs are bringing Billions of Dollars into the USA!' Trump said on social media shortly after a weak jobs report showed signs of strain in the labor market. Over time, analysts expect that the tariffs, if left in place, could be worth more than $2 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade. Economists overwhelmingly hope that doesn't happen and the United States abandons the new trade barriers. But some acknowledge that such a substantial stream of revenue could end up being hard to quit. 'I think this is addictive,' said Joao Gomes, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. 'I think a source of revenue is very hard to turn away from when the debt and deficit are what they are.' Trump has long fantasized about replacing taxes on income with tariffs. He often refers fondly to American fiscal policy in the late 19th century, when there was no income tax and the government relied on tariffs, citing that as a model for the future. And while income and payroll taxes remain by far the most important sources of government revenue, the combination of Trump's tariffs and the latest Republican tax cut does, on the margin, move the United States away from taxing earnings and toward taxing goods. Such a shift is expected to be regressive, meaning that rich Americans will fare better than poorer Americans under the change. That's because cutting taxes on income does, in general, provide the biggest benefit to richer Americans who earn the most income. The recent Republican cut to income taxes and the social safety net is perhaps the most regressive piece of major legislation in decades. Placing new taxes on imported products, however, is expected to raise the cost of everyday goods. Lower-income Americans spend more of their earnings on those more expensive goods, meaning the tariffs amount to a larger tax increase for them compared with richer Americans. Tariffs have begun to bleed into consumer prices, with many companies saying they will have to start raising prices as a result of added costs. And analysts expect the tariffs to weigh on the performance of the economy overall, which in turn could reduce the amount of traditional income tax revenue the government collects every year. 'Is there a better way to raise that amount of revenue? The economic answer is: Yes, there is a better way, there are more efficient ways,' said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and a former Biden administration official. 'But it's really a political question.' Tedeschi said that future leaders in Washington, whether Republican or Democrat, may be hesitant to roll back the tariffs if that would mean a further addition to the federal debt load, which is already raising alarms on Wall Street. And replacing the tariff revenue with another type of tax increase would require Congress to act, while the tariffs would be a legacy decision made by a previous president. 'Congress may not be excited about taking such a politically risky vote when they didn't have to vote on tariffs in the first place,' Tedeschi said. Some in Washington are already starting to think about how they could spend the tariff revenue. Trump recently floated the possibility of sending Americans a cash rebate for the tariffs, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., recently introduced legislation to send $600 to many Americans. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said last month of the tariffs. Democrats, once they return to power, may face a similar temptation to use the tariff revenue to fund a new social program, especially if raising taxes in Congress proves as challenging as it has in the past. As it is, Democrats have been divided over tariffs. Maintaining the status quo may be an easier political option than changing trade policy. 'That's a hefty chunk of change,' Tyson Brody, a Democratic strategist, said of the tariffs. 'The way that Democrats are starting to think about it is not that 'these will be impossible to withdraw.' It's: 'Oh, look, there's now going to be a large pot of money to use and reprogram.'' Of course, the tariffs could prove unpopular, and future elected officials may want to take steps that could lower consumer prices. At the same time, the amount of revenue the tariffs generate could decline over time if companies do, in fact, end up bringing back more of their operations to the United States, reducing the number of goods that face the import tax. 'This is clearly not an efficient way to gather revenue,' said Alex Jacquez, a former Biden official and the chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal group. 'And I don't think it would be a long-term progressive priority as a way to simply collect revenue.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store