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, while also voting against Kash Patel's nomination to lead the FBI. 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.
Collins' allies, meanwhile, offer a different read, noting that she enjoyed a net positive of 2 points in September of last year, and that has moved to a net positive of 4 points last month, according to an independent survey from Pan Atlantic Research.
As a practical matter, about 34,000 Mainers stand to lose health coverage as the bill was drafted. 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.
Write to Philip Elliott at philip.elliott@time.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Did money or politics cause Colbert cancellation? Either way, the economics are tough for TV
CBS says its decision to end Stephen Colbert's late-night comedy show is financial, not political. Yet even with the ample skepticism about that explanation, there's no denying the economics were not working in Colbert's favor. The network's bombshell announcement late Thursday that the 'Late Show' will end next May takes away President Donald Trump's most prominent TV critic and the most popular entertainment program in its genre. The television industry's declining economic health means similar hard calls are already being made with personalities and programming, with others to be faced in the future. For the late-night genre, there are unique factors to consider. As recently as 2018, broadcast networks took in an estimated $439 million in advertising revenue for its late-night programs, according to the advertising firm Guidelines. Last year, that number dwindled to $220 million. Once a draw for young men, now they've turned away Late-night TV was a particular draw for young men, considered the hardest-to-get and most valuable demographic for advertisers. Increasingly, these viewers are turning to streaming services, either to watch something else entirely or catch highlights of the late-night shows, which are more difficult for the networks to monetize. More broadly, the much-predicted takeover of viewers by streaming services is coming to pass. The Nielsen company reported that during the last two months, for the first time ever, more people consumed programming on services like YouTube and Netflix than on ABC, CBS and NBC or any cable network. Networks and streamers spent roughly $70 billion on entertainment shows and $30 billion for sports rights last year, said Brian Wieser, CEO of Madison & Wall, an advertising consultant and data services firm. Live sports is the most dependable magnet for viewers and costs for its rights are expected to increase 8% a year over the next decade. With television viewership declining in general, it's clear where savings will have to come from. Wieser said he does not know whether Colbert's show is profitable or not for CBS and parent company Paramount Global, but he knows the direction in which it is headed. 'The economics of television are weak,' he said. In a statement announcing the cancellation, George Cheeks, Paramount Global's president and chief executive officer, said that 'This is purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night. It is not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.' Cheeks' problem is that not everyone believes him. Colbert is a relentless critic of Trump, and earlier this week pointedly criticized Paramount's decision to settle Trump's lawsuit against CBS over a '60 Minutes' interview with Kamala Harris. He called Paramount's $16 million payment to Trump a 'big fat bribe,' since the company is seeking the administration's approval of its merger with Skydance Media. On Friday, the Writers Guild of America called for an investigation by New York's attorney general into whether Colbert's cancellation is itself a bribe, 'sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump administration as the company looks for merger approval.' CBS' decision made this a pivotal week for the future of television and radio programming. Congress stripped federal funding for PBS and NPR, threatening the future of shows on those outlets. Journey Gunderson, executive director of the National Comedy Center, called the decision to end Colbert's show the end of an era. 'Late-night television has historically been one of comedy's most audience-accessible platforms — a place where commentary meets community, night after night,' Gunderson said. 'This isn't just the end of a show. It's the quiet removal of one of the few remaining platforms for daily comedic commentary. Trump celebrates Colbert's demise Trump, who has called in the past for CBS to terminate Colbert's contract, celebrated the show's upcoming demise. 'I absolutely love that Colbert got fired,' the president wrote on Truth Social. 'His talent was even less than his ratings.' Some experts questioned whether CBS could have explored other ways to save money on Colbert. NBC, for example, has cut costs by eliminating the band on Seth Meyers' late-night show and curtailing Jimmy Fallon's 'Tonight' show to four nights a week. Could CBS have saved more money by cutting off the show immediately, instead of letting it run until next May, which sets up an awkward 'lame duck' period? Then again, Colbert will keep working until his contract runs out; CBS would have had to keep paying him anyway. CBS recently cancelled the 'After Midnight' show that ran after Colbert. But the network had signaled earlier this year that it was prepared to continue that show until host Taylor Tomlinson decided that she wanted to leave, noted Bill Carter, author of 'The Late Shift.' 'It is a very sad day for CBS that they are getting out of the late-night race,' Andy Cohen, host of Bravo's 'Watch What Happens Live," told The Associated Press. 'I mean, they are turning off the lights after the news.' Colbert, if he wanted to continue past next May, would likely be able to find a streaming service willing to pay him, Wieser said. But the future of late-night comedy on the entertainment networks is genuinely at risk. Trump, in fact, may outlast his fiercest comic critics. Jon Stewart, once a weeknight fixture, works one night a week at 'The Daily Show' for Paramount's Comedy Central, a network that seldom produces much original programming any more. ABC's Jimmy Kimmel, who was chided on social media by Trump on Friday — 'I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next' — has a contract that also runs out next year. Kimmel, 57, openly wondered in a Variety interview before signing his latest three-year contract extension how long he wanted to do it. He's hosted his show since 2003. 'I have moments where I go, I cannot do this anymore,' Kimmel told Variety in 2022. 'And I have moments where I go, what am I gonna do with my life if I'm not doing this anymore?' It's a very complicated thing ... I'm not going to do this forever.' Colbert, Kimmel and Stewart were all nominated for Emmy awards this week. ___ AP journalist Liam McEwan in Los Angeles contributed to this report. David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at and David Bauder, The Associated Press
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House Wants Bias-Free AI for Government Work
The White House is cooking up an order to make sure AI tools that work with the government stay politically neutral. Officials worry models trained on internet data can drift into liberal or conservative slants, so this would set a clear standard. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 3 Warning Sign with UAL. At the center of the plan is AI czar David Sacks, who has pointed to embarrassing moments like Google's Gemini painting a black George Washington or diverse Nazis. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) and Elon Musk's xAI fear it could pick industry winners and spark free speech fights. This order lands just as the Pentagon is handing out nearly two hundred million dollars in AI contracts. Tying neutrality to federal deals could shift who wins big and shape how the industry builds its next generation of tools. It also comes bundled with moves to boost chip exports and speed data center approvals. As Washington juggles bias concerns and tech rivalry with China, investors will be watching every step. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Justice Department asks court to unseal Jeffrey Epstein grand jury records
The Justice Department has asked a federal court to unseal grand jury transcripts in Jeffrey Epstein's case amid a firestorm over the Trump administration's handling of records related to the wealthy financier. Deputy attorney general Todd Blanche filed a motion urging the court to release the transcripts a day after President Donald Trump directed the Justice Department to do so. The Trump administration has been embroiled in controversy since the Justice Department last week announced that it would not be releasing any more evidence in its possession from Epstein's investigation. Mr Trump's demand to release the grand jury transcripts came after The Wall Street Journal reported on a sexually suggestive letter that the newspaper says bore Mr Trump's name and was included in a 2003 album for Epstein's 50th birthday. Mr Trump denied writing the letter, calling it 'false, malicious, and defamatory'.