What Maine’s U.S. Senate Primary Tells Us About the Democratic Party 

Electorally, Democrats have had a stellar 2025. According to The Downballot, “in more than 60 special elections nationwide, Democrats are outperforming the 2024 presidential results by an average of more than 13 points.” That tailwind has helped Democrats win marquee races like the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial contests (the latter succeeding a Republican incumbent), as well as flip 25 state legislative seats—and shed none—in states such as Pennsylvania, Iowa, Georgia, and Mississippi. 

The blue trend bodes extremely well for Democrats heading into the 2026 midterm elections. Data-cruncher G. Elliot Morris extrapolated, “A swing of 13 points would put Dems over 250 seats in the U.S. House. A more reasonable scenario—say, D+6—still gives them the House, and maybe the Senate.” 

Under these conditions, Democratic control of the House is practically a lock. Since World War II, the average net loss of House seats in midterm elections for the president’s party has been 25. The 21st-century average loss is slightly higher at 31. In 2022, when Joe Biden’s Democrats had a relatively good midterm election, they lost nine seats. In 2026, Democrats only need to flip three seats to claim a majority.  

The Senate, however, is a different story. Democrats need to net four seats, and the average loss for the president’s party—going back either 20 or 80 years—is about 3.5. But the 2026 Senate map is treacherous terrain, with only one Republican-held seat in a state Kamala Harris won in 2024. That puts a premium on candidate quality. 

The immediate problem for Democrats is that there’s no consensus on what makes a good candidate in our polarized, social media-driven era. Some see promise in the moderates with national security backgrounds who handily won their 2025 gubernatorial races—New Jersey’s Mikie Sherrill and Virginia’s Abigail Spanberger. Others see the future in New York City’s Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist with no executive experience who deployed a sunny persona, sticky social media content, a sharp focus on the cost of living to deflect attacks on past controversial statements, and galvanized younger voters.  

As a result, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the party’s official Senate campaign arm, is finding it more challenging to consolidate support around its preferred candidates and avoid contentious primaries, because not everybody agrees with DSCC and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on what makes a strong candidate. Last month, The New York Times reported that a rump group of progressive Senators dubbed “Fight Club” is issuing endorsements in the Maine, Michigan, and Minnesota primaries in an unusual open defiance of Schumer’s recruitment efforts.  

This week, Politico picked up on frustration among more moderate Democrats that the DSCC was too weak to prevent “messy” primaries and cut off oxygen to risky prospects. Specifically, when the pugnacious and controversial U.S. Representative Jasmine Crockett entered the Texas Senate primary, the Democratic establishment’s disapproval was audible. Not only did the DSCC stay out of Crockett’s way, but according to NOTUS, its Republican counterpart, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, distributed polling data showing Crockett could win a primary and sent pro-Crockett “Astroturf” phone messages to Texas progressives to draw her into the race in the belief that she’d be easy to defeat. 

However, we have examples of candidates who would seem doomed because of baggage and yet prevailed. U.S. Senator Ron Johnson keeps eking out close wins in the purple state of Wisconsin despite his history of pushing far-right conspiracy theories. In 2020, Raphael Warnock pulled off an upset in his U.S. Senate bid in previously red Georgia despite Republicans digging up a sermon in which he said, “America, nobody can serve God and the military.”  

And there’s a guy in the Oval Office known for intemperate remarks and defining deviancy down. In the Trump era, do we even know what offends or entices voters? 

One big test case in 2026 is the U.S. Senate Democratic primary in Maine, pitting the 78-year-old incumbent Governor Janet Mills against a 41-year-old military veteran and oyster farmer with scant government experience, Graham Platner.  

Platner, of course, jumped into the race first in coordination with progressive activists, helping him garner support from the Fight Club renegades. But upon Mills’s entrance, Platner was forced to explain offensive social media posts (which he disavowed) and a tattoo that resembled a Nazi symbol (for which he pleaded ignorance and covered it up). Many assumed his campaign was kaput as he hemorrhaged top staffers. But the first two polls taken after the revelations showed him ahead of Mills among primary voters. And he’s also polling slightly ahead, albeit within the margin of error, against the Republican incumbent Susan Collins. Maybe voters don’t care! 

Or … maybe they do. A third primary poll was released this week with Mills leading Platner by 10 points. If we average the three post-scandal polls, Platner is ahead by 9 points. If we look at the three in chronological order, we see a 44-point swing toward Mills. 

But here’s what we do know: Under the hood of the most recent poll is a massive age gap. Voters 55 and over break for Mills by a whopping 48-point margin, while Platner wins the under-35 set by 39 points, and the remaining middle-aged voters by 20. 

While the top candidates in the New York City Mayor’s race were quite different from those in Maine, the hesitation of some Democratic establishment figures to endorse Mamdani, their party’s nominee, led some to treat Andrew Cuomo, the former New York governor, and Democratic primary runner-up competing in the general on a third-party ballot line, as the establishment choice. Election Day exit polls revealed a significant age gap: The more experienced, yet more scandal-tainted, Cuomo won voters 45 and older by 11 points, while Mamdani ran away with the rest by 45 points.  

Platner’s apparently durable appeal with younger voters may be typified by the tattoo artist whom he hired to cover up his Nazi ink, Mischa Ostberg. She spoke with NBC News, which reported that the controversy “solidified why Ostberg supported Platner’s campaign, saying his past mistake reflects that ‘he’s a regular person like all of us’ and hasn’t been perfectly vetted by Democratic leaders.” A voter already skeptical of the political establishment can be drawn to candidates with imperfect pasts precisely because it proves they are not part of that establishment. The broader the skepticism in the electorate, the more potential a checkered anti-establishment candidate has. 

The chronically offensive Trump, in primaries and general elections, did just fine with older voters, who lean conservative and see the establishment as skewed to the left. But in Democratic primaries, older Democrats seem less antagonistic towards their party’s leadership and tougher for unfiltered candidates to impress. If true, that could be a big problem for Platner, as Maine has the highest median age among the 50 states.  

Texas, however, has the second-lowest—a potential benefit for the 44-year-old Crockett in her second congressional term, though her primary opponent, State Representative James Talarico, is 36, even younger, and is not perceived as the establishment-favored candidate (at least not yet). Since Crockett just entered the contest, we don’t yet know how age cohorts will line up.  

But the Maine contest tells us that the Democratic Party’s generational divide—while not detached from policy and ideology—may be more about biography, attitude, and communication style. Traditional signifiers of candidate quality, like government experience and rhetorical restraint, may be becoming less important to voters. 

The post What Maine’s U.S. Senate Primary Tells Us About the Democratic Party  appeared first on Washington Monthly.