The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Robert W. Glover is an associate professor of political science and honors at the University of Maine. These are his views and do not express those of the University of Maine System or the University of Maine. He is co-leader of the Maine Chapter of the Scholars Strategy Network, which brings together scholars across the country to address public challenges and their policy implications.
Conventional wisdom says Gov. Janet Mills wasn’t supposed to go out like this.
Mills is, by any estimation, a political titan in Maine. As governor, her list of policy achievements is considerable, delivering incremental but meaningful progress on a range of issues and steering the state through crisis after crisis. Mills is widely viewed as experienced, steady, effective, and tough.
And yet, she exited the U.S. Senate race this week before it ever truly began, pushed out of the Democratic primary by Graham Platner, an outsider whose positions in public office include serving as Planning Board chair and Harbor Master in the tiny Maine town of Sullivan.
That outcome demands an explanation. Ultimately, evidence suggests it has less to do with Mills herself than the political moment with which she collided. Her lackluster poll performance and early exit are more a rejection of what she represents than her record in the Blaine House.
At its core, this race was shaping up as a familiar contest: inside versus outsider. But in American politics today, “outsider” is not a liability, but a credential. At a moment when many Mainers see Washington, D.C. as fundamentally broken (a sentiment Mills would often invoke herself), experience can be seen as complicity, and distance from the system as authenticity.
Platner has tapped into deep frustration among Democratic voters — and beyond — channeling a sense that incrementalism is no longer enough. To them, his lack of experience isn’t a liability; it’s central to his appeal. That poses a challenge for candidates like Mills, whose strength is competent, predictable governance. That challenge now looms for Sen. Susan Collins as well.
Mills represents continuity. And there is increasing evidence that American voters, not just here but across the country, are hungry for generational change. Where longtime service once reassured voters, for many, it now feels like the reluctance of one generation to pass the torch to the next.
While Mills’ age was certainly a factor, there’s an inconsistency that’s hard to ignore: that concerns about age don’t seem to be consistently applied. When Angus King sought reelection to the U.S. Senate in 2024, he was older than Mills is now, and his age barely registered as a liability.
Some of that may reflect broader dynamics. Watching Joe Biden and Donald Trump age rapidly and visibly while holding immense political power, voters may be recalibrating how they think about the intersection of longevity and leadership.
But it may not be the whole story. Gender likely plays a role as well — subtly, and not always consciously. Perceptions of leadership, vitality, and readiness are often filtered through different lenses for men and women. That doesn’t mean that Mills’ failed candidacy can be reduced to gender bias alone, but it does suggest that the scrutiny she faced regarding her age is not applied evenly.
Platner’s success also suggests another shift in American politics that makes races like this less predictable: the declining power of scandal.
In earlier eras, Platner’s baggage — offensive statements or a tattoo linked to the Nazi party — would likely have ended a candidacy. But the past few years have taught us that voters are willing to discount behavior that would have seemed disqualifying.
In Platner’s case, addressing such actions proactively and framing them within a narrative of past trauma and personal growth proved largely effective, sustaining his considerable grassroots momentum.
That reality undercuts one of the traditional tools established candidates use to dismiss insurgent challengers as risky. Many Mainers, at least in this moment, appear enthusiastically willing to accept that risk.
All of this points to a profound shift underway, not just in Maine, but in American politics generally.
The central question is no longer who has governed effectively in the past. It is who voters believe is best equipped to meet the urgency of the present. In Maine’s Democratic U.S. Senate primary this year, a sharp critique of the broken promises of our American system proved more compelling to many voters than a demonstrated record of working within it.
