Mills Is In ME Senate Race. That's Good.

Yes, even though she’s 77.

It looks like Maine Governor Janet Mills is in fact planning to run for Senate. Progressives are not thrilled; Mills is 77 years old, and she’s the choice of Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer who pretty much everyone (rightly) loathes at this point. The left is instead enthusiastic about Graham Platner, a veteran and an oyster farmer who has picked up an endorsement from Vermont Senator, and de facto leader of the electoral left, Bernie Sanders.

If I were in Maine and the primary were held today, I’d probably vote for Platner myself. But I don’t think it’s a bad thing that Mills is in the race. Since that’s not the general vibe among progressives, I thought I’d explain why I’m dissenting.

—

Everything Is Horrible is only possible because of reader support. If you find my writing valuable, please consider becoming a contributor. It’s $5/month, $50/year.

On the issues both candidates are pretty strong

In arguing for the merits of Mills vs. Platner, it’s worth pointing out that Mills has a pretty solid progressive record in Maine. I’m not an expert on Maine politics, but looking at her Wikipedia entry, she’s a strong proponent of abortion rights and has been a particular advocate for climate mitigation, vowing to make the state carbon neutral by 2045. She entered office promising to expand Maine’s Medicaid program—a move blocked by previous Republican governor Paul LePage—and she also dropped work requirements for the program.

Mills has also been very willing to aggressively oppose Republicans. As Attorney General, she wouldn’t forward state lawsuits that she thought had no merit, enraging governor LePage. She also refused to back down when Trump threatened to cut federal funding unless she blocked trans athletes from participating in sports. She won in court—an inspiring victory on principle for a purple state governor, and one which serves as a rebuke to wobbly bigot-curious sell-outs like, say, Gavin Newsom, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris

Platner has also made strong statements of support for LGBT rights, and he’s focused his campaign on housing affordability. It’s notable that Platner’s been leery of adopting a progressive label, and has highlighted areas where he says he differs from the Democratic establishment, notably on gun control (though it’s not clear that his stance here would be all that substantively different from Mills.)

I’m not saying that there’s no difference here; there’s a reason Sanders endorsed Platner. He’s called for Medicare for All—which Mills has not—and he wants to end military aid to Israel, a clear contrast with Mills. (This last is why I’d probably be voting for him.) At the same time, I don’t think that Mills really comes across as a centrist on most issues, and she’s certainly willing to fight in a way that seems to distinguish her from, say, Angus King or Gavin Newsom. Trans athletes are an issue where a lot of Democrats are getting wobbly knees; in contrast, Mills was willing to go to defy Trump and win in a national conflict specifically to defend trans people. Trans rights is an issue I care a lot about, and she’s earned a lot of goodwill on that front, as far as I’m concerned.

Age can be a drawback—but so can inexperience

The main objection to Mills has less to do with her policies than with her age. As I said, she’s 77; at the end of her first term, she’d be 84. Health problems at that age are a real concern, and if she steps down as governor, we don’t necessarily know who would be choosing her replacement in a state that’s still pretty purple.

More, Mills very likely would not be running for a second term, which means Democrats would not have an incumbency advantage in 2032. That seems a long way away right now, and winning the election in front of you is always the most important thing. But why kneecap yourself going forward if you don’t have to?

It’s true that electing an elderly candidate can have real downsides. There are also problems with electing someone without a substantial record in office, though. Platner has done some grassroots activism and has served on planning boards, but he has never run for local or state office, much less national. That means he’s never faced real opposition research and has never handled the stress of a major campaign.

These are not just petty details. Platner looks good on paper, and he may actually be good. But if there are some land mines in his background—if he’s said or done things that might harm him in a political campaign—we really wouldn’t know. Nor is Bernie Sanders’ endorsement a surefire guarantor: Sanders is wonderful in many ways, but he often rushes to endorse anti-establishment branding without doing a lot of due diligence. That’s how he ended up initially embracing Tulsi Gabbard as an ally—only to belatedly discover that she’s a fascist MAGA goon.

Maybe we should have a primary!

Luckily there’s a good way simultaneously to vet inexperienced politicians and to gauge how enthusiastic the electorate is about long familiar faces. It’s called a primary!

Primaries aren’t perfect measures of how candidates will do in a general election; running to impress Democratic voters is different than running for a purple state electorate. But a primary does give voters, and the media, a chance to see how candidates perform under pressure and when questioned. It also gives other candidates and journalists time, and incentive, to uncover the kind of time bombs you’d rather get out there before you’re facing some MAGA dipshit at the ballot box.

Again, this isn’t an endorsement of Mills. Platner is an intriguing candidate. But beating Susan Collins is not going to be easy, and winning the Senate is vital given our current fascist nightmare. We want to make sure he’s the guy. In a high-profile Senate race with a largely untested candidate, a contested primary is not a bad idea.