Janet Mills’ Senate bid in Maine is effectively over — not that it really got off the ground in the first place. She was supposed to be the top-tier recruit, the popular governor-turned-candidate Chuck Schumer believed could finally take down Susan Collins in a state that otherwise leans blue. Instead, she spent the entire race trailing Graham Plattner who, on paper, should’ve been far easier to beat. It didn’t matter what opposition research came out about him or how aggressively it was pushed. None of it stuck, and Mills never found a way to change the trajectory.

What stands out is how little impact the traditional playbook had. There was plenty of money, plenty of ads, and a clear attempt to define Plattner early. But the race didn’t move. If anything, it exposed a growing gap between campaign strategy and voter behavior. Mills relied heavily on air support, while Plattner was everywhere in person, constantly holding events and staying visible. That contrast ended up mattering more than anything that showed up in a negative ad.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

There’s also a broader lesson here about what kind of campaigning is working right now. The candidates who seem to break through are the ones who are constantly engaging, constantly talking, and constantly generating new moments. It’s less about message discipline and more about presence. Plattner fits that mold, and Mills never really did. She couldn’t match that energy, and in a race like this, that gap becomes impossible to ignore.

Now the dynamic shifts to the general election, where Susan Collins gets a matchup she likely prefers. She can run as the steady, familiar option against a more unpredictable opponent, which has been her formula for years. But there’s some risk in that calculation. Wanting a specific opponent doesn’t always work out the way you expect, and recent political history has a few high profile reminders of that.

Still, the immediate takeaway is simple. A highly recruited, well funded candidate lost to someone who just outworked and out-connected her. For all the sophistication in modern campaigns, this ended up being a very basic result. One candidate showed up everywhere, and the other never quite got going.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:04:01 - Janet Mills

00:08:17 - Michael Cohen on Maine, Texas, and More

00:58:58 - Iran Options

01:04:58 - DHS Shutdown

01:06:31 - Casey Means

01:08:54 - Sarah Isgur on Supreme Court Drama

01:40:05 - Wrap-up

Florida’s new congressional map is out, and the more I look at it, the more it feels like Republicans are trying to push right up against the edge of what is politically and legally possible. The goal is obvious: take a delegation that used to split closer to 20 to 8 and force it into a 24 to 4 map. The way they get there is not subtle. It is classic packing and cracking, cramming Democrats into a handful of ultra blue districts while shaving just enough of that vote into surrounding areas to flip them red. On paper, it works. In practice, it might be a little too clever for its own good.

The Orlando and Tampa changes are where the knife really goes in. Seats that were at least competitive or lightly Democratic get completely reengineered into solid Republican territory, often by double digit swings. That is not a tweak, that is a transformation. But the tradeoff is that you are stretching your margins thinner everywhere else. You are counting on your voters to show up consistently in districts that are no longer blowouts, and that is where the risk creeps in. If turnout slips even a little, some of these engineered wins start to look a lot shakier.

South Florida is the most interesting piece, because it is where the assumptions behind the map really get tested. The strategy is to break up a dense cluster of Democratic voters and isolate them into just a few seats, while turning longtime strongholds into competitive races. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s district is the clearest example, going from safely blue to something that could genuinely flip. But that only works if the political coalitions in South Florida behave the way Republicans think they will.

And that is a big if. The theory is that Latino voters in South Florida, especially Cuban, Venezuelan, and Colombian communities, will continue trending Republican, especially given recent foreign policy developments that resonate directly with those groups. If that holds, then this map could deliver exactly what it is designed to do. But if there is even a modest snapback, or if Democratic enthusiasm spikes the way it sometimes does in midterms without Trump on the ballot, then those same districts could turn into real problems.

Because the energy question cuts both ways. Republicans may like how the map looks, but Democrats in Florida are fired up in a way that is hard to ignore. These are high turnout voters, especially older ones, and they do not need much motivation to show up. When you combine that with districts that have been made more competitive by design, you end up with a map that is not just aggressive, but potentially volatile.

On top of all of that is the legal question, which is not trivial. Florida technically has rules against partisan gerrymandering, and while the state can argue that this is just a neutral redraw, that argument is going to get tested. If the courts decide this crosses the line, then the entire map could get thrown into uncertainty at the worst possible time for Republicans.

So I keep coming back to the same thought. This is a high risk, high reward play. If everything breaks right, Republicans net multiple seats and strengthen their position heading into the midterms. But if even a few assumptions go wrong, turnout, demographics, or the courts, then what looks like a masterstroke could end up being a self inflicted problem.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:02:16 - Florida’s Redistricted Map

00:21:43 - Update

00:22:51 - House Republicans

00:26:05 - Texas Senate Race

00:29:31 - Iran

00:35:17 - Kirk Bado on His Correspondents’ Dinner Experience

01:23:16 - Final Thoughts and Wrap-up

An assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner turned what is usually a choreographed, slightly self-congratulatory night into something much more serious, very quickly. I had been at the Washington Hilton earlier, and what stood out in retrospect was how ordinary the setup felt. Security was clearly tight around the ballroom itself, but the rest of the hotel operated like a normal venue, with people moving in and out of the lobby without much friction. That gap matters, because it helps explain how someone armed could even get close enough to force a response from Secret Service. He never reached the inner event, but the fact that he got as far as he did cuts through the illusion that these environments are fully locked down.

It’s tough to dismiss this as a one-off. The rhetoric outside the event was already intense, with protesters framing politics in absolute, existential terms. When that becomes the baseline, it is not surprising that someone eventually acts on it. This is not the first attempt tied to Trump, and unfortunately, it wouldn’t surprise me if it weren’t the last. Even if the immediate danger was contained, the pattern itself is the more unsettling part, because it suggests a level of volatility that is not going away anytime soon.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

I left before everything happened and walked over to the Substack party, which ended up being chaotic in a completely different way. Because of the lockdown around the Hilton, a lot of people never made it over, so the party had this strange half full energy. Plenty of space, plenty of chatter, but also the sense that something had already gone off script for the night. That mood did not last long, because it quickly turned into its own kind of spectacle when Michael Tracy confronted Julie K. Brown over claims about Epstein related reporting.

What followed felt less like a serious dispute and more like a live action version of internet drama. Voices went up, Jim Acosta jumped in loudly, and suddenly a party conversation turned into a full scene with security stepping in. Tracy was eventually asked to leave, and that was that. Compared to what had just happened across town, it was trivial, but it also captured something real about the media world, where personal grudges and public arguments can spill over at any moment. Taken together, the night swung between genuinely dangerous and strangely ridiculous, which feels like a pretty accurate snapshot of the current political environment.

Chapters00:00 - Intro

01:23 - Trump Assassination Attempt

06:29 - Substack Party