Overview of Why Susan Collins Has Lasted So Long
This New Yorker episode of The Political Scene features staff writer Emma Green discussing her reporting on Susan Collins, Maine’s longtime Republican senator, and why she has remained politically durable for nearly 30 years. The conversation focuses on Collins’s unusual brand of politics: deeply local, strongly tied to federal spending and earmarks, often moderate in tone, and carefully calibrated to Maine’s independent-minded electorate. It also examines her current reelection fight, the role of her Senate power, and the tension between delivering tangible benefits for Maine and taking positions that anger voters nationally.
Main Themes
Susan Collins’s political survival strategy
- Collins has survived in an increasingly blue state by presenting herself as “Maine-first” rather than ideology-first.
- Her brand is built on:
- Bringing home federal money
- Staying focused on local industries and projects
- Avoiding the most explosive culture-war rhetoric
- She uses her seniority and visibility to show voters direct, concrete benefits she has delivered to the state.
Why Maine keeps electing her
- Maine’s electorate is described as unusually independent, mixed, and unpredictable.
- Many voters do not fit neatly into partisan categories:
- Some Republicans support abortion rights
- Some Democrats hold conservative views on guns or other issues
- Collins benefits from a culture that values independence and skepticism toward outsiders or party orthodoxy.
The current Senate race
- Democrats initially saw Collins’s seat as one of their best pickup opportunities because Maine leans blue statewide.
- But the Democratic side has been chaotic, and Collins remains formidable.
- Her opponent, Troy Jackson, is portrayed as a clearly progressive, nationally oriented candidate whose platform resembles standard left-wing wish lists more than a Maine-specific pitch.
Collins’s Power in Washington
The appropriations advantage
- Collins is chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which gives her outsized influence over federal spending.
- The episode explains two key ways this power matters:
- Congressionally directed spending (“earmarks”) for local projects
- Influence over the broader discretionary budget
- Since earmarks returned in 2021, Collins has helped direct hundreds of projects and over a billion dollars back to Maine.
Why her work is so visible
- Unlike abstract policy wins, Collins’s achievements are often literal and visible:
- boats
- fire stations
- bridges
- airports
- breakwaters
- Her victory tour around Maine is built around ribbon cuttings and public celebrations, which makes her accomplishments easy to see and campaign on.
Relationship with Trump and national politics
A complicated, often adversarial relationship
- Collins is not presented as a Trump ally in any simple sense.
- She has supported him at times but has also repeatedly voted against him or challenged his nominees.
- Her independence is part of the reason she remains credible to Maine voters who dislike Trump.
Specific points of conflict
- She opposed or questioned several Trump-aligned figures on the merits, including:
- Kash Patel
- Pete Hegseth
- She has also pushed back on Trump-era policies when they affect Maine’s economy, such as tariffs that hit industries like blueberries or cement.
The ProPublica corruption allegations
What the report alleges
- The episode discusses a ProPublica report alleging a pay-to-play scheme involving Collins and a defense contractor, Navaltech.
- The allegation is that political donations were tied to appropriations language that steered contracts toward the company.
Why the story is politically explosive
- ProPublica says a convicted fraudster involved in the scheme later gave the FBI new information.
- The report also claims that a potential follow-up investigation was derailed when Trump-era personnel changes hollowed out the relevant FBI unit.
- Collins’s camp and the FBI deny that any such renewed investigation existed.
Political impact
- Jackson is using the reporting to argue that Collins is corrupt and tied to Trump.
- The episode notes that the story is important but not fully conclusive, and its effect on voters remains uncertain.
Big questions raised by the episode
Is Collins’s politics outdated or still effective?
- The conversation treats Collins as a symbol of an older Senate style:
- bargaining
- incrementalism
- compromise
- deal-making
- That style now looks rare in an era of polarization and ideological sorting.
Should voters choose local benefits or national ideology?
- A central tension in the episode is whether voters should reward a senator who brings home money and protects local industries, even if they dislike her on national issues.
- The discussion frames this as a choice between:
- instrumental politics: voting for tangible gains
- expressive politics: voting for the candidate who represents your values and national vision
The abortion issue
- Collins’s vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh remains a major grievance for many voters, especially after Roe v. Wade was overturned.
- Even though Maine protects abortion rights more strongly than many states, voters still hold Collins morally responsible for the national consequences.
Key Takeaways
- Susan Collins survives by being deeply local.
- Her power in appropriations is the core of her political brand.
- Maine voters often appreciate the money she brings home, even when they dislike her national positions.
- The race is also a referendum on whether moderation and incrementalism still have political value.
- If Collins loses, it may mark the fading of a Senate style centered on bargaining and bipartisan deal-making.
Notable Insight
Collins’s durability comes from a political bargain: she may frustrate voters on the big national fights, but she is able to point to concrete, local results that people can see and feel.
In the episode’s telling, that bargain may be exactly what is being tested in this election.