• About NBC Connecticut
• Our News Standards
• Submit Tips for Investigations
• Newsletters
• Contact Us
• WVIT Accessibility
• Xfinity: Internet, TV, streaming, more

• WVIT Public Inspection File
• WVIT Accessibility
• WVIT Employment Information
• FCC Applications
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices
• Terms of Service
• Advertise with us
• Send Feedback
• CA Notice
• Ad Choices

Copyright © 2026 NBCUniversal Media, LLC. All rights reserved

And while this is the role that many Democratic leaders would be expected to play in this situation, this crop of candidates has an added challenge.

Because this also means there are no meaningful distinctions among the candidates to help guide the eventual 601 delegates who will decide who should run in one of the most closely watched Senate contests in the country.

Indeed, the practical political impact of the tragic situation in Biddeford on the Maine Senate contest is this: What was expected to be an intense two-week primary campaign has effectively been reduced to one week. And the week currently being overtaken by the shock and anger is likely the most crucial.

That’s because 5 p.m. Wednesday is the deadline for supporters to sign up to become delegate candidates for the July 25 statewide convention in Bangor.

Those delegate candidates will then be elected at caucuses held in each of the state’s 16 counties over this coming weekend. From that process will come the 601 delegates who will decide which Democrat will challenge five-term Republican incumbent Susan Collins this fall.

In fact, the best organized campaigns will likely know by Sunday who has already won the contest because they can simply add up how many of their own supporters became delegates.

In other words, the contest could be effectively over before most Mainers even begin to really pay attention.

Further, unlike some major news developments that provide a moment of political clarity, this tragic situation in Biddeford resolves nothing. Instead, it raises the stakes for Democrats to make the right choice.

What that means in the context of choosing between a more progressive populist candidate in the mold of Platner or a more traditional Democrat in the mold of this year’s Democratic nominee for governor, Hannah Pingree, remains an open question.

There is simply less time now to discuss it.

Now, none of the above is meant to take away from the discussion about a husband and father who was killed by the government and whatever circumstances led to that tragedy.

To be sure, the moment a Democratic nominee is selected, the role of ICE will immediately become the first real dividing-line issue in the Senate race. After all, Collins oversees ICE’s budget as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and has been actively involved in conversations with the administration about enforcement in Maine.

But as to who should face her, the clarity and contrasts that campaigns tend to reveal are not currently there among Democrats at a time when they would be most helpful. As it stands, all of the candidates oppose the Trump administration’s overall agenda, oppose the Iran war, promote some version of an affordability message, and, above all, oppose Collins.

Nor is there an obvious choice if Maine Democratic delegates decide electability should be their highest priority.

Campaigns rarely unfold on the timetable candidates expect. Outside events intervene, reshaping what voters hear, what campaigns can talk about, and, ultimately, what party insiders have to evaluate.

In this case, Democrats face the unusual challenge of selecting a Senate nominee while the issue dominating the public conversation is one on which nearly all of the candidates already agree. That may produce unity after a bruising week, but it also leaves delegates with fewer opportunities to distinguish between the people asking for their votes before making one of the biggest political decisions in Maine this year.

James Pindell is a Globe political reporter who reports and analyzes American politics, especially in New England.

If you want to help people in poverty, don’t drive the wealthy out of state.

That might be something the state senators in the Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities should keep in mind after they advanced a sweeping bill going full bore at reducing the state’s poverty rate.

Sen. Sal DiDomenico told the State House News his proposal (S 3095) “is a compilation of many bills that have already been filed.” According to his office, the bill, as originally filed, included provisions that would increase the Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children cash benefits for pregnant people, families and caregivers; increase Emergency Aid to the Elderly, Disabled and Children cash benefits; codify related benefits and allowances; and bar the government from taking any amount of child support payments from low-income parents.

His office also said the bill would direct the state to replace Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program cash benefits “stolen by criminal rings through skimming or phishing”; ensure access to free menstrual products in public schools, homeless shelters, prisons and county jails; raise farmworker wages to at least the state’s minimum wage; establish a “baby bonds program”; and “enhance” the attorney general’s ability to “ensure companies pay their employees the wages they deserve and hold employers accountable when they steal workers’ wages.”

It’s a tall order, and an impressive one. But the hurdle isn’t just getting it on the Senate’s agenda before the July 31 deadline, it’s how to pay for it.

The idea of front-loading assistance appears sound: helping people escape poverty means they won’t need to rely on social services down the line. But it will still take a sustainable revenue source to keep it all going.

And Massachusetts has been shooting itself in the foot when it comes to keeping revenue inside state borders.

According to Moneywise, Massachusetts millionaires took $4.2 billion in income out of the state in 2023, new Internal Revenue Service data revealed.

As reported by Bloomberg, that’s an 8% increase from the year before, and it comes just as the state began enforcing a new 4% surtax on incomes above $1 million. Higher-income households are now accounting for a larger share of total departures from the state. In 2023, top earners accounted for roughly 70% of total income outflow. That doubles their share from just a few years earlier.

We need to keep them, and their tax payments, here.

But that won’t happen if efforts to lower taxes are met with derision, and the notion that tax breaks only benefit the very rich. The deep-pocketed set that’s heading to tax-friendlier states are gifting their new home turf with a cumulative windfall, even if the individual tax amount is lower than the Bay State.

The same goes for companies who see better opportunities elsewhere.

The senators working on anti-poverty measures have some great ideas, and they should have a budget to implement them. Lifting people up from poverty uplifts the state.

But we can’t pay the bill if we keep driving out high-earning taxpayers. To help the poor, we must keep the rich.