Maine
Political polling in Maine is big news. I’m urging caution. | Opinion
Nicholas Jacobs is the Goldfarb Family Distinguished Chair in American Government at Colby College, where he also serves as the inaugural director of the Bram Public Policy Lab.
I love a good poll as much as the next person.
It’s why I’ve relied on them throughout my research and teaching. Surveys offer a rare glimpse into attitudes that are otherwise difficult to observe, and in competitive races they can help orient both journalists and voters to what appears to be unfolding. And this Senate race in Maine — it is competitive. I’m itching for clarity.
Polls matter beyond our general academic curiosity. They actually shape the race and our expectations. The findings out of the University of New Hampshire about Graham Platner’s meteoric rise in the Democratic primary have already begun to shape how observers are talking about the Senate race, subtly altering expectations about competitiveness and early advantage. No doubt, donations will follow the topline finding.
But a word of caution is warranted. Polling in Maine is unusually difficult. And yes, you can simply refuse to “trust the polls,” but let me also suggest you don’t have to even go that far: just look at what the pollsters are and are not telling you each time they report results.
Most anyone who cares about polling results knows a few things to check, none more important than the all important margin of error. It offers a useful reminder that polls estimate rather than measure, and that even well-executed surveys contain uncertainty.
Try telling me who’s ahead with just a few dozen people and you’ll see a margin of error in the double-digits; everyone knows know you might as well stop reading. But a small margin of error only reflects precision, not representativeness — and a survey can be statistically tidy while still overlooking meaningful variation within the electorate.
You can get a representative snapshot of what Maine, on average, thinks with a modest sample — about 1,000 of our neighbors. Yet that is rarely what readers or campaigns are focused on in moments like this. We are not just asking what “Maine” thinks. We are asking what primary voters, independents or late-deciding voters think. And that is where interpretation becomes harder.
As attention shifts to those subsamples, the number of respondents quickly shrinks and the margin of error widens. That mechanical inflation is familiar and usually reported. What is discussed far less is whether those smaller groups meaningfully reflect the diversity of voters they are meant to represent — geographically, politically and in terms of engagement with the race. Because, as is often the case, the initial goal was not to survey, say, young people in Maine, but all people in Maine. That distinction creates problems.
When looking at subsamples, the relevant question is not simply how large the margin of error becomes, but how much confidence we should have that the subsample itself captures the electorate we care about. One way researchers evaluate this is by looking beyond sample size to how heavily responses must be weighted and adjusted to reflect that diversity — a process captured in what survey methodologists call “design effects.”
When those adjustments are substantial, the survey contains less independent information than the respondent count suggests, meaning apparent precision can mask deeper uncertainty about how accurate the estimates really are.
Again, the latest UNH survey in Maine offers a useful illustration.
Buried in the methodology statement, the researchers report a design effect of 2.3 and note that they did not adjust their margins of error for what is a pretty major acknowledgement that their sample, however large, needed some help in representing the broader Maine electorate. Put plainly, a design effect of 2.3 means those 1,120 likely voters function statistically more like a sample of about 500 — making the apparent precision of the results considerably overstated.
If the effective sample size is cut substantially, the true uncertainty around candidate support widens. What was a margin of error of about ±2.9 grows quick, to ±4.5. Of course, this might mean that Platner’s lead over Collins in the general election is higher than what the poll estimated, but it also means that, in this case, his lead could be as small as two points.
Specific to the one finding that is drawing substantial media attention, it also means that Platner’s “advantage” among Maine independents is a statistical fantasy. That is because once you start looking at sub-samples, the “penalty” that a design effect has on a poll’s margin of error is even greater.
To begin with, there are only about 164 independents represented in the full sample — a testament to the large design effect, because the poll seems to have captured way more partisans than proportionally exist in the state. The baseline margin of error for that group, to begin with, is ±7.
And then once weighting and design effects are taken into account, the effective number of independent respondents becomes smaller still — in this case, giving us estimates that have an equal chance of being 12 points higher (Platner leads with 59% of independents!) or 12 points lower (Collins has a 15 point advantage!). We just don’t know.
Now, I realize this may sound like unwelcome news to those eager to read the poll as
confirmation of a decisive shift in the race. I look forward to the emails I will receive telling me my “academic caution” is masquerading as excuse-making for Sen. Collins.
But, if anything, the statistically rigorous takeaway remains quite interesting. The same issue with independents I describe above (an ever-shrinking sample size) is just as true for analyzing the subset of Democratic primary voters. Even after accounting for the design effect here, functionally inflating the margin of error on the Democratic primary, Platner’s lead is unequivocal.
Even the most generous read, given that uncertainty, gives Mills just about a third of Democratic primary voters in the survey. The margin may be less precise, and there are still questions about whether the poll captured the broad swath of likely voters, but the signal is unmistakable: he is a credible and competitive challenger.
Statistical caution does not weaken that conclusion, even as it tempers claims of an inevitable victory for one candidate or party.
Platner’s emergence is real. So is the uncertainty surrounding everything beyond it. Acknowledging that uncertainty, though, is the difference between careful interpretation and wishful thinking. And when uncertainty is translated into premature conclusions, the narrative can begin to influence the election before voters do.
Maine
There’s Something in the Air in South Portland, Maine – Inside Climate News
SOUTH PORTLAND—It’s one of Maine’s most desirable locations—home to a vibrant and diverse community, nearby beaches, and close proximity to Portland’s downtown. But for years, residents in South Portland have wondered: With 120 massive petroleum storage tanks dotting the shore and knitted into some neighborhoods here, is the air safe to breathe?
Now the first answers are in, thanks to a year of emissions monitoring along the fencelines of the city’s tank farms. At two of those locations, in particular, the results showed levels of benzene—a known carcinogen—well above the state’s limit.
“We’re about 300 feet from those tanks,” said Ted Reiner, whose home is surrounded by three of the city’s tank farms. It’s where he and his wife raised their two daughters, now 38 and 28. Around Christmas, Reiner had surgery for bladder cancer. Now he’s undergoing immunotherapy, and he can’t help but wonder whether his environment is contributing to his health woes.
“You just don’t know what the cumulative effect is,” he said. “I think about it a lot.”
Reiner lives closest to the Citgo South Portland Terminal, in a part of South Portland known as Turner Island. The tanks there primarily hold gasoline, while others in the city contain an array of petroleum products, including heating oil and asphalt. He and his family are among the more than 12,600 people who live within a mile of the tank farm, according to EPA data.
According to data collected by Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection, the CITGO terminal is one of two tank farms in the city where emissions exceed the state limit. Average benzene levels were measured at 2.18 micrograms per cubic meter, well above Maine’s allowed limit of 1.28 micrograms.
The highest levels in the city—3.05 micrograms—were measured at South Portland Terminal LLC owned by Buckeye Partners, which, unlike Citgo’s tanks, does not have people living nearby. A tank farm owned by Sunoco, meanwhile, had measurements just below the state guideline.
Long-term inhalation of benzene can damage bone marrow and blood-forming cells, suppress the immune system, and increase the risk of leukemia. According to the World Health Organization, there is “no safe level of exposure.”
Each reported number from the state is the average of a two-week continuous sample. Citgo’s final number for the year is the average of all those two-week samples. When examining a year’s worth of data, higher emissions levels get masked. But levels spike: For one two-week period in particular, the average benzene level recorded near the Citgo facility was 11.8 micrograms per cubic meter, nearly 10 times the state limit.

Those shorter-lived “burst emissions” can be dangerous in their own right.
One to 14 days of exposure to higher levels of benzene can cause headaches and breathing issues for sensitive individuals, such as children, older adults, or people with preexisting health conditions. The risk level for short-term exposure for benzene is 30 micrograms per cubic meter. What’s not clear in the state’s data is whether benzene levels get high enough to trigger those responses.
Rich Johnson, a spokesman for Citgo, said the company takes the concerns of South Portland residents seriously and is continuing to work with state regulators. “We believe it is important that any study of air monitoring results support accurate, representative conclusions about community-level air quality,” Johnson said.
Buckeye Partners did not respond to multiple emails requesting comment.
Petroleum companies and oil terminal owners use various technologies to eliminate emissions, but they still happen. Most often, chemicals escape from tank vents, equipment leaks and loading rack operations.
Anna O’Sullivan, a 42-year-old artist and therapist, thinks about all of this. She worries when her 7-year-old son, Henry, plays in the yard. “Is he just, like, absorbing what’s in the air?” she wonders.
This story is funded by readers like you.
Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.
Donate Now
She’s hesitant to eat anything grown in the soil there. She’s concerned that staying put means poisoning them both.
But she’s also stuck. O’Sullivan bought her three-bedroom cape, built in 1904, with a big backyard for $190,000 in 2017—a charming and impossible find in the market today.
“I can see the tanks from my house,” she said. The feeling is: “I need to move. I can’t raise my kids in an area where it’s just, like, poisonous air.”
But also: “I like my house. … It’s hard to move, it’s hard to buy a house.”
The science supports these emotions.
The readings are high enough “to merit serious attention,” said Drew Michanowicz, a senior scientist at Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers for Healthy Energy, an independent scientific research institute that brings science to energy policy.
Across South Portland, most people don’t live immediately next to the tanks, which lessens their exposure because emissions are quickly dispersed. But especially around the Citgo facility, some live quite close.


Until last fall, when she had to move following a house fire, Jacky Gerry was living near the Citgo tanks. “Did I ever think we were safe? Probably not,” she said. “But did a lot of people have a choice as to where you live? No.”
People in South Portland first became concerned about the tanks in 2019, after the EPA announced consent decrees, a resolution of a dispute without an admission of guilt, with two companies with tanks here—Global Partners LLC and Sprague Energy. In both cases, heated petroleum storage tanks containing asphalt and a thick fuel oil were emitting what are known as volatile organic compounds—chemicals that include benzene—in violation of their state permits. That issue was specific to tanks containing asphalt and number 6 fuel oil, which were previously thought to have no emissions, and is not the situation with the Citgo tanks.
As a result of the consent decrees, the operators installed systems to capture emissions that appear to have worked. In the most recent testing, emissions levels around both tank farms were below Maine’s threshold.
The consent decrees also helped put the tanks on the radar of lawmakers. In 2021, a newly passed law mandated that all petroleum tank farms in the state begin fenceline monitoring for chemicals including benzene. That monitoring began in August 2024, and the first results were released late last year.
Residents here have long taken the fight against industrial emissions into their own hands, including in a high-profile—and successful—fight to keep oil from Canadian tar sands from being piped into the city in 2018.
It was in that spirit that South Portland resident Tom Mikulka, a retired chemist with a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Cornell, opted to analyze the state results so residents would be able to start understanding the implications.
“I wouldn’t want to go to sleep knowing there’s high benzene levels that close to my home,” said Mikulka, referring to the houses that stand just feet from a fenceline monitor mounted along the Citgo property. “While there is diffusion, I can’t imagine the data is much different just a few feet away.”
The state findings validate the concerns he’s had all along. Mikulka first began testing emissions in the neighborhood back in 2020, when he used COVID relief checks to purchase air monitoring equipment. He hung one of the monitors on Reiner’s property, near the swing his grandkids like to play on.
Now, six years later, with official data in hand, Mikulka hopes the findings will be harder for regulators to dismiss.
That’s Jacky Gerry’s hope, too.
“Now that we have these answers, who’s stepping up to the plate to say, ‘Let’s try to fix that?’” she said. “Is it a city problem? An oil company problem? Where does it fall?”
About This Story
Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.
That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.
Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.
Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?
Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.
Thank you,
Maine
Lawmakers advance bill to provide death benefits after two DOT workers killed on the job
Maine
Maine man accused of lighting bed on fire after fight with girlfriend
WISCASSET, Maine (WMTW) – A Maine man has been arrested after police say he intentionally set a bed on fire after a dispute with his girlfriend, while they were still in it.
Police responded Monday, March 9, to a report of a fire that had been intentionally set inside a home on Beechnut Hill Road, according to the Wiscasset Police Department.
Investigators say the homeowner, Terry Couture, 41, set the bed on fire following an argument while both he and his girlfriend were in it. Authorities said the fire was extinguished and no serious injuries were reported.
Couture was arrested and charged with attempted murder, arson, aggravated criminal mischief, and domestic violence criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon.
The investigation is ongoing.
Copyright 2026 WABI. All rights reserved.
-
Wisconsin1 week agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Detroit, MI6 days agoU.S. Postal Service could run out of money within a year
-
Pennsylvania6 days agoPa. man found guilty of raping teen girl who he took to Mexico
-
Miami, FL1 week agoCity of Miami celebrates reopening of Flagler Street as part of beautification project
-
Sports7 days agoKeith Olbermann under fire for calling Lou Holtz a ‘scumbag’ after legendary coach’s death
-
Michigan2 days agoOperation BBQ Relief helping with Southwest Michigan tornado recovery
-
Virginia1 week agoGiants will hold 2026 training camp in West Virginia
