Read all of our coverage of Maine's 2026 election or stay up to date with the latest developments through the Maine Political Report in your inbox or text messages from politics editor Kirby Wilson.

Jeffrey S. Barkin, MD, DLFAPA, is a practicing psychiatrist in Portland and the former president of the Maine Medical Association. He co-hosts “A Healthy Conversation” on WGAN.

Maine has a way of making politics personal.

We are a small state. We see elected officials at parades, diners, radio studios, airports and grocery stores. We do not only know their party labels. We know how they talk when the cameras are off. We know whether they listen, and whether they answer hard questions.

That matters in the race between Sen. Susan Collins and Graham Platner.

This race will draw national money, anger and attention. It will be described as a fight for control of the Senate. But for Maine voters, it should be something more serious.

It should be a test of judgment.

I co-host a radio show, and through that work I have gotten to know the candidates as people, not just as names on a ballot. That does not mean I agree with everything any candidate says. It means voters owe them, and themselves, more than applause or rejection.

Collins and Platner offer Maine two different ideas of public service.

Collins offers experience, seniority and knowledge of how Washington works. Her case is that Maine benefits from having a senator who knows the committees, agencies, rules and funding streams that can bring support home. In healthcare, she points to work on rural care, drug costs, research, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, mental health and caregivers. Her argument is steady and practical: change is often slow, but influence matters.

Platner offers a different message. He argues that the system itself is failing too many people. His campaign is built around economic pressure, frustration with health insurance, anger at corporate power and the belief that working people have been ignored. In healthcare, he calls for Medicare for All, protection of Medicare and Medicaid, lower drug prices and a direct challenge to insurance companies. His argument is moral and urgent: small repairs are not enough when families are drowning.

Both arguments deserve to be heard. Neither deserves a free pass.

Consider a patient I will call Mary. She is 72, widowed, and living in rural Maine. She has diabetes, arthritis, mild depression and a fixed income. Her daughter helps with rides. Mary does not care who controls the Senate. She cares that her insulin is affordable. She cares that the local hospital stays open. She cares that the nurse practitioner she trusts does not leave. She cares that Medicare does not become a maze.

For Mary, Collins’ approach has appeal. Mary wants someone who can protect programs she already depends on. She wants federal money for rural healthcare, home care, heating help, research and workforce training. She wants a senator who can call an agency and get an answer. She does not want chaos if it puts fragile care at risk.

But Mary also shows the limit of that approach. If her drug costs are still too high, if dental care is out of reach, if the nearest specialist is three hours away and if every form exhausts her, she may fairly ask: How long should I wait for the system to repair itself?

Seniority is valuable. But it must produce results where people live.

Now consider Jason. He is 43 and works with his hands. He has employer insurance that looks good on paper. Then his wife develops cancer. Suddenly the family learns the difference between being insured and being protected.

There are deductibles, prior approvals, out-of-network bills, denied scans, delayed treatments and long calls with people who cannot answer basic questions. Jason keeps working because he cannot risk losing insurance. He skips his own appointments because the family cannot afford another bill. He begins to understand why some people describe health insurance not as a safety net, but as a second illness.

For Jason, Platner’s message has force. He is saying what many patients feel: the system is too expensive, too confusing, too cold and too protective of the wrong people. A candidate who calls healthcare a right speaks to Jason’s fear and anger.

But Jason also shows the limit of that approach. A slogan is not a system. Medicare for All, or any major health reform, would require details, funding, transition plans, enough doctors and nurses, protection for rural hospitals and political skill. Voters should ask exactly how it would work in Maine.

What happens to small hospitals? How would it be paid for? What happens if Congress will not pass the plan? How would anger become law?

That is what voting requires.

Not cynicism. Not tribal loyalty. Not purity. Rational voting means asking hard questions of the candidate you already like.

If you favor Collins, ask whether experience has become enough of an answer by itself. Ask whether bipartisan work can meet the size of the healthcare crisis. Ask whether protecting parts of the current system is enough when many families still feel crushed by it.

If you favor Platner, ask whether moral urgency comes with a practical plan. Ask whether a promise of major change includes the patience and discipline needed to govern. Ask whether he can build coalitions beyond the people who already agree with him.

This race should not be decided by attack ads, loud supporters or angry posts. Maine voters are better than that. Independence should mean voting with care.

A careful voter looks at record, character, temperament and healthcare as a lived reality.

Can you get primary care? Can your parent stay safely at home? Can your child get mental health treatment before a crisis? Can a small hospital stay open? Can a family afford medicine?

Those are not partisan questions. They are Maine questions.

There is also a deeper question: What kind of politics still leaves room for grace?

Collins has served for a long time. That brings knowledge, relationships and power. It also brings accountability for what has and has not changed during those years.

Platner brings energy, lived experience and a promise to fight for people who feel forgotten. That brings hope. It also brings the need to prove readiness for one of the most serious jobs in public life.

Voters do not have to hate one candidate to choose the other. They do not have to pretend one is all virtue and the other is all failure. Democracy works best when we can say: this person has strengths, this person has weaknesses and my vote will be based on the full picture.

Maine has an aging population, rural hospitals under pressure, a shortage of healthcare workers, high drug costs and families tired of being told to wait. We need urgency and competence. We need leaders who can speak to suffering without exploiting it.

The Collins-Platner race gives Maine a real choice. One candidate says the system can still be made to work through experience, influence and bipartisan effort. The other says the system is failing too many people and must be rebuilt around working families.

The voters’ job is not to cheer. It is to judge.

That judgment should begin at the kitchen table, not on social media. It should begin with Mary and Jason, and with thousands of Mainers like them. It should begin with one question: Who will help me when I am vulnerable?

If this campaign can return to that question, it may become more than another bitter race. It may become a chance for Maine to show how democracy can still work: with clear eyes, honest doubt, and hope.

That would be good for voters and candidates. Most of all, it would be good for people who need government to be less theatrical and more useful.

In the end, Maine does not need politics that treats people like symbols. It needs politics that treats people like patients, neighbors, parents, workers and caregivers.

That is the race worth having.