My Recap of the 2026 Jeopardy Invitational Tournament, Part 1: The Quarterfinals

 

With Paolo Pasco wiping the floor with the competition in impressive fashion in the Tournament of Champions the final part of the Jeopardy postseason began on Thursday: the 2026 Jeopardy Invitational Tournament.

It has far more familiar faces then usual with no less then five previous participants in the Jeopardy Masters competing in the Invitational this year. We also have quite a few holdovers from the 2025 Tournament of Champions competing this year as well with three faces from that group. But there are two new wrinkles.

The first is the number of competitors. As opposed to the previous two invitationals this years contains only eighteen participants who will face off in six quarterfinal matches that will produce six semi-finalists. The second wrinkle is one that Jeopardy fans are familiar with: the wild card spot. The three highest scores among the twelve non-winners will advance to the semi-finals.

Almost everyone in this year's Tournament is familiar with this wrinkle to an extent, whether through competing in a previous Tournament of Champions, the Second Chance and Wild Card Tournament and Jeopardy Masters itself. The question was how would it affect play going into the quarterfinals?

Here's how it played out.

 

February 5^th

Matt Amodio vs. Drew Basile vs. Karen Farrell

 

Karen almost certainly did the most damage to any chance she had of a victory in the Jeopardy round. She got to the Daily Double ahead of Matt in the Jeopardy round in ONE OF THESE DAYS when she was in second with $1000. She did what she had to do and bet everything:

This Caribbean Island nation gained its name from Columbus, who sighted it on Sunday, November 3^rd 1493. She struggled and couldn't come up with anything. It was Dominica. (I'd never heard of this island.)

Karen then went really backwards and at one point was at -$2400. It is a credit to her play that she managed to get all the way up to -$200 at the end of the round to Drew's $2800 and Matt's $5400.

Matt, as is his tendency, got to the first Daily Double early in the round in WORLD HISTORY. Perhaps given his and other champions track records in so many masters he didn't go all in, betting just $3000 of his $7000.

Meaning 'the way of the warrior', it was the code of conduct for Japan's samurai, akin to European chivalry. Matt knew it was Bushido and went up to $10,000. Not long after that Drew starting going backwards and Karen began to move forwards. But Matt still had a sizable lead when he found the other Daily Double in COUSINS. Now at $14,000 he bet a relatively small $2000 and in this case it was the right call:

The American composer of the opera 'Satyagraha' is second cousins to this radio personality. Matt stumbled and finally guessed: "Who is Copeland?" It's hard to blame him for not knowing it; only my experience with modern opera helped me realize the composer was Philip Glass and therefore his cousin was Ira Glass." Matt dropped to $12,000.

Matt's performance in this game was by his impressive standards, somewhat lacking. He only got 24 correct responses and had 4 incorrect ones (including that Daily Double) Karen it's worth made a remarkable comeback in Double Jeopardy. Having made five incorrect responses in that round she only made one the rest of the way. However Matt managed to finish with $18,800 and Karen just couldn't close the gap and finished with $8200. Drew struggled and finished with $3600.

The Final Jeopardy category was COINS OF THE WORLD. Coins issued by this territory have depicted Old World monkeys, Neanderthal skulls & Europa Point lighthouse.

Drew's response was revealed first. "What is Gibraltar?" That was correct. (Ken reminded us of the Barbary apes and the famous lighthouse.) Drew did what he had to do and bet everything giving him $7200.

Next came Karen. She also knew it was Gibraltar. She also risked everything, putting her at $16,400.

Matt, however, wrote down: "What is Kenya?" Had Karen been able to get close to him she could have made Matt's life difficult. Instead Matt bet nothing and definitely earned his return to the semi-finals. Karen's score looks pretty good; Drew is in a more precarious position.

For the record I wasn't even in the right part of the world with my guess. I wrote down: What is Samoa?", crossed it out and wrote down Guam.

 

February 6^th

Eric Ahasic vs Roger Craig vs Veronica Vichit-Vadakan

 

As is his wont Roger got off to a fast start in the Jeopardy round and found the Daily Double. Already in the lead with $2800 he bet everything in  BLANK & BLANK:

Involving 2 elements of the magician's art, this idiom is used to describe a situation of deception. He paused and guessed: "What is cloak & dagger?" I thought it was that too but it was actually smoke & mirrors. He dropped to nothing and rebuilt. By the end of the round he was back up to $2400, just $400 behind both Veronica and Eric.

Roger stumbled early in Double Jeopardy but got up to $4400 and found the first Daily Double in FRANCE IN THE 1600s. Again he bet everything and this time it worked out:

Found on the Left Bank of the Seine, this veterans' hospital was built by architect Liberal Bruant in Baroque style.

Another pause: "What is Invalides?" This time he was correct and he took the lead.

He kept building and when he found the other Daily Double in WE'RE BUILDING WORDS HERE he had $12,800. He bet just $4000 this time:

Location of a eustachian tube + a biblical evangelist = this targeted form of fundraising.

Somehow he figured it out: "What is earmark?" He went up to $16,800.

This was a far more dominant game than the one Matt played yesterday: Roger gave 28 correct responses and only four incorrect ones to finish with $24,000. Veronica with $7200 and Eric with $5600 were playing for the wild card spot when it came down to Final Jeopardy.

The category was ART & ARTISTS. He entered the priory of San Marco in Florence in the 1430s & was commissioned to paint its altarpiece by the Medicis.

Eric's response was: "Who is Botticelli?" It was incorrect. He lost everything.

Veronica guessed: "Who is Raphael?" Also incorrect and she also lost everything.

Roger wrote down: "Who is Michelangelo?" Also incorrect. As Ken put it: "You had to think of a Renaissance painter who was also a cleric and that was Fra Angelico. Roger bet bigger then both his opponents and lost $9000 but he also clinched a return to the semi-finals.

Author's Note: I was hung up on the Florence part of the clue and wrote down: "Who is Ghiberti?" My first thought was Brunelleschi but he was an architect.  Ghiberti was a sculptor so I didn't have the right medium.

 

February 9^th

Liz Feltner vs Tom 'T.L.' Cubbage vs. Drew Goins

 

This one was tough for everybody including yon viewer. All three players got off to a fast start in the Jeopardy round. Drew found the Daily Double when he was in the lead with $3000 and bet everything in the difficult category FROM SAMUEL JOHNSON'S 1755 DICTIONARY:

Self-effacing Sam defined this, his occupation at the time, as a 'harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing' words. Drew struggled before guessing: "What is a scribe?" It was actually a lexicographer which is what Johnson would doing at the time. He dropped to zero.

By the end of the round is where very close. Liz was in the lead with $4800 to TOM'S $3600 and Drew's $2800. They did not get easier in Double Jeopardy.

Tom got a chance when he found the Daily Double on the second clue of the round in 8-LETTER U.S. CITIES. In the lead with $5200, he bet $3000: "After Jackson, this city well to the southeast is Mississippi's largest." He struggled and finally guessed: "What is Hartford?" It was actually Gulfport (I had no idea.)

It was a pattern for a round full of triple stumpers and clues that people kept getting wrong because they were so tough. By the time Liz found the other Daily Double in SCIENTIFIC MINDS she was in the lead with $9200. She bet $3000 as well and it went no better for her then Tom or Drew.

"Scientists in Brno dug up the remains of this local hero around the bicentennial of his birth and analyzed his genetic code." I was as hung up on Brno as anyone and like Liz couldn't come up with the clue which involve genes: Gregor Mendel.

By the time the round mercifully ended (and I mean that for me as well) it was incredibly close. Liz had $6200, Tom had $5400 and Drew had $5200.

The Final Jeopardy category was 20^th CENTURY LITERARY NAMES. It sounded easy. The clue was anything but.

In 1950 he won a Tony for Best Play &18 years after his 1965 death, he would go on to win 2 Tonys for a musical/

Drew's response was revealed first: "Who is Miller?" That was wrong. He bet $3600, leaving him with $1600.

Tom was next. He wrote down: "Who is Capote?" Also incorrect. He lost $5399.

It came down to Liz. "Who is Hudson?"  It was not obvious. The musical in question was Cats and the author of the 'book' was T.S Eliot. (For the record the play that he won for was The Cocktail Party in 1950. )

It came down to wagers. Liz bet $4601. That left her with $1599 and by a margin of a dollar a stunned Drew Goins made it to the semi-finals. As it stands right now Liz has the third spot for the wild card berth. Not by much.

(For the record, I wrote down: "Who is Inge?")

 

 

February 10^th

Mehal Shah vs. Jen Giles vs. Andrew He

 

In Andrew's first JIT appearance in 2024 he ended up running away with both his games. This time it was a lot tougher and much of this was due to Andrew's own difficulties.

Andrew found the first Daily Double on the third clue of the Jeopardy round in AT FERNCLIFF CEMETERY. He was only allowed to wager $1000 and its good he did:

After his 1965 death at the Audubon Ballroom at Upper Manhattan, he was interned at Ferncliff Cemetery.

Andrew struggled and finally guessed: "Who is Rockefeller?" That was wrong. The ballroom was where Malcolm X was assassinated. He dropped to -$200.

As a result the Jeopardy round was much closer. Jen finished in the lead with $3400 to Mehal's $2800 while Andrew trailed with $2200.

Early in Double Jeopardy Mehal had taken the lead and found the first Daily Double in BIOGRAPHY & MEMOIRS. He treated it like it was a snake that would bite him betting $5. Ken would joke he had that much in his pocket but for once discretion was the better part of valor:

This poet & author wrote a 6-volume bio of Abe Lincoln made up of 'The Prairie Years' & the Pulitzer-winning 'The War Years'. Mehal said: "Who is Goodwin?" He didn't know it was Carl Sandburg and dropped all the way down to $5595.

Three clues later Andrew, having retaken the lead, found the other Daily Double in AWARDS & HONORS. Rather than showing that same discretion, he bet the $7400 he had. It went no better then the first one he'd gotten:

The IEEE established an award in 1976 to honor the centennial of an invention by this man & named the award for him.

Again Andrew struggled before guessing: "Who is Morse?" It was actually Alexander Graham Bell.

For Andrew He, this was a bad day. He got 19 correct answers and five incorrect ones, including both Daily Doubles. To be fair none of these were easy clues. It ended with close scores. Andrew finished in first with $6000, Jen was next with $5400 and Mehal was in third with $4395.

The Final Jeopardy category was THE CALENDAR. Black History Month was first celebrated around the birth dates of Abraham Lincoln & this contemporary who died in 1895.

For the first time in the JIT all three players knew the correct response. "Who is Frederick Douglass?" Andrew was the only one who spelled Douglass correctly but that didn't matter. (I knew this too.) It came down to wagers.

Mehal bet $1606, giving him $6001. Jen bet $3000, putting her at $8400. And Andrew bet $4801 to give him with $10,801 and giving him a return to the semi-finals.

With her total of $8400 Jen Giles is now in second place for the Wild Card spot. Mehal was eliminated as was Liz Feltner.

 

 

February 11^th

Josh Hill vs, Alison Betts vs. Isaac Hirsch

 

Alison started out the Jeopardy round in grand style when she found the Daily Double already in the lead with $2000. She bet it all in the category USA:

While is library is in Ann Arbor, his museum is in Grand Rapids, where he grew up.

She figured it out: "Who is Ford?" She held the lead for the rest of the round finishing with $5400 to Josh's $3400 and Isaac's $3200.

Early in Double Jeopardy while still in the lead with SIDE HUSTLE PARTS OF SPEECH. She bet $5000 and this one really hurt:

This adjective is used more & more as a noun meaning anyone who generates content, from poems to advertising.

She finally guessed: "What is creator?" Alison was introduced as a creative executive and the word was creative. She dropped to $1600.

Much of Double Jeopardy followed the pattern we've seen in the last few games: many triple stumpers and a lot of incorrect response. As a result the scores were low when Josh found the other Daily Double in ASIA: BACK ON TOUR. He bet the $3600 he had:

Of the 7 – 'stan' countries, we're headed for this one, the southernmost.

There was a long pause: "What is Pakistan?" That is the southernmost and Josh doubled his score.

Double Jeopardy finished with Josh and Isaac tied for the lead at $7600 while Alison had $3200. And it was then Alison did something unheard of it in Final Jeopardy. She became a prophet.

The category was 1960s NOVEL CHARACTERS. An article about autism in fictional characters included him, whose '"reward' is to have his brave act go unrecognized."

Alison wrote down: "What is I hope they both everything?" After the laughter:

Ken: I don't know if you mean you want them to be everything and get it get right or get it wrong.

Alison: "The getting it wrong part is kind of key to my plan."

She wagered $414, leaving her with $2786.

Isaac was next: "Who is Randall?" I think he had the right idea but it was incorrect. He wagered everything as Ken pointed out "So far, Alison's plan is working."

The moment of truth. Josh wrote down: "Who is Caulfield?" That was incorrect. The correct response was Boo Radley, the unsung heroism at the end of To Kill A Mockingbird.

Josh's wager…also everything. There were sounds of shock and Alison dropped her head to the lectern as she realized that she had managed to beat a former Jeopardy master and a seven game champion to earn a spot in the semi-finals.

Author's Note: The only thing I could think of was Lennie and Of Mice and Men isn't even close to the 1960s.

At this point Karen Farrell has officially clinched her spot in the semi-finals via wild card no matter what happens in the final game.

 

February 12^th

Long Nyugen vs. Will Yancey vs. Adriana Harmeyer

 

As has been the habit of all the quarterfinal matches the Jeopardy round was pretty even. Long got off to a fast start but Adriana got to the Daily Double in ANTONYMS. She only had $1000 so she bet it all:

Of seldom: This adjective that as a verb means to go somewhere often. She figured it out: "What is frequent?" and doubled her score. Long finished in the lead with $5200 to Will's $4600 and Adriana's $3400.

Long won points in Double Jeopardy both for his skill in finding Daily Doubles and his honesty each time.  He found the first Daily Double in INTERNATIONAL OBSERVANCES.  In the lead with $8000 he said: "I don't like this category" before wagering $2000:

Meaning 'new day' in Farsi, the March observance of Nowruz dates to spring rites of this ancient religion.

A long pause: "What is Zoroastrianism?" He was correct and went up to $10,000.

Two clues later he found the other Daily Double.

Ken: You didn't like that last category, Long.

Long: I don't like any of these categories

After the laughter subsided he bet $1600.  Just between us, these mammals' genus is Odobenus, meaning 'tooth walk' – they use their tusks to get out of the water.

Another pause: "What is a walrus?"

For a board that had categories he didn't like Long played very well with 20 correct answers and only one incorrect one. And he finished with a runaway victory:$19,600 to Will's $7400 and Adriana's $3400.

The category for Final Jeopardy was THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE.  A 1606 map of America shows this archipelago as part of a southern continent by a canoe with smoke billowing from its center.

Adriana's response was revealed: "What is Tierra Del Fuego?" That was correct. "Land of fire." She bet everything, putting her at $6800.

Will started with Florida, crossed it out and wrote down: "What is Antilles?" That was incorrect and it cost him everything.

Long was last and he wrote down: "What is Tierra Del Fuego?" His wager of $2000 was superfluous as he became the last automatic semifinalist.

Yet again I was nowhere near the correct response; I wrote down: "What is Indonesia?" That makes me one for six in the quarterfinals.

And with that here is the official group of semi-finalists as well as their accomplishments:

 

Matt Amodio, the former winner of the Invitational who has appeared in every Jeopardy Masters so far.

Roger Craig,  2011 Tournament of Champions Winner, third place finisher in the Battle of The Decades, part of Team Austin in Jeopardy All-Stars, sixth place in last year's Jeopardy Masters.

Drew Goins, 2024 Jeopardy Second Chance winner, runner up in 2025 Jeopardy Wild Card, 2025 Jeopardy TOC semi-finalist.

Andrew He, runner-up in the 2022 Tournament of Champions, fourth place in the 2023 Jeopardy Masters, third place in the 2024 JIT.

Allison Betts, five game winner, quarterfinalist 2025 Tournament of Champions.

Long Nguyen, Jeopardy Second Chance Winner 2023, Wild Card finalist.

 

And the three high scorers:

Karen Farrell, eight game winner, semi-finalist 2021 Tournament of Champions

Jen Giles, 2015 Teacher Tournament Winner, part of Team Buzzy in the Jeopardy All-Star Games.

Drew Basile, seven game Jeopardy winner in 2024, semi-finalist in the 2025 Tournament of Champions.

 

And as we all know of this group Drew Basile has the most to prove: he was the only seeded semi-finalist in last year's Tournament of Champions who didn't make it to the finals. His fellow seeded players Adriana and Isaac did make it to the finals and to the Masters last year. Can he succeeded where they failed?

I'll be back on Tuesday with my recap of the semifinals. This is where I'd say anything can happen but having watched the quarterfinals I think we all know that ship has sailed.

Do Media Scandals Change The Minds Of People Voting for President Before 2016? Part 1:Six Times When Huge Scandals Did Not Stop the Electorate from Making Candidates President

 

So many times in the past decade when I was watching CNN or MSNBC or read any major newspaper online or in hard copy, I heard the word 'unprecedented' in regard to Donald Trump. Perhaps most often every time he ran for the Presidency that word was used into the way the media couldn't comprehend how his morally repugnant actions as well as all of the scandals that were in regard to him did nothing to shake how his voters continued to support him. I kept hearing some version of how 'in old days this-and-this would have doomed him with the electorate.'

I admit that was shocking to me at the time. But the more I look at the history of Presidential elections both in the long view and comparatively recently I increasingly wonder if that particular part was ever true. And the more I look at it I think the idea that scandals that were big deals in the media ending Presidential candidacies is, well it has to be said, a creation of the media.

Part of me wonders if the reporters were so shocked by what they were seeing that they stopped doing their homework or if they decided to pick and choose the elements that they reported to their viewers and readers. Because the hard truth of the matter is that in the 200 years since the Presidency was chosen by popular vote there has always been a disconnect between whether scandals – be they moral, financial or even downright criminal – has altered the opinion of the electorate when it comes to voting for President. It may be taken to its most extreme version in the last decade but that doesn't mean its unprecedented.

To be clear I'm not denying that scandals have done their part to end the political life of state and local officials so many times over the history of the Republic. I am saying that there has always been a disconnect between a candidate's behavior and whether the voters are so devoted to what he represents (it is he in the case of the Presidency) that they will still vote for him regardless of anything he's done.

The most extreme example in the 20^th century was the case of the Socialist Candidate for President Eugene V. Debs.  Debs ran as a third party candidate on the Socialist Party ticket five times between 1900 and 1920. It's that last run I want to focus one for reasons that will become clear immediately.

During World War I many socialist leaders were arrested under the Sedition Act for being against fighting in the war. He was tried and convicted and was sentenced to ten years in prison. Despite that fact the Socialist Party nominated him for President at their annual convention in May of 1920. Many believed that this was rally the cause in America which was beginning to flag in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's formation. In accepting the speech Debs went out of his way to say he was in favor of the Russian Revolution. Debs and the party thought this would lead to the incumbent Woodrow Wilson pardoning him. Wilson, who had always been a petty man before the failure of Congress to accept the League of Nations, made it clear he considered Debs a traitor and that he would never do so.

Despite this the Socialist Party chose to keep Debs as their candidate anyway. Campaign literature proudly referred to him as 'Prisoner No. 9653'. It's worth noting the Socialist Party, which had elected multiple candidates across the country during the first two decades of the century was wrenched by internal division. Debs received over 919,799 votes that November, which represented little more than 3 percent of the total but still the highest number of votes Debs ever received when running for President. It was a protest vote but the fact remained just under a million voters were willing to vote for a man who couldn't serve in the White House even had he been elected.

That faithfulness is at least part of the reason I was always skeptical of the idea that even had Trump been convicted it would diminish his following among his followers.  Debs was always a fringe candidate and Trump, despite everything the media wants to say, never was.

This case, however, is not one I wish to highlight because it is a fringe movement. There were six other Presidential candidates of the two major parties who in the 19^th and well into the end of the last century all dealt with the kinds of scandals that were so controversial at the time in many cases they should have cost the candidate the White House. Not only didn't they but in many cases the electorate couldn't have made it clearer that they cared less about what the media told them even when it was true.

 

1872: Grant runs for reelection

 

By 1871, a new term had entered the political lexicon: ‘Grantism’. It was not a compliment. Grant’s administration had the reputation of being notoriously corrupt, even though Grant himself was honest. This was not necessarily on Grant: American politics in the 1870s and 1880s was notoriously corrupt as the robber barons and big business began to take a hold in every aspect of politics as every level. But Grant seemed particularly incompetent when it came to choosing who advised him: at the position of Attorney General alone, five men would hold the office due to multiple resignation from scandals. Grant was also perceived as incompetent as leader, and rumors about his drinking in the Oval Office were rampant even by his allies.

Nevertheless the Republicans nominated Grant for President in 1872 by acclimation. His Vice President Schuyler Colfax had been forced to step down because of a corruption scandal and they named Henry Wilson his Vice President this time.

Grant should have been easy picking for a good candidate. Fortunately his opponent was Horace Greeley, the nominee of the Liberal Republicans and the Democrats. The kindest thing one could say about Greeley was that he was a national celebrity. As a publisher he had the reputation of a busybody who had been a gadfly in politicians ears (Lincoln had loathed him) He was personally unctuous, had been known to embrace causes such as vegetarianism that were outside the societal norm and had isolated many of his supporters when he had posted bail for Jefferson Davis when the former President of the Confederacy was being tried for treason. Worst of all, Greeley had spent almost his entire career in journalism attacking everything the Democratic Party stood for, especially in the Northeast.

. Grant’s administration was deeply flawed and easy to campaign against, but with Greeley as his opponent, he was unbeatable. The result was a disaster both for the Liberal Republicans and Greeley personally. Grant won in a landslide carrying 30 states and 286 electoral votes. Not long after the election Greeley’s wife died, he was institutionalized and he died on November 29^th 1872, less than a month after election day.

If anything Grant’s second term was worse than his first. A national depression hit the country in 1873 and a veto of what was a version of a stimulus bill caused the Republicans to lose the house in 1874, giving the Democrats control for the first time since the before the War. The Whiskey Ring did much to hurt his cabinet and his Secretary of Ware was discovered to be guilty of taking kickbacks and was impeached by the Houses. Grants own brother was indicted in a corruption scandal. Despite all of that, Grant considered running for an unprecedented third term, but the scandals were so great he decided against running. That year. Four years later he threw his hat back in the ring for a third term. It was a battle between Grant and James G. Blaine (we'll get back to him later) and eventually the Republican delegates turned to…

 

 

1880: James Garfield and Credit Mobilier

 

James Garfield had been a dark horse candidate (he'd actually declined the nomination the first time it was offered) but many thought he was the hope of the party. He did, however, have one big mark against him.

When the Transcontinental Railroad was being built one of the companies involved was known as Credit Mobilier. Its founders had created it to believe that is was responsible for constructing the railroad, not operating it. It was a sham company to charge the government extortionate fees and expenses during the construction. The scheme most operated through fraudulent accounting practices. In order to gain influence multiple Congressional members were bribed with cash and stock in exchange for votes favorable to the company. (You have to love the Gilded Age. These days it would just be campaign contributions to a PAC.)

The scandal broke just prior to the 1872 election. Multiple Congressmen were named, including Colfax and Wilson. Garfield had been among those allegedly offered stock or profits but he testified that he had not been offered any. This didn't stop Democrats attacking Garfield for being corrupt (there's evidence that his account of dealings was less than honest) as opposed to Hancock who was a bastion of integrity. Indeed the Republicans were reluctant to criticize the man considered the hero of Gettysburg.

It turned out to be the closest election in the popular vote in history: Garfield defeated Hancock by less then 2000 votes out of over nine million cast. Over 80 percent of eligible voters participated the highest turnout in American history. The Electoral College vote was more decisive. Each man carried 19 states but Garfield's triumphs in the North gave him 214 electoral votes to Hancock's 155.

 

 

 

 

1884: Ma, Ma Where's My Pa?

In my opinion few things demonstrate the more repressed nature of the American people then the 'Scandal' that rocked Grover Cleveland's first run for the Presidency in 1884.

Cleveland was a bachelor when he ran for office the first time. During the 1870s he'd had a relationship with a widow named Maria Halpin. In July of 1884 a minister argued that Cleveland had father an illegitimate child when he was an attorney in Buffalo.

Cleveland immediately told his supporters: "Above all, tell the truth." He admitted he had paid some child support to the woman who claimed to father the child but the paternity was uncertain.

The Republicans showing the same high standards they too often do today published an affidavit that she had been practically a virgin; Cleveland was the father of her child and that she'd been institutionalized. (Halpin was impossible to locate so the truth is still uncertain.) The campaign again used perfect candor, saying that Cleveland had had an 'illicit connection' with Halpin, there was a child but there was no proof he was the father, and all he done was his moral duty.

Just to be clear Grover Cleveland, a bachelor, had sex with a widow and might have fathered a child with her. If you think that Republicans are always obsessed with what goes on our bedrooms, this might be where it starts. Indeed Blaine's supporters would condemn Cleveland's campaign with the chant: "Ma, Ma, Where's my Pa?"

The thing is the man run against Cleveland James G. Blaine was far from morally spotless. (We'll deal with him in the next article in the series.) And his moral corruption bother voters far more than Cleveland private affairs.

It was nearly as close an election as four years earlier, even in the electoral college. But Cleveland prevailed with 219 electoral votes to Blaine's 182. And as a result after he won his supporters now had an answer to the Republicans chant: "Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha."

 

1920: The First of the Second-Raters Wasn't Even That

As a historian I try to be objective. But looking back on it the 1920 election is one of those where I can't help look at the American electorate and say: "Guys, you really let us down."

Warren Harding's own campaign manager advocated for him by saying: "There are no first-raters this year and Harding's the best of the second-raters."  That's not a ringing endorsement from the man who knew him best. Harding had multiple affairs, one of which was statutory rape that he only got away with due to bribing a hotelier. He fathered a child with her and by the time he had been nominated for President the RNC sent her on a goodwill tour of China. That was just the most well-known of his affairs; there were at last several others and quite a few pregnancies and abortions.  There was also the problem that many suspected he had 'Negro blood' – in the era of the KKK that was tantamount to a vote-killer. In addition to everything else he had a bad heart and blood pressure even before he starting running in 1919. His own wife didn't think he'd survive his term – an accurate prophecy.

And on the campaign trail he was often boring and mangled words so badly that H.L. Mencken coined the term 'Gamilielese' to refer to it.

And the electorate responding by giving Harding the biggest electoral landslide to that point in American history. He was the first candidate to receive 60 percent of the popular vote and he crushed his opponent James W. Cox by a margin of nearly 2-1. He won by 7 million votes the largest plurality to that point in history. Joe Tumulty the head of the DNC said: "It wasn't a landslide; it was an earthquake.

Much of what Harding did, to be fair, was unknown at the time and much of the worst parts could be found in the future. Still its striking that the Presidential candidate who to that point in history was the most unfaithful in private life (there were far more to be found in the decades to come) was elected by the largest margin in American history to that point.

It must be admitted much of it has to due with the times: by 1919 America was so sick of all things Woodrow Wilson any Republican would have probably swept the victory. But even by the terms of the second raters that were eligible by any measure Harding was fourth-rate at best even before he took office. Afterwards it got worse for him and the country.

 

 

1972: They Knew About Watergate. Nixon won anyway

This one is going to get the most pushback considering that Watergate did bring down Richard Nixon. But the thing is it only happened after two years of ruthless investigation. The thing is Theodore White devotes an entire chapter to in his 1972 Making of the President series. He reminds us the burglary did take place in July of that year and that during the fall of that year both the press and the McGovern campaign tried to make as much a deal of it is possible. However:

By early October, reported the Gallup poll, 52 percent of the public had read or heard about the Watergate affair but four out of five thought it was not a reason to vote for George McGovern. On October 19^th, the Harris Poll said that 76 percent of those polled had heard something about it  - and 62 percent of all those polled dismissed the matter as 'just politics'.

White makes an argument that hearing about Watergate was a factor in many Americans not going to the polls go all together. He also points out that of the 42 states that offered a vote for a statewide race (Senator or Governor) in fully nineteen of them in those races ran ahead of the candidates in both parties. In 23 of the states of the union despite the passage of the 26^TH Amendment enfranchises 18-21 year olds, the total vote for President was less then it had been four years earlier.

But even allowing for that factor White sees no scenario where McGovern  - or for that matter, any Democrat – could have beaten Richard Nixon that year. That is the dual tragedy of the Watergate affair. It's not just that it was unnecessary for the purposes of Nixon's victory; it's that there was clearly awareness of it at the time – and rather then encourage the voters to go for McGovern en mass they thought he was so incompetent that they decided not to vote at all.

White acknowledges that point: "The after-myth of a contrived or rigged election cannot change (the facts). Americans were giving an open choice of ideas, a free choice of direction and they chose Richard Nixon." Even Woodward and Bernstein knew it was a fait accompli. In a section of the book that is forgotten both men are present when a pool is going at the Washington Post as to who's going to win. Both men are sure Nixon will win in a landslide Both men have a clear idea of what Watergate means and neither believe it will change the electorate's difference one bit. As indeed it didn't. Nixon won forty-nine of fifty states, 520 electoral votes and 60.7 percent of the popular vote.

 Millions of Americans had agreed that 'Nixon's The One." Within a matter of months many regretted their decision

 

1992: The Comeback Kid

Bill Clinton is the only candidate here that falls under a different standard, mainly because in the era of post-Watergate the media had engaged in the kind of over-policing that had done much to wreck the candidacies of so many men. (Even then there were limits to it; they never got anywhere with Ronald Reagan.) Four years earlier Joe Biden had decided to quit the race for the Democratic nomination because of a bizarre plagiarism scandal that even the media admitted was the definition of trivial. (Short term, it saved his life; long-term it did nothing to stop his presidential prospects.)

Bill Clinton had been the kind of candidate who had minor flaws, any one of which had brought other contenders to ruin. He'd bobbled an issue of smoking pot or whether he'd dodged the draft. But the biggest scandal which developed in the weeks prior to the New Hampshire primary was his reported affair with Gennifer Flowers. Five years earlier a reported infidelity had forced Gary Hart to end his candidacy and there was no reason to expect that Clinton would face any more of a rejection.

And yet in the New Hampshire primary he managed to finish in a respectable second place to Paul Tsongas. He would face his share of challenges the rest of the way but eventually Clinton would earn the Democratic nomination and win the White House, eventually becoming the first Democrat to win reelection in his own right since FDR. He never truly escaped the 'Slick Willy' moniker but when he left the White House he was still incredibly popular with the electorate.

 

Now I need to be clear about what I'm saying and what I'm not saying.

I'm not saying that the voters made the right choice in each of these elections. Grant, Harding and Nixon rank on any historians list of the five worst Presidents of all time. The fact that all three men won elected office by (in successive order) the biggest electoral margins of any Republican President to that time has to rank as some of the poorest decisions the American voter ever made.

And it is not as though that these scandals were the only factor causing people to vote for the winner.  Horace Greeley and George McGovern ran two of the most poorly run campaigns for the White House in the long history of the electorate. And as I'll write about in the next series of articles James G. Blaine, who ran against Cleveland, had far more serious scandals that were public then Cleveland had and may have fallen victim to the first October surprise.

But the historical and electoral record are very clear. All six candidates running for President had scandals that involved the two biggest problems: corruption and sexual infidelity. The public was very aware of them at the time they happened. And despite all the media's efforts to make it clear how genuinely flawed these men were, the electorate sent a very different message: its not enough to stop us from voting for them.

Now if you are the kind of person who wrings their hands about the purported intelligence of the electorate every time they choose a candidate for elected office that is at best intellectually lacking and at worst morally corrupt this will no doubt confirm your worst feeling about the voters. Or if you wanted to look at it a different way, you could argue the electorate is far less susceptible to being brainwashed by any media and will make up its own mind, regardless of what the bigger forces think.

The reason I come away with the latter feeling is because of one election that doesn't fall under the mantle of what I said: FDR's first reelection in 1936. By that point it was the decision of the very conservative media that Roosevelt was a dangerous man running roughshod over the Constitution and 'a traitor to his class'. Most of the media was under the control of men like William Randolph Hearst and Henry Luce as well as other conglomerates. According to the historical records, fully two-thirds of all publications endorsed the Republican candidate for President Alf Landon.

The night of FDR's historic landslide, in which he broke all records by carrying more than 60 percent of the vote and 46 of 48 states, two of Hearst's son came into a New York nightclub hoping to drown their sorrows and not to be recognized. A twenty year old master of ceremonies named Jackie Gleason recognized them instantly as they came in.

Without missing a beat he said: "Ah here come Maine and Vermont!"

Hearst was very much the Rupert Murdoch of his day and had done everything in his power to put a Republican in the White House.

He made his message clear. The people, as is always the way, sent their own.

 

Emmy Watch 2026 Phase 2: My Reactions to the 2026 Saturn TV Nominations

 

The Saturn Awards, which honor the best achievements in science fiction in film and TV have existed since 1972 and have been expanding ever since. That is particularly in television where they gave a basic set of awards in the 1990s.

This made sense because sci-fi has basically been on the fringe elements of TV even starting in the 1990s. It has been front and center of Peak TV almost since Saturn started giving nominations in this category. Buffy the Vampire Slayer debuted in 1997 and slowly but surely a group of great genre dramas have filled the contours. Some, like Lost and Game of Thrones the Emmys worshipped, others like Battlestar Galactica and Smallville they all but ignored.

Now if it were merely to look at this as an alternative to the Emmys the Saturn's would be interesting enough. But as anyone whose paid attention to the Emmy nominations in the past decade sci-fi and alternative history has essentially become mainstream. Every year for the last decade at least two of the nominees for Drama have been some form of sci-fi or fantasy and they've been winning awards that go outside the technical. I'm not just talking about Game of Thrones but Westworld and The Handmaid's Tale, The Mandalorian and Stranger Things.

During the 2023 Emmys sci-fi and genre TV were dominant in a way unthinkable years ago: no less than four of the nominees for Best Drama had some kind of genre link to them. Alphabetically they were the first seasons of Andor, The Last of Us, House of the Dragon and Season 2 of Yellowjackets.  Combined with Wednesday's nomination for Best Comedy and Obi-Wan Kenobi being nominated for Best Limited Series genre TV had never had such a showing before. This past year alone we saw a similar presence with the second season of Andor, The Last of Us and Severance being among the biggest nominees and winners at the Emmys.

So with genre TV being bigger in prestige television then at any point in the history of the medium looking at the Saturn nominations could very well give the astute critic hints at what the Emmys might do in a few months' time. To be sure none of the series I've listed will be eligible this year but the final season of Stranger Things and the new season of Fallout will be and both have done superbly at the Emmy nominations in year's past. Those who chose to overlook the nominations could very well do so at their own peril. (They might also give look to the Oscars this year, too, but one award show at  a time.)

So let's go through it.

 

BEST SCIENCE FICTION TELEVISION SERIES.

Andor and Severance have already contended for Emmys this past year. It's unlikely any of the nominees in this particular category should or will, despite some of them being superb shows such as Foundation and Silo. Strange New Worlds and The Ark have little chance.

 

BEST FANTASY TELEVISION SERIES

The final season of Stranger Things might very well contend for Emmys and considering how well it did for its first season the second season of Wednesday will likely be a major contender.

Ghosts has done remarkably well in achieving nominations and awards from other critics groups except the Emmys. Outlander has never been able to crack the Emmy barrier despite doing well with almost every other major awards show, from the Golden Globes to the Astras. Mayfair Witches and The Librarians have no chance.

 

BEST HORROR TV SERIES

The Last of Us did contend and you'll get no argument from me Yellowjackets should have.  I would be perfectly fine if Welcome to Derry got some nominations; I'm less sure about The Institute. Talamasca and The Walking Dead have no chance.

 

BEST NEW GENRE TV SERIES

Pluribus is almost certainly going to be a front runner for most major awards this season and Alien: Earth was nominated for Best Drama by the Critics' Choice Awards.

Skeleton Crew has no chance and the biggest from with House of Ashur, Blood of My Blood and Robin Hood is less their genre then their networks – the Emmys hasn't shown much love to Starz or MGM+ in my lifetime which is their mistake.

 

BEST ACTION ADVENTURE SERIES

Season 1 of Paradise was nominated for Emmys this past year and very well might contend for Emmys this year. Squid Game's high point came in Season 1 and with one exception the Emms never showed much love for Cobra Kai.  Duster has already been cancelled and Twisted Metal and Reacher aren't the kinds of shows the Emmys likes.

 

BEST THRILLER TV

The Lowdown absolutely should contend for nominations and I've been saying the Emmys should nominate Dark Winds for at least two years.

Honestly the Emmys  could do worse with the majority of the nominees in this category. Whether its Dexter: Resurrection, Mobland, The Rainmaker and Your Friends and Neighbors.

 

BEST SUPERHERO TV SERIES

Don't kid yourself; The Sandman is irrevocably tainted for obvious reasons.

Many of these shows have contended for other awards in the past year. I've seen Peacemaker, Daredevil Born Again, Gen V and Iron Heart all contend for awards from multiple critics groups. Realistically the only show that has a chance is Invincible and that's because it's animated.

 

BEST TV PRESENTATION OR LIMITED SERIES

This seems almost to deal with 'miscellaneous'. The Pitt is going to contend, obviously. Black Mirror already did and The Beast in Me will. Murderbot did get a nomination for Alexander Skarsgard, so it can't be taken for granted. Sorry AMC, no chance for Nautilus or Daryl Dixon.

 

ANIMATED TV SERIES

I can't foresee what the Emmys will do here so I'll leave it be. For what its worth Harley Quinn has been a big winner over the years.

 

BEST ACTOR IN A TV SERIES

Adam Scott and Sterling K. Brown were nominated last year and Brown might be again. Diego Luna probably should have been nominated for an Emmy last year.

Michael C. Hall has been nominated for five Emmys for Dexter so he could very well contend this year. He has yet to win in this category. Sam Heughan has no realistic chance for Outlander and no one is taking John Cena or Norman Reedus seriously. Sorry.

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A TV SERIES.

Britt Lower won the Emmy this year. Rhea Seehorn is currently the front runner for the Emmy this year for Pluribus. Jenna Ortega is almost certainly going to be nominated again for Wednesday. Millie Bobby Brown has gotten nominated for – and honestly should have won at least once – for Stranger Things can't rule it out.

Catriona Balfe has gotten nominations from everybody but the Emmys and sadly I don't see that changing. Melissa McBride has gotten some nominations for Walking Dead from some critics groups but I don't think the Emmys takes the show seriously.  Sydney Chandler might be a dark horse for Alien: Earth.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A TV SERIES

James Marsden was nominated for an Emmy and Stellan Skarsgard absolutely should have been for Andor. All the others theoretically could be considered.

Babou Cessay has the most realistic chance for Alien: Earth. The rest of the nominees all have increasingly unlikely chances.  I love William Fichtner but the Emmys never recognize him for anything, ditto Jude Law. Jack Alcott's work in Resurrection was  a massive improvement from New Blood but will it be enough? I don't know enough about Strange New Worlds to theorize.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A TV SERIES

A mirror of last year's Emmys. Julianne Nicholson was deservedly nominated for Paradise and Genevieve O'Reilly should have been for Andor. (I'm less sure about Denise Gough.)

Karolina Wydra will almost certainly be  a contender for her work in Pluribus and personally I'd love to see Uma Thurman nominated for Resurrection. Jennifer Holland and Christina Chong have no real chance

 

BEST GUEST STAR

Speaking for myself I'd love to see either Peter Dinklage or Dave Dastmalchian nominated for Resurrection. (Dastmalchian played Gemini, so that took work.) James Remar was recognized for Welcome to Derry which is the correct show and its going to be a Skarsgard family reunion as Bill is nominated for Welcome to Derry. Samba Schutte might get nominated for Pluribus and we all want Linda Hamilton to get nominated for something.

 

BEST YOUNGER PERFORMER IN A TV SERIES

I have zero trouble with either of the nominees for Welcome To Derry, love that Joe Freeman was nominated for The Institute and am glad that Noah Schnapp and Sadie Sink were nominated for the final season of Stranger Things.  Am I disappointed that nominees from Skeleton Crew and Gen V are here instead of any of the wonderful girls from Yellowjackets?  Honestly many of them may be too old to contend by now.

 

When the awards are given I will check in on the winners because in this case I'll be curious if the acting ones follow a similar or superior path when it comes to last year.  That aside I'm genuinely impressed with the caliber of the majority of the nominees in every category, including acting.  Many of these series will contend in the months to come and many of them should contend across the board.

Put another way I have fewer notes for this group then I did the Golden Globes this past year. And even though it’s a different kind of nominees, considering what I think of their history with TV that's saying a lot for me.

I'll see you later this month with my predictions for the SAG-AFTRA TV Awards.

Edward Brooke: A Groundbreaking Politician Who Doesn't Fit Easily in Any Box

 

In a complicated world it is tempting to look at history and find narratives that, if read a certain way, make the path to today's present seem inevitable. This is particularly tempting when it comes to the political situation in America when both sides and every ideology cherry picks our history to fit a certain narrative.

But history has never worked that way and what seems inevitable in hindsight would strikes those who lived through as ridiculous at the time. Take the narrative of the 1964 presidential election. With the benefit of more than sixty years both sides will argue that their respective political party's makeup was set in stone because of events in that fateful year. Those on the far left will argue that it was the passage of the Civil Rights Act that handed the South to the Republican Party.  Those on the right will hail Goldwater for being the bulwark for conservative politics and led the path to the conservative revolution which found its fruition in the Reagan landslide in 1980.

The problem is this narrative goes against what both sides took away from while that election was going on and in its immediate aftermath.  Indeed Goldwater himself never thought he had a chance of winning and knew from the moment he clinched the nomination that his campaign was going to end in disaster.  Indeed Goldwater had every reason to assume it would end his political life because he was up for reelection in the Senate that year and chose to commit to the campaign and run for President instead.  When he lost in the biggest electoral defeat for any candidate to that point in the popular vote. LBJ had gotten 61 percent to Goldwater's 37 percent, a margin of over 16 million votes.  That the Republicans had done extremely well in the South was cold comfort to a party that had been swamped in the seven other major geographic regions of the country, particularly considering Nixon had won 26 states four years earlier to Goldwater's 6 in 1964.

The Republican Party was almost relieved by the majority of the defeat: Clifton White and his conservative mentors had led what was essentially a coup over the traditional leadership to earn Goldwater the nomination. Now that he had been obliterated whatever momentum Goldwater had in the party since 1960 had been squashed flat and the party would move forward from the state and city Republicans as opposed to the Congressional ones. In what was a foreshadowing of things to come Theodore White said that there was a difference in the cleavage between these groups: "Republican governors know that government is necessary and Congressional Republicans think strong government is bad." Even after Reagan came along two years this belief would hold until at least the end of the 20^th century.

And among the many tactical mistakes Goldwater had made was one his fellow Senators had objected to the post.  Minority Leader Everett Dirksen had been integral to Senate Republicans breaking the filibuster of Southern Democrats and ultimately leading the passage of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. Only seven Republican Senators had voted against it – and one of them had been Goldwater. Dirksen, who had conservative values not out of line with Goldwater, had urged his colleague to vote for it because he knew that by voting against it would guarantee the Republicans would lose the notable gains they had been making among African-American voters in Eisenhower and Nixon's runs for the White House. But Goldwater had stood by his principles – and as a result Goldwater received only 6 percent of the African-American vote.

So in the aftermath of the disaster of 1964 the Republicans were planning to go back to the center. They could not have foreseen how the riots that would follow in the next few years – most notably in Watts – were going to fuel the 'backlash' movement that Goldwater had started. There were signs of it in the next midterms as Republican Governors won deeply Democratic states – not just Reagan in California but Spiro Agnew in Maryland and Winthrop Rockefeller in Arkansas – but it was yet unclear if that narrative would hold true in Congress where the bigger issue was the increasing disaster the Vietnam War was becoming. And while Strom Thurmond had managed to win election to the Senate having changed parties another candidates election gave a different narrative to where the Republican Party might go.

Edward William Brooke III was born in D.C to a middle-class black family. Raised in a racially segregated environment Brooke would rarely interact with the white community. After graduating from Howard University he would enlist in the Army after Pearl Harbor. He would see combat in Italy and his fluent Italian and light skin would help him cross enemy lines to communicate with Italian partisans. He would also meet his future wife Remigia Ferrari-Scacco in Italy.

Exposed to the inequality and racism in the army and combined with FDR's decision to order Japanese-Americans interned during the duration, he began to rethink his support of him. He would eventually achieve the rank of captain and receive the Bronze star and a Distinguished Service Award.

In 1950 he entered politics for the first time when he ran for a seat in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. At the time he affiliated with neither party and chose to run in both primaries. He won the Republican nomination but lost in the general to a Democrat opponent and would lose again 2 years later. In 1960 he ran for secretary of the Commonwealth and won the Republican nomination. However he lost to the future Mayor of Boston Kevin White. The campaign issued a bumper sticker 'Vote White', which many took as a reference to his race. Despite the race's closeness Republican Governor John Volpe offered him a number of jobs. Brooke eventually accepted a position on the Boston Finance Commission. He would then run for State Attorney General and win in 1962, the first African-American of either party to win that office at a state level.

When Goldwater was nominated for President Brooke found his nomination offensive and publicly broke with it, imploring his fellow Republicans "not to invest in the pseudo-conservatism of zealots." While Goldwater lost Massachusetts in a landslide (he received just 23.4 percent of the vote) Brooke would win reelection to his office by nearly 800,000 votes. By 1965 Brooke had emerged as the main Republican spokesman for racial equality.

In 1966 he would run against former Governor Endicott Peabody for the Senate Seat that the Republicans had held in that state, defeating him by nearly half a million votes. As Time wrote the black vote had 'no measurable bearing on the election as less then 3 percent of the vote was black and both Peabody and Brooke were pro-civil rights. Brooke condemned both Stokely Carmichael and Georgia's Lester Maddox as extremists. He was the first African-American since Reconstruction to be elected to the Senate and the first one ever elected by popular vote.

Brooke would later say that "In all my years at the Senate, I never encountered an overt act of bigotry." He recalled visited the swimming pool in the Senate Office building where Thurmond and fellow segregationist senators John McLellan of Arkansas and John Stennis of Mississippi invited him to join him in the pool 'without hesitation or ill will. These were men who consistently voted against legislation that would have provided equal opportunity to others of my race…it was increasingly evident that some members of the Senate played on bigotry purely for political gain."

Romney was a member of the moderate to the liberal Northeastern wing of the part and would organize  'the Wednesday club' of progressive Republicans for strategy sessions. He supported first George Romney of Michigan and Nelson Rockefeller's bid for the Presidential nomination against Richard Nixon, mainly because he frequently differed with the future President on matters of social policy and civil rights. When he visited Vietnam he broke with his party in arguing that negotiations rather than escalation were necessary.

By his second year in the Senate Brooke took his place as an advocate against discrimination in Housing and affordable housing. He would work with Walter Mondale to co-author the 1968 Fair House Act which would create HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. LBJ would sign the Fair Housing Act into law on April 11^th, one week after the assassination of Martin Luther King. He would also be the father of the Brooke Amendment to the assisting housing program which limited the tenants out-of-pocket rent expenditure to 25 percent of the income. Furthermore he would vote to confirm Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme court. During Nixon's administration he would consistently oppose the attempts to close down foundational element of Johnson's Great Society program.

In 1969 Brokke spoke at Wellesley College commencement against 'coercive protest, calling some students 'elite ne-er do well's." The student body president Hilary Rodham would depart from her planned speech to rebut Brooke's words, affirming the 'indispensable task of criticizing constructive protest.""

Brooke would vote to confirm many of Richard Nixon's nominees to the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun and Lewis Powell. But he also helped lead Republican opposition of Clement Haynsworth and Harrold Carswell to the bench and voted against Rehnquist's nomination as associate justice. Despite his opposition to many positions Nixon took Brooke respected him. He'd offered to name him to cabinet of ambassador when he was elected and was speculated as a possible replacement for Spiro Agnew during the lead-up to the 1972 election. That year Brooke won reelection in landslide over Democrat John J. Droney. Considering that Nixon's 49 state landslide nevertheless resulted in the Democrats gaining two seats in the Senate the fact that Brooke won by nearly thirty percent in the only state George McGovern would carry was one of the few highpoints for Senate Republicans that year.

Brooke then became the first Republican to call on Nixon resign immediately after the so-called Saturday Night Massacre, actually going so far as to recommend it to the President one week after words. By this point he was the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee and on Appropriations.  He was responsible for vital legislation during that decade, including enactment of the E      qual Credit Opportunity Act and leading the fight to retain title IX.

In 1975 the extension of the Voting Rights Act was at state, Brooke would face John Stennis is extended debate and it was in large part due to that it won extension to the first time. In 1976 he would also take on support for wide-scale legalized abortion. This led to a battle by the Anti-Abortion crusade and would weaken his support among Catholics vital in a state like Massachusetts. Despite speculation that Gerald Ford might consider him as a running mate Ford chose Robert Dole. This decision ended up costing him his Senate seat as he would be defeated by Paul Tsongas in 1978, one of the few Democratic gains during that year's midterms. Brooke would be the longest serving African-American Senator in history until Cory Booker surpassed his tenure in 2025.

Brooke's accomplishments are as groundbreaking in political history as Adam Clayton Powell in the House, Douglas Wilder would be for governors and would lead to Barack Obama's election. (Brooke would endorse him in 2008). Yet only ten years after he passed away he has become nearly forgotten by every aspect of his career, be it the GOP or Congress. And while African-Americans have spent so much of the last decade seemingly drawing attention to every single African-American who accomplished something, no matter how obscure,  I have yet to see any articles highlighting his achievements which were far more substantial and important then even I thought when I began to write this article. One suspects the reasons for this is because in the binary view of the world that so much of America holds Brooke throws a huge wrench into it.

Paradoxically given their troubled history with African-Americans for the last half-century the Republicans attempts to obscure him makes the most sense. It has far less to due with his racial background then the fact his ideology is one the party wants to forget it had. Brooke was a moderate, bordering on liberal Republican who supported civil rights, women's rights and civil liberties for gay rights – all of which sadly appeal to far too little of the GOP's base right now. He was fiscally conservative but unlike the majority of his colleagues in Congress (such as Goldwater) he was a pragmatist saying: "There are things that people can't do for themselves and therefore government must do it for them." That position was going out of style by the time Brooke lost reelection and its impossible to imagine him being able to get along with Reagan's philosophy when he became President two years later.

With African-Americans it speaks to an issue more about them rather than Brooke. By the time Brooke managed his historic accomplishment 'the movement' was beginning to lose interest in politics and was focusing far more on activism.  By any logical construct Brooke was doing far more for civil rights and African-Americans during the 1960s and 1970s then any of those who were in charge including the rising star Jesse Jackson.  (It couldn't have helped that he considered Stokely Carmichael and Lester Maddox in the same breath.)

I have little doubt that despite the fact he was doing everything he could for his people Brooke heard the expression 'Uncle Tom' over and over. The African-American community, then as now, had a low opinion of the Republican Party even when so many of their Congressional members were on their side when it came to civil rights during the 1950s and 1960s. (To be fair, they didn't much like Democrats either.) In large part this may have been due to their simplistic view of how the government worked. When Ralph Abernathy, a key member of the civil rights movement visited Nixon's White House they made it clear that they believed all the President had to do was press a button and the government would give them what they needed. (This theory of progressive politics has remained steady for half a century; under Obama is was referred to as the magic lantern theory.)

Brooke was in a position to understand this was not the case and he devoted his career to fighting the tide to make it work for the underprivileged. And it is worth noting his battles showed genuine political courage as opposed to that of the activist. Turning against Richard Nixon, fighting battles for civil rights in Congress and fighting for things such as housing and abortion were brave stands, particularly in a party that was going against it and for a state that didn't have enough African-American support to help him if he went too far to the left for his own good.

The circumstances of Brooke's election and reelection are also not things the Democrats are interested in highlighting either. For one there is the fact that Brooke's battle against segregationists remind people that not all of the segregationists marched out of the Democratic Party like Strom Thurmond did and that many of them were present until the early 1980s. For a party that wants to argue that it has always been the party of equality and civil rights and that bigotry and prejudice have always been the property of the GOP this is something they would rather not mention in Daily Kos.

And from a political standpoint Brooke's accomplishment point out another major weakness for the Democrats when it came to running for the Senate, particularly in the South. It is far easier for a white man to get elected as a Democrat then an African-American. The decision to ignore this reality, particularly in the last decade, has caused them to lose so many races that they could win. And it points out the uncomfortable truth that it is easier for a minority to run as a Republican in these states and win. It's why Tim Scott was able to win election in South Carolina in 2016 but Jamie Harrison was humiliated by Lindsey Graham when he ran against him in 2020. It's why Beto O'Rourke came far closer to defeating Ted Cruz in 2018 than Colin Allred did in 2024 – and why I have serious doubts that no matter who the Republicans nominate in 2026 Jasmine Crockett will be able to be them. Only in Georgia was Raphael Warnock able to win a Senate seat. But it's worth remembering that when he won reelection in 2022, Stacey Abrams was trounced by Brian Kemp when the two had a rematch for governor of that state.

In the era of identity politics it is easy – too easy – too argue that when a minority candidate runs for elected office and losing to a white Republican that it is bigotry that elected them, particularly in the South. Increasingly in my lifetime I've heard the argument made whenever a female candidate or a minority candidate runs for President and whenever question about their qualifications, the response is typical: "If they were a white man, you wouldn't ask that question." The problem is when you're running for any political office electability is the only question that is important for a candidate.  And coming from my perspective as a Democrat if you choose to ignore as a liability I can assure you the opposition won't.

In recent years there has been much attention paid to Shirley Chisholm's run for the Democratic nomination in 1972, both as an African-American and as a woman. But the fact she wasn't even through her second term in Congress before she chose to run for the Democratic nomination. If she had been a white man and made that decision everybody in politics would have immediately said that he had no business running for the highest office in the land. The candidacy was not taken seriously because there was no reason to take it seriously. And neither did the voters. The most she got in any state was 157.435 votes or 4.5 percent in California which amounted to 2.7 percent of the vote and 26 delegates.  It was not a serious candidacy and never had any chance of getting anywhere and yet she is held in higher regard by African-Americans then Brooke even though he got nearly three times as many votes in Massachusetts then she did in her entire primary run.

In my lifetime the only thing the Chisholm campaign inspired was a series of unqualified African-Americans in either party making runs for the Presidency with nothing more to advocate for them then their race. With the sole exception of Jesse Jackson's 1988 run, between 1984 and 2004 they were basically empty suits, from Alan Keyes to Alan Sharpton to Carol Moseley Braun and later on Herman Cain. We've seen similar patterns play out for so many other underqualified female and minority candidates throughout this century and by any logical standard so was Kamala Harris' 2020 run for the Democratic nomination.  By contrast both Nikki Haley and Tim Scott were far more qualified in terms of legislative and governing experience.

Brooke very well might have made a good Presidential candidate had the party been willing to go in that direction during the 1970s. It would have been a harder road for him then it would be future candidates such as Obama but he would have been more qualified then Jesse Jackson when he ran or men such as Keyes and Sharpton. Brooke would have understand how the corridors of power worked, how to reach across party lines and when to stand against your leadership. I don't know if when Cory Booker made his rec0rd breaking speech last year he was thinking of the legacy of Brooke or how it made it possible for him to be there. But I think Brooke would have been proud of him, even if Booker would not have thought the same thing.