Jeopardy Season 42 Update: Characters Welcome

 

 

As I've mentioned more than once in my articles about Jeopardy not long before Alex Trebek passed away I was attempting to write on the 100 greatest champions in history. By the time we were two full years into the post-Trebek era the book was on hiatus and will probably never be published which, if I'm being honest, probably is the best thing for it.

Looking back on it years later one of the biggest issues was that the writing was very much that of an encyclopedia with little to interest someone who wasn't a Jeopardy fan. Part of it may have been because this was the most impersonal set of non-fiction writing I've done with almost none of my love of the show in it. However in recent years I've begun to think they may not have been my only problem.

I'd watched Jeopardy for more than a quarter of a century before I began to write the book on the subject. When I was writing it I mostly focused on the details of how each champion played the game, how they did on Daily Doubles, etc. Part of it was that my personality wasn't there but another problem was there wasn't a lot of the contestants personality. And that is at least partially my fault.

Jeopardy is an incredible show in large part because it was – and still is – perhaps the only game show where everybody takes themselves seriously. The contestants are the stars of the show and one of the things that makes them stars is just how intelligent they were and the breadth and depth of the knowledge they had. That's what makes it a great show.

What it doesn't necessarily lead to is the kind of personalities that lend itself to great writing. Jeopardy is a competition, mental rather than physical, but a competition and part of what makes a great competition is the personalities of the stars. And that's the one area where Jeopardy is lacking in comparison not just to television as a whole but other game shows. When you have to take the show seriously as you do Jeopardy there isn't a lot of room for antics or quirks. This was especially true when the show had a five game limit for champions – a week rarely gives anybody a chance to establish themselves as an individual on a TV show – and it really didn't change much after the limit was removed. For all his incredible intellect and competitiveness Ken Jennings really didn't get a chance to show much in the way of a personality during his incredible 74 game run. In the many postseason tournaments that followed he would get a chance to do so, particularly as he played against many of his fellow competitors but not much at first.

The same has to be said for almost every great Jeopardy player for much of the Trebek era, even when it comes to winners of Tournaments of Champions. Chuck Forrest and Frank Spangenberg, to take two of the most prominent of the early champions were known for their achievements on Jeopardy rather than any thing they did while they were on the show as individuals. This was true for every major winner during the five game period. Ryan Holznagel and Mike Dupee were great Jeopardy players but besides having their Tournament of Champions won in 1995 and 1996 I really couldn't tell you of any single distinctive personality trait. Gameplay is one thing, character is another.

This was true for pretty much the next fourteen years. And honestly it wasn't a flaw but something I think most viewers would respect. Indeed I'd argue its not a bug in the machinery but a sign Jeopardy is working perfectly. Everyone who has appeared on Jeopardy comes from every walk of life.  They're not actors or reality show stars; they're the average person. They're lawyers, they're teachers, accountants, students, writers, engineers, scientists, and while there are some actors, they're usually ones who didn't get their big break. The only role you're being asked to play is a game show contestant. You become a celebrity if you do well on Jeopardy, not the other way around for most entertainment.

And that's the main reason why, even though there are some fan sites devoted to Jeopardy, I only occasionally visit them and anytime someone rags on a contestant for having a personality they don't like – or indeed no personality at all – I roll my eyes. They're trying to win money on a game show answering incredibly difficult questions. They're not there to win likes and the raves of the online masses. My only qualification for a great Jeopardy champion is the number of wins and the amount of money they win. End of discussion. Likability doesn't enter to it.

That was true, by and large, of almost every super-champion while Alex Trebek was hosting. Oh, occasionally there'd be some with formidable personalities such as James Holzhauer and Austin Rogers but those were exceptions rather than the rule. I never understood what made so many people repulsed by Arthur Chu during his eleven game run or why Matt Jackson was considered so dynamic by fans. I admired them both for their incredible gameplay and I asked for little more.

I'm not sure when exactly that began to change. I don't think it began as much with the first wave of super-champions but the first Jeopardy Masters. Having four of the winningest Jeopardy players all of time sharing the stage with the winningest one in history really helped bring it out. James Holzhauer embracing the label 'self-described game show villain', Amy Schneider joking to Ken was it was like to after 40 wins because she had no one to compare it too, Mattea Roach increasing relatability (particular in the aftermath of her father's death while the tournament was being recorded), Matt Amodio's increasing wistfulness, Andrew He's charm and the utter joy that was Sam Buttrey helped make me and I suspect a generation of viewers really relate to Jeopardy champions in a way we hadn't in the decade past. That has played out in every Masters that has followed – and why I can only wait for whenever the 2026 one happens. (It's not on the summer schedule though producers say it will happen.)

While several players in Season 39 had intriguing personalities such as Ray LaLonde and Troy Meyer that combined with the endless postseason of Season 40 made it hard for them to stand out. Then in the aftermath we've been getting more great Jeopardy players who also have fascinating personalities.

We saw it with Drew Basile, who had the added advantage of having been on Survivor and Isaac Hirsch with his ridiculous suits and wonderful cheeriness, both of which were really on display in last year's Masters. There was a bit more last year from Liam Starnes being the first Jeopardy champion to be born during Ken Jennings run (which made everyone, not just Ken feel old) Kevin Laskowski a priest who seemed to know more about rap then the Bible and the lovable Drew Goins who became a fan favorite even as he earned a Second Chance (and a third)

 And then almost from the start of Season 42 it's been like great Jeopardy champions have suddenly become fascinating characters to go with them. We saw this play out in the final weeks of eligibility before the 2026 postseason began when Paolo Pasco, a crossword puzzle designer managed to win seven games in the opening weeks of the season. He was then defeated by Steven Olson, a band director who was just as much fun to watch as he was to play. Then TJ Fisher, an overly cheerful champion, lucked into 5 wins which would get him into the Tournament of Champions.

By the time the eligibility period was over we were greeted by another super-champion the extremely likable Harrison Whitaker, who won 14 games and $373,999. And ever since the postseason ended it seems like we've been getting the kinds of storylines that, if they took place in a soap opera, you wouldn't believe them.

Here's Jamie Ding, who wanted to describe himself as a faceless bureaucrat in his introduction, a man who as a boy had attended the National Geographic Bee that Alex Trebek had hosted. He went on to just win and win until he finished in fifth place in both money won and games won. The fact that's he also a child of immigrants and a person of color has led him to be the kind of person that Jeopardy as much as the world needs right now.

And how was he finally defeated? The man who won 24 runaway games lost in a runaway to chess player Greg Shahade. He won just 3 games and $74,602 but Jeopardy fans know that was more then enough for Emma Boettcher, the play who ended James Holzhauer's streak back in 2019, to be invited back to that year's TOC. That he isn't listed as qualified yet is a formality at this point.

Then less than two weeks after Jamie's run ended another super-champion arrived Tristan Williams. Tristan, who the internet compared to Woody in the Toy Story franchise made a different kind of history when he became the first player to win exactly 10 games. It's remarkable when you think about that in the 22 seasons since the five game limit was removed we've had 9 game winners and eleven game winners but no one who won ten. That meant we had three super-champions this season.

But wait, it actually gets better. Tristan was defeated last Wednesday by Chris D'Angelo. Chris has spent so much of his life to trying to make it onto Jeopardy that his sister Jen turned into a TV movie for Hulu called Quiz Lady which would star Awkwafina playing her brother and I suppose Sandra Oh is Jen. This film went on to win the Emmy for Best TV Movie in 2024. And now two years after that Chris finally made it on Jeopardy and today has officially qualified for the next Tournament of Champions. Real life has duplicated fiction in the best possible way.

For all we know Chris may become a super-champion in his own right but there's already another great storyline for the 2027 Tournament of Champions. Not one but two super-champion killers are going to be participating in the Tournament of Champions. The three players who get byes into the semifinals have already won double digits in games for the first time since the process was founded in 2022. And who else will be participating in the next Tournament of Champions?

Why Ron Lalonde, the identical twin brother of super-champion Ray Lalonde. Shonda Rhimes wouldn't write this stuff!

Now to be clear we are very much male heavy for the next Tournament of Champions: as of this writing only seven players have qualified and all of them identify as male. That's unless you count the winner of this year's Celebrity Jeopardy Mina Kimes, a journalist who happens to be an analyst on ESPN. But that's an interesting storyline as well, considering that one of the participants is the inspiration for a TV show. And as I said in a previous article any celebrity whose willing to risk national embarrassment competing against so many great Jeopardy players is okay in my book.

It's never been a necessity for a Jeopardy champion to have a good personality to go along with their great gameplay for me and other viewers. I will say its added an additional layer of pleasure to watching that I didn't realize I was missing or even needed. Just to be clear all future Jeopardy players, it's still not a requirement in your competitive play. But we're all glad when it happens.

And Chris? Now Awkwafina's going to want to get pictures with you to make her look good.

Homicide Rewatch: Narcissus

 

Written by Yaphet Kotto

Directed by Jean De Segonzac

 

When Homicide allowed cast members like Clark Johnson or Kyle Secor to take turns directing episodes this was somewhat revolutionary. These days its traditional to have cast members direct episodes whether its Ramon Rodriguez doing so for Will Trent or Zahn McLarnon doing so for Dark Winds as has happened just this past year.

Letting a cast member write an episode was far rarer and few TV series would do it during that period: only The X-Files would be willing to similarly indulge its cast. As television has become more serialized on every level and as the showrunner has taken a far greater role in TV production in the 21^st century this is something we will see happen in comedies but rarely dramas. Which makes sense: its one thing for Tina Fey or Amy Poehler to write episodes that let them stretch their creative muscles; it would be a lot to for Vince Gilligan to let Bob Odenkirk write an episode of either Breaking Bad or Better Call Saul even though has significant experience as a writer himself.  And with the average season shrinking in even network television there are simply fewer opportunities to allow this to happen.

In the case of Narcissus this may have been a case of the talent forcing the producers hand.  Yaphet Kotto would frequently grumble that even though Al Giardello was as a realistic and layered a character as his detectives, his character was rarely explored to his satisfaction.  And, apparently after meditating for five hours the inspiration for the story occurred to Kotto. How much rewriting was necessary after the first draft will never be known for sure but Kotto must have shown enough raw talent that Fontana and his colleagues would show faith in him. In each of the remaining seasons Kotto would write another script that would air close to the end of the season.

Al is put more front and center than he usually is on Homicide which one might expect. Less expected is just how much Kotto is putting forth racial issues that the series has rarely confronted directly.  Homicide was in 1997 one of most minority heavy casts on TV (and it was going to have more African-American regulars in the years that followed) and it had confronted race far more than network TV was willing to do – which may have been among the reasons it got neither immense ratings nor did well with the Emmys as its quality should have let it. But even in the relatively liberal era of the 1990s it was very difficult for any show to talk about it on network TV.

In Narcissus Kotto puts it front and center in a way the series hasn't since last seasons 'Scene of the Crime'. In that episode Homicide confronted how the Nation of Islam had taken a role in policing a black neighborhood and forced many of the African-American detectives as well as Al on different sides. In Narcissus the episode looks at it from different perspective, this time creating a militant black movement known as the African Revival Movement (Kotto never points out that the acronym is ARM and what that suggests) telling a story that has, like so many episodes of Homicide, improved with the passage of time.

In this episode Kotto asks a question both directly and indirectly: If a person is doing what is considered a greater good in public – particularly for those people that white America increasingly leaves behind  - should that overcome whatever sins you do in private?  Many in our increasingly judgmental society have done much to argue the answer must always be no, to the point of tearing down those who have done great things for the underprivileged decades earlier.

 Interestingly Kotto makes it clear from the start that he is reluctant to tear down someone so many of his people consider a role model when he learns Burundi Robinson, the man who has done so much good for the underprivileged in Baltimore, has been openly sleeping with many of the younger women within the movement, even fathering many of the young children that they see in the headquarters. His comparison of the accusations of Robinson to J. Edgar Hoover's decision to bug the Civil Rights Movement in the name of national security when in fact Hoover was a bigoted blackmailer  is a fair comparison – but it is also one that for generations many have used to defend the violent rhetoric of so many in the Black Power movement since the 1960s and beyond. Al Giardello has the advantage of being on the other side of this – he knows full well that black men are killing each other on the streets of his city and white America could care less – so he might view himself as something of a failure. That Robinson is a former cop makes the decision clearer. In the 1960s Al told Frank asked to choose between black and blue, he chose blue but we know already he has respect for those who've chosen black. The fact that he's initially willing to excuse Robinson, even though in his own words "he's a bit messianic" shows his issues.

It's possible under other circumstances he might be inclined to look the other way, were it not for what makes this episode incredibly powerful. Because the viewer knows from the start – but Al and the other detectives come very late to the party – that Robinson has a powerful friend whose been protecting him – but not by choice.

After a far more cinematic teaser then usually where the police are in hot pursuit of a suspect we realize that this has to deal with the ARM and that the leader is having a heated conversation with "Jimmy" He makes it clear he needs a favor and that "You and me, we're never gonna to be done." The suspect, who we will later learn is Benin Crown, runs into the headquarters – who seem to be expecting him – and Robinson tells them that they will honor a search warrant. "I used to be a cop!" he shouts. They decide to do this by the book and radio Homicide.

Pembleton takes the call on what he thinks is a dunker that the suspect is in custody. Munch wheedles Frank into taking it ("You won't miss the clearance) and they drive out to Carrolton. There they find the body of Kenya Merchant and the suspect is in the ARM. They also have a witness which stuns both men. "A witness in West Baltimore?" Munch says incredulously and Frank agrees. He then goes to the headquarters and argues they don't need a warrant.

Then we get the first sign things are hinky. Bonfather is there demanding that they get a warrant and chooses to overrule Frank. Frank then proves he knows the rule book department regulations state at the crime scene; primary detective has the rank. Given that the suspect ran into the building with evidence, the building is de facto extension of the crime scene.

Something stranger happens then. Bonfather, who never misses an opportunity to throw his weight around Giardello and has never been Frank's biggest fan, backs down without even a word.  When Frank asks the obvious next question – why Bonfather is at a crime scene at this ungodly hour – Bonfather doesn't answer him either.

Robinson makes it very clear that he's baiting the cops. Pembleton conducts a search, gets the murder weapon and sweats. Munch interviews the witness Malawi Joseph who tells him that the murder was about a rift in the movement. At that moment Gaffney shows up and demands to speak to the suspect Benin Crown. When Giardello tells Gaffney this is inappropriate Gaffney immediately pulls rank. Al walks away.  After he leaves Crown demands to see an attorney. Munch realizes very clearly that something up: "When's the last time we had both Gaffney and Bonfather show up at the midnight shift?"

This episode makes it clear the biggest difference between Bonfather and Gaffney. When Al confront Bonfather in the bathroom for the first time since we've met him Bonfather actually seems nervous about what's going on. Al figures out very quickly that Bonfather was supposed to pull Frank off the raid. He was actually relieved when Pembleton started quoting chapter and verse from the rule book, an argument that he would never have stood for.  He makes it clear that his rank forces him to do think he doesn't like but he thinks if this goes badly he could go to prison.

So its clear Gaffney was the next call. When we find out whose behind all this we don't know whether Gaffney saw this as a path to higher rank or that this was a way to let his natural racist ideology shine through. We already know he was only promoted as a message to Al and it makes sense that those higher-up would love a reason to throw him to the wolves. Gaffney spends the entire episode flaunting his authority over the detectives, Al, Bonfather and even Danvers who he has no real power over. We know he never cared about police work when he was a detective; the fact that he's engaged in conspiracy doesn't bother him.

Robinson spent ten years in the department before resigning in 1972. Giardello doesn't know how he could have drag in the department after a quarter of a century. We then see the public face of him being interviewed by Dawn Daniels and its clearly different then the one we've already seen. He's jovial, talking of demagogues who don't deliver, about the work he's done over four years with a soup kitchen, a job training program and an education program. He sounds fatherly and genial and if you watched it on TV without knowing what the viewer knows you might believe it. Munch is cynical saying he doesn't trust anyone who claims to have an answer. (Munch is anti-establishment and may very well have a more realistic vision then Al in this case.) Turns out John is right.

Malawi Joseph makes it clear Benin Crown murdered Kenya Merchant (all members of the movement choose African countries instead of their given names) because Robinson had been whoring out the women in the movement. Merchant had threatened to go public and Robinson, who seems to be getting national attention, gave the order. Merchant, incredibly, is even willing to wear a wire.

Al Giardello is angry at the idea of it and makes the comparison to Hoover. Danvers is also willing to let it go. Munch, for once, is actually pressing it: "Race and altruism give Burundi Robinson a free pass?!" This actually cuts Al to the quick. When Frank points out it's still a murder Al finds himself choosing blue. But he makes it clear he doesn't want anyone outside the office to know about it, including keeping Joseph's name out of the warrant.

Joseph tries to get Robinson to talk once on tape but Robinson speaks cryptically. They send him back in – after Gaffney demands to know who the witness is. The next time Robinson is clearly aware and openly denies his involvement. At that point Pembleton makes it very clear how badly the bosses have screwed them and they may not get the truth. So Al comes up with a brilliant plan and one of the most incredible sequences follows.

Crown has lawyered up and therefore they can't talk to him. So Al says cheerfully: "We're not gonna talk to Benin Crown. We're gonna talk to each other." Munch, Pembleton and Al spend five minutes with Crown in a room and only after he asks. Al says: "This is not an interview. We're not talking." Then Frank and John start talking about the Merchant case, making clear the suspect has done nothing to mitigate or alibi himself. Then Al begins to talk how sad it is Crown is throwing his life away." Then they start talking about how his sister is pregnant by Robinson. Then Danvers shows up and tells him Crown's attorney works for Robinson and therefore that he's a sacrificial lamb,

This sequence unfolds almost as comic farce and has its intended results: Crown fires his lawyer and gets a public defender. We need that because from this point on the episode turns incredibly bleak – and painfully familiar.

When Pembleton and Munch comes to get Robinson, he refuses to go and his people come out with bats and sticks ready to fight. Only the thinking of Frank avoids a cop shooting a suspect. Nevertheless after things get violent a riot breaks out and QRT is called onto the scene. Then Robinson makes his demand – he wants to talk to Deputy Commissioner Harris. The moment Al hears the name he realizes who's been pulling the strings – especially after Harris personally gives the order for QRT to storm the compound. Then Al goes to the compound – and the episode pulls away to its incredible final act.

The moment he goes in he's has five guns trained on him. Al asks what this is about. He tries to convince Robinson to give himself up. Then he mentions Harris. Robinson tells us something terrifying that the only reason Harris has anything is because of Robinson. Harris and Robinson were working a two-man tactic car for five years on the projects. They bust a dealer with $15,000 worth of heroin. The dealer pleads out and two weeks later, the dope is missing from evidence control. Harris stole it and sold it back to the dealer for $10,000.

The two of them are going to be busted for tampering with evidence. Harris had been on the squad six years longer than Robinson, so his credibility is better than Robinson. Harris tells Robinson to damage control. He takes $5000 and it comes down to a coin toss. Heads Harris takes the weight, tails Robinson does. One almost wonders if it was a trick coin.

The contrast between Harris and Robinson couldn't be clearer. We already knew that despite having reached the highest point of his profession Harris is as unwilling to listen to men below him such as Giardello and Pembleton. His entire stellar career of 25 years was built in corruption from the start. And unlike Robinson he doesn't think he owes his people anything, whether they are black or blue. This isn't a case of absolute power corrupting absolutely; corruption itself has led to power.

Then Robinson becomes almost philosophical:

Where do we go, Al? Where's our place in the world as black men? We're either Michael Jordan or OJ Simpson, godhead or pariah. Otherwise we're Bojangles, we're standing outside the harbor, dancing for spare change. But if we don't go hat and hand for someone who is white, we're a danger. I can live with that. But when someone who is one of us, when we're betrayed from within from within the family, that's the true evil. When that happens we have to prove our self-reliance. We have to take care of our problems ourselves."

When Al tells him he took care of Kenya Merchant

Robinson tells him he flipped a coin in his head. He demands Al call it. Al says: "Heads." With all the ferocity he has left he says: "You lose!" Al seems to know what's next and convinces Robinson to let the women and children out along with him. Then Al tells Gaffney that Harris gave up the witness and about him and Robinson's history.  Gaffney then tells QRT to take Robinson out on the orders of Harris.

The standoff goes on for hours.  Then they go quiet. 16 men have gone quiet.

The final images are among the most haunting in the show's history. QRT storms the compound that gave hope to so many in West Baltimore even if it was just by a demagogue who didn't deliver. In the basement they find that Robinson and fifteen of his followers have committed suicide, very much like Jonestown. A unit of hardened men is stunned into silence by this.

Everyone walks out. Reporters ask Al why Robinson did it and he can't answer. And then we see a white family watching the news of the horrors with utter incuriosity. They change the channel to a bland travelogue. If sixteen black men commit suicide in Baltimore and white America doesn't care, did their lives have any meaning?

Thirty years after this episode aired a lot has changed. And we still don't have any good answers.

 

 

NOTES FROM THE BOARD

"Detective…Pembleton?!"  Frank reads a story in the news about how a canned food company from Gary has issued a recall of its salad shredder and in an unrelated story, two restaurant owners in the Midwest have died after being eviscerated. Munch laughs at this saying: "They were slawed to death!"

Immediately after this Giardello says to Frank "Doing Munch's job now?" Howard adds: "Finding bizarre news from page D12, reading it out loud to the squad room?" After praising Frank for his job, only saying the set up was a little slow, Howard then asks him: "With someone around to deliver our daily weirdness what exactly do we need you for?" When Munch says: "Policework," Giardello naturally goes to the board leading John to defend his clearance rate and then jump on Frank's case.

'Detective Munch' (seriously) After Malawi Joseph makes it very clear he saw who killed Kenya Merchant and that he will tell the detectives anything they want to know Munch asks a question any Baltimore PD would: "Tell me, Mr. Joseph, are there any more like you at home?"

Mahoney PTSD: Because the Mahoney shooting is going to hang over the squad for the next season (the Previously on Homicide segment would basically replay it at the start of nearly every episode from this point forward until the end of Season 6) it's worth looking to see how the squad is dealing with the after-effects from this point forward.

Meldrick and Mike have submitted a report saying that this was a clean shooting and seem to be doing fine. Stivers visits them and clearly isn't: she hasn't slept in a week and can't keep food down. She's clearly having doubts about it. The bigger issue is that Mike seems perfectly fine about it. When Stivers said he didn't have to shoot, Mike says casually: "He was garbage." Mike seems fine and for the first time Lewis looks a little puzzled.

It's Baltimore: In the midst of the confrontation Robinson smiles and says "How 'bout them O's?" Giardello talks about the series with Cleveland and where the two of them prefer to sit at Camden Yards. He talks about the 1972 Orioles "Buford, Baylor, Palmer, McNally, Boog and Brooks Robinson, the quintessential glove man at third." Robinson calls Harris and himself magicians at third.

This storyline is never followed up on directly but the character of James Harris is written out of the series after this episode. Al Freeman, Jr never appears in this episode.

Hey, Isn't That…Roger Robinson  began his career in TV when he starred as Bobby Martin in The Marcus-Nelson Murders, the inspiration for Kojak. He would play the character of Gil Weaver when the show was picked up to series, while he played roles in Starsky & Hutch, Ironside, and Get Christie Love! He would play Reverend Fred Shuttleworth on the 1978 miniseries King where Paul Winfield played the title character. He had roles guest spots in series in the 1970s from The Jeffersons to the Incredible Hulk to The Equalizer. He had multiple guest spots on ER and NYPD Blue. His biggest TV roles in the 2010s were Ed Bancroft in AMC's Rubicon and Mac Harkness across three seasons of How to Get Away with Murder. Robinson was better known as a theater actor and won a Tony for the revival of Joe Turner's Come and Gone in 2009 and was nominated for his work in Seven Guitars in 1996. Both plays were written by August Wilson. He died on September 26, 2018.

Lost Landmark Episodes 20th Anniversary: Live Together, Die Alone

 

 

Before we begin this tribute in earnest a  very mild criticism.

While I am a huge admirer of Back to the Island every so often I sense the judgment of those who are holding a series that was filmed between 2004-2010 on network television for not meeting the standards of today. I've dismissed the arguments involving gender and race in my earlier articles but one that I find hard to understand is why, from time to time, both St. James and Murray seem to be judging Lost by the standards of the streaming mode which wasn't even a glimmer in the eye of Netflix when Lost debuted and still didn't really exist when it ended.

As someone who has never binge-watched a series in his entire life and has always scorned so many streaming services for introducing it into their mode of distribution of original series (I have less judgment then I did for those who watch TV this way) I find this an absurd criticism on its face. Considering that in many articles they praise it for being one of the last brilliant network series in terms of scope and scale, this strikes me as pedantic. And it comes up a bit in St. James mostly favorable review for 'Live Together, Die Alone'. After mentioning many of the reason why this episode is essential Lost viewing he adds: "It's also a chore sometimes."

His main reason is contradictory: "some of the storytelling decisions that make sense for a TV show – meant to be seen by people once a week for an indefinite amount of time – don't make as much sense for 121 chapter narrative that people can sit down and watch for big chunks." This seems to be blaming Cuse and Lindelof, who again were making a show for network television in the 2000s for not taking the thinking of those of us twenty years later who can binge watch it over a week. That's a line of thinking so dumb I'm used to it from Gen Z.

He argues that so many of the moments are jaw-droppingly exciting then and still are today but then says having rewatched the series, he says a lot of it seems like busywork. His two biggest examples are the decision for Jack and Michael to bring Hurley to the Others camp, only for him to be sent back to explain they can never come after them – "which doesn't sound like a job only Hurley could do." Then he argues one paragraph later that the Others' decision to disguise themselves as ragamuffins is for the viewing audiences benefit more than the castaways. '

The second argument is just dumb on its face; its criticizing a show that has a smoke monster in the woods in the Pilot isn't portraying its cast members in a realistic fashion. (I'd argue that in a sense this is an Easter egg that would start to pay off in future seasons but I'm not confident that Cuse and Lindelof had thought the show out that far in advance in Season 2, so I'll let that go.) As for this not being a role that only Hurley couldn't do, I agree from a plot standpoint it doesn't make much sense but as a character arc – and the kind of storytelling versus plausibility that Lindelof would argue for later on – it payoffs magnificently in this episode and beyond, which I'll explain later.

For all that, however, I'm less inclined to pass judgment on this part of Murray's review for a very different reason. Because what he considers the point that makes the episode work is exactly the problem I had with it when I first saw it 20 years ago.

To be clear I was somewhat disappointed that the series decided to tell the story of Desmond.  Considering that for two seasons Lost had been about so many grand themes – mystery,  fate vs. free will,  science, survival, betrayal, death – that to fundamentally spend the finale devoted to what seemed to be a love story seemed a disappointment. I don’t think I realized that in fact the writers were setting up the grand theme of Lost, one that got, well, lost under all of the mystery. The reason the series was such a success may have been initially because of the mysteries and the questions we had, but the reason it lasted was because we cared about these characters.  Lost is fundamentally a show about the human condition, and what is more human than love?

And in that sense the saga of Desmond and Penny stands alone not just among the entire arc of Lost but in much of Peak TV as whole. In the cynical world that 21^st century TV reflected, we were taught to believe that love stories were not the kind of thing that survived as entertainment anymore. (I think that may be the reason that such things as the romantic comedy, which had been the staple of movies for more than twenty years, began to fall out of favor around this same period.) Love was too pure an emotion to appeal to the viewer as much as more elemental things: lust was the pervading emotion, whether it be for sex or for power or money.  The story of Desmond and Penny fundamentally cuts through that narrative.  There are many fans of the series who have problems with so much of the show; I don’t know a single person who has issue with the love story of Desmond and Penny. I certainly didn’t; after my initial objections, I was fully onboard with it by the time Season 3 hit its groove. The fact that many of the fates of the survivors and the show itself are at the core around the love story of Desmond and Penny only proves this point.

Desmond has found himself back on the island and is thoroughly plastered when we meet him.  He spends much of the first half of the season premiere drunk and determined to stay that way.  Much of Season 2 is about characters losing faith and Desmond now seems to have become a pure nihilist.  He is the first character we’ve met who openly wants to leave the island, and now apparently thinks he is doomed never to leave it.  He sailed off two weeks ago and somehow he ended up right back here. He thinks the island is all that’s left.  He has only a tangential interest in the button he deserted, doesn’t seem that interested in either helping Sayid or saying goodbye to the boat he traveled on and when he talks to Claire about her baby’s father not be fit to the task, it’s very clear he’s talking about himself.  Desmond doesn’t have a purpose anymore, which is almost certainly the reason when Locke comes to him telling him everything he did for three years was a lie, he embraces it even though he should very well know better.

People have wondered why, since Desmond clearly remembers what happens when he sees the printout from the Pearl, he goes along with John’s decision to not push the button. Based on what we’ve seen in the flashbacks prior to this, I think there’s a very real chance that Desmond thinks that his actions did destroy the world and that is his punishment. That’s why he has come back to the island; he’s suffering for his sins. With the clock running, he actually asks John whether he’s doing this because he has a death wish. Maybe that’s why Desmond is doing this. He’s hoping that when the numbers run out, he gets punished for his sins.

And by this point we know that is not the real sin he thinks he needs to atone for.  Desmond walks out of a Scottish military garrison to meet with a man named Charles Widmore. We’ve seen signs of him in subtle product references in the second season, but we had no reason to think it meant anything. Now we learn that Widmore is a billionaire who clearly disapproved of Desmond’s relationship with his daughter, has done everything in his power to keep them apart, and wants to make sure it stays that way. Because Desmond clearly believes in honor, he decides to prove himself to Widmore by winning his race around the world.

We then flash back to the scene in the stadium – and it's there we meet Penny for the first time.  We will learn more about the saga of Desmond and Penny then almost any other characters on the show (though in the tradition of Lost we learn it backwards) but in a sense, we learn everything we have to in their only scene together in this episode.  They have not seen each other in years and there’s clearly hurt between them, but it’s just as clear that neither has moved on. The writers always choose the names of their characters with care, and they clearly made a point when they named Widmore’s daughter Penelope.  Anyone who has even a basic understanding of Greek mythology knows the significance of the name: Penelope was Odysseus’ wife who remained faithful to her husband for years even after he was presumed dead from the Trojan War.  Even on an island a world away from Desmond, she finds a way to reach out to him at the time of his greatest despair and she assures him that she will always love him no matter what. Desmond clings to that despite everything, and I think that before the climax of the episode, he says “I love you, Penny” because he wants them to be his last words.

Of course, they aren’t. In an outlier for a season finale, not just for Lost but almost any TV series in this century, no major characters die. (Is that a spoiler? It’s been nearly twenty years.) It looked like a lot of characters might be doomed in the last minutes, and a lot of characters are clearly in danger, but every regular we see in this episode turns up in the next season (or later on).

It's the fundamental nature of Lost that even while actions are going on that could destroy everybody on the island, a healthy portion of the survivors are not only unaware of it at the time, but they also don’t even learn about long after the fact.  Indeed, even Desmond’s arrival is barely noticed with any real interest by Jack, who barely seems to be bothered that the man who left the hatch (and knew before, remember) is now back on the island before going back on his mission to get the Others.  If ever there was an example of how narrow minded a leader Jack is, it’s now.  Does he see the boat as a potential for rescue? No, it’s a tool that he can use to get his revenge on the Others. Sayid is little better, considering it’s his idea to do so in the first place.

Every aspect of Jack’s plan is foolish from the get-go. He chooses not to tell any of his friends about what he is doing, and it is only when Kate and Sawyer realize that they are being followed that Jack is forced to tell them. Jack can barely be bothered to apologize to his friends, and his treatment of Hurley is reprehensible.

Jorge Garcia is truly fantastic in the season finale. He is the only person on the mission who is not motivated by revenge or desperation but because he just wants to help Walt.  When he learns the truth, he feels betrayed twice. When he realizes just how horrible Michael is – that a man he considered a friend killed two women in cold blood and can’t even be bothered to apologize for it – he clearly just wants to go back. He is not any happier when Jack basically forces him to keep going on the basis of a plan that is clearly flawed before they even realize that Michael has betrayed them again. When the trap is sprung by the Others, he does not bother to run away or fight, but rather just covers his ears. The fact that he eventually learns the only reason they wanted him in the first place was to send him is just one more blow.  There’s something truly sad about the guy who everybody likes, not being wanted or trusted by anyone.

It's also a measure of how bad a leader Jack is at this stage that at no point does he think to tell Locke about what’s happening or even ask him to come along when it’s clear he could help. That said, it’s pretty obvious that John isn’t in any position to help anyone, certainly not himself.

Much of what Murray considers busywork is done for a purpose: the machinations are done to divide the survivors in a way physically (if not ideologically as will become clear in later seasons) in a way Lost hasn't yet.  The raft's launching only involved four survivors; one of whom was never a part of the storyline after the finale in a real way and another whose part, unfortunately, has been greatly diminished. That physical division, which also involved the reunion of the Tail Section survivors, happened by the third mark of the season and while Jack and Locke have been engaged in an internal struggle, to this point it really hasn't divided the camp substantially considering all of it seems to center on the Hatch.

What the episode makes clear is how the division between the two reveals how each of them can be single-minded and destructive in their respective focus. Locke has been almost entirely focused on the button in the season and Jack's never been as committed to it. His major focus, ever since Michael disappeared, has been the Others and he's been deliberately leaving Locke out of that discussion.  Even after a full season he still has no plan for rescue and much of this does seem to be out of his vengeance at the Others more than anything else.

This division also leads to Sayid, the other major force of leadership in the camp to take the Elizabeth and Jin and Sun with him to sail around the island. This will divide the camp even further at the start of Season 3 – and leaves them unprepared to deal with the crisis that develops in the Hatch.

Terry O’Quinn is magnificent in the season finale as a man who has lost all faith and is clearly bitter and angry. He is enraged at Eko for having faith (and the fact that Eko uses his own phrase back at him must sting more) and ends up tracking down Desmond almost certainly because he wants to share in the misery and take Desmond down. There’s something very vindictive about how he shows Des the Orientation film and offers to make popcorn.

When Des and Locke are in the computer room, Locke seems more lost than he’s ever been.  He says that Charlie and Eko aren’t his friends and actually seems not to care if they’re hurt or injured. For much of the season he was obsessed with the button; now his obsession is in the other direction. When he tells Desmond why he lost his faith – and finally accepts his part in the death of Boone – it triggers something in Desmond. By the time he argues the Pearl Station is an experiment, it’s not a shock – that large field of notebooks that have never been read is a big honking sign. What is a shock comes when he learn that the Swan is real, and that there has been an incident – and that incident crashed Oceanic 815. (It also gives us an official date for the crash: September 22, 2004 – which is of course, the day Lost premiered. We’ll basically have a calendar of events for the next two seasons.)

Locke is now so much of a zealot that he no more listens to Desmond’s certainty that this is real than Eko’s evidence of destiny and he finally decides to prove it – by destroying the computer.  There’s a trace of uncertainty when he says that he’s saved them all.

The scene in the hatch after the numbers run down is one of the great set-pieces in the entire series.  We watch as every metal object in the hatch begins to be drawn towards something, as Charlie and Eko frantically try to get out, as Eko makes his way back to the computer. Locke has not moved, even as the timer begins to contract to the magnetism. He meets Eko’s eyes and says three simple words. “I was wrong.” It seemed like the understatement of the century. In actuality, it’s the first thing Locke has said something that he is completely and utterly certain of.

Then Desmond turns the key and because Henry Ian Cusick was only a guest star, we naturally assume he’s dead. (See Locke’s statement above.) At this point, however, we’re dealing with the action on the pier where we finally get to see the Others in their (ragged) glory and officially meet the leader – Henry Gale. If Emerson was brilliant in his earlier performance, he’s incredible here as he talks coldly and business-like to Michael, about keeping his word and how he knows Michael will never tell what he’s done. There’s something almost military like about his posture now, something with authority. (While the sky is turning people and everyone is flinching, he doesn’t seem as surprised when it happens or when it’s over. This is the first sign we’ve gotten he might be the key to everything that’s happening, even before he makes it clear he's the leader.)

When Michael asks, utterly bereft: “Who are you people?” who among us can forget Henry’s answer: “We’re the good guys.” Now Henry has spent the entire season lying to everybody, but this is the first time he actually seem to believe what he’s saying.  We are no more inclined to believe him than we did Tom (the man we thought was the leader) when he said the survivors were interlopers or Goodwin when he called Nathan ‘not a good person’ or Ethan when he said he wanted the best for Claire’s baby…well, you get it, these guys have a credibility problem. And we know that when Henry tells Jack, Kate and Sawyer are coming with them, it’s not to invite them to a fancy dinner.  What we do know by now is that the Others really seem to believe it. But we still don’t know why.  Much of Season 3 will be spent explaining why they believe it, and for some reason when we spent so much time with them, a lot of fans turned on the series.

Season 2 ends like Season 1 did, with the castaways scattered.  Michael and Walt are leaving the island for home. (Gotta say that Henry might have thought it wouldn’t be for long: his departing words are not farewell or goodbye, but bon voyage) Sayid, Jin and Sun are on the other side of the island, not sure what’s happened to their friends. Charlie made it out of the hatch intact (and is kissing Claire) but Desmond, Locke and Eko might very well be dead.  Hurley is heading back to the camp, while Jack, Kate and Sawyer are going with the Others. It's a dispiriting series of images to end the season with.

 

 

Except… that’s not the final scene. For the first time, we leave the island and in fact seem to be somewhere in the Arctic Circle. Two men are speaking a strange language (we later learn their Portuguese). They look at a monitor that says, “ELECTROMAGNETIC ANOMALY DETECTED” . They started leaving through books, mutter things about “Did we miss it?” and one makes a call.  Then on the other end, we hear the line: “Miss Widmore. I think we found it.” 

And there’s Penny. Who said in her one scene with Desmond: “With enough money and determination, you can find anyone.” She is clearly set on using both to find Desmond. If that isn’t love, I don’t know what is.

So the reason I thought it was a chore is that we spent so much of the Season 2 finale dealing with a character I truly believed we'd never see again along with so many other unnecessary characters. (Boy was I naïve in 2006.) You know who didn't feel that way? Emmy voters.

To be sure they didn't nominate the series for Best Drama that year (and yes I still have a grudge about it) but they did nominate for 9 other awards. And 'Live Together, Die Alone' got five of them. Jack Bender was nominated for Best Director, Henry Ian Cusick was nominated for Best Guest Actor in a Drama and it was nominated for sound mixing, editing, and special visual effects in a series. This would also start a trend for Lost: from this point on until the end of the series, the season and/or series finale would be the biggest recipient of Emmy nominations by the Academy.

It was something I as a viewer and someone slowly entering the world of TV criticism respected then and even more now. As for where Lost was going to go in Season 3…well, we'll get to that in a different article.

 

 

 

What The Numbers in Late Night Tell Me About Hollywood's War on Trump. What They Tell You…Judge for Yourself

 

 

I've always felt a comfort in numbers and statistics. Perhaps that is because so much of my writing involves fields where they can be use to buttress theories far more than so much speculation on both sides tends to do. For all that's changed in the world we live in I cling to these three simple words: "Figures don't lie."

In the last decade Hollywood has been engaged in War on Trump almost non-stop since election day 2016. I've spent a lot of time arguing that this conflict has done far more harm to Hollywood then it has to Trump but most of this has been in the realm of speculation. I've seen numbers of the industries, I see so many of the mergers and dropping ratings across the board and they would seem to be making a convincing argument – but the critical word is 'seems'. I don't have any raw data to back it up.

Then in the aftermath of Stephen Colbert's final show I actually got some. On its own it's not quite enough to convince me that my theories are correct and I have little hope that they will do much to convince those who are divided among partisan lines. But here's the thing: those very numbers actually give me reason to believe that maybe, just maybe, there is room that those divisions may not be as great as we think.

 That will be the subject of a later article; for now let's just focus on what those numbers tell me about four separate points: Stephen Colbert, ratings in late night now as opposed to in the past, ratings of late night in two very distinct period and the electoral appeal of the President as of this week. Because these number would seem to illustrate several pictures about Hollywood's war on Trump that puncture in the biggest way possible so much of their argument about their vehement and increasingly unpleasant attitude towards all things associated with him and the right in the last decade.

First of all let's look at the ratings for Colbert's last appearance on Late Night on Thursday, which have been verified by multiple sources. Now let's look at several points. First the date has been set in stone for over a year and there has been immense attention paid to it in the media. Second the other hosts in late night, Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon and The Daily Show all decided to go dark 'out of respect to their colleague." Third, according to the New York Times, these were the largest numbers, not just Colbert but any late night show had drawn in a very long time.

The final numbers were…6.75 million.

I know that the arithmetic for television, particularly network TV, has changed a lot in this decade alone. But for a live event, that has had a year's publicity, with no competition and so much media attention from circles that aren't outside entertainment that seems disappointing to say the least.

Now compare that with David Letterman's last show. He drew 13.7 million viewers.  One year earlier Jay Leno's last show drew 11. 9 million viewers. And on Johnny Carson's final show back in May of 1992 drew 55 million viewers. That is, for the record, more than 10 million people who voted for Clinton just six months later.

I can hear all the arguments that the world is a very different place then it was thirty-four years ago. That's true. What's also true is that Carson would never have done the kind of material then any of his contemporaries in late night have spent the last decade doing. As was pointed out quite a bit in the aftermath of the assassination of Ronald Reagan the night before the Oscars Johnny Carson was hosting. The first thing he did was offer the best wishes to Ronald Reagan and say that he was hoping the President was off for a speedy recovery, made a joke about how the President was doing and the ceremony paused for Reagan to give a videotaped introduction. Carson would never have made a joke about Nancy Reagan having the glow of an expectant widow under any circumstances and if he thought he'd said something would have given offense he would absolutely have apologized the next night. That's not something any of his predecessors would have thought of doing.

 

Now let's extrapolate what these raw numbers would seem to tell us...or at least me.

1. Jay Leno was being kind in his estimations.

Last year when Leno was interviewed and said that today's comedians go out of their way to isolate half the country with their jokes, everyone in late in turn attacked Jay Leno as not being funny. It's now looking like Leno was being generous in his figures because according to the math Colbert did alienate half the country. He drew less than  half the audience of Letterman's last show just eleven years earlier, never mind talking about Carson. And that's before you consider other math.

If we argue that the three combined audiences of the major late show were all watching on Thursday, well then at most all of them had around 2.25 million viewers – and that's being generous.  So that means in the 2020s, each of the three late night shows are drawing 2 million viewers a night live. Their defenders will argue that people like Colbert and Kimmel must speak truth to power.  Well looking at these numbers, power may be the only people watching because the rest of America sure isn't. And based on that…

 

2. The final numbers of late show actually strengthen CBS's argument that the show was becoming a financial drain.

This part had actually been verified long before Colbert's cancellation in multiple stories which revealed that across the board late night shows had to economize. All the shows had cut to four nights a week instead of five and Seth Meyers had to give up his band. This isn't the sign of world that's flourishing.

And if you're drawing at best 2 million viewers a night, for a network show in this era that's a huge loss. Network TV is already struggling financially across the board in part because the largest audiences for many shows are still becoming money losers. TV networks are not charities, they are to make money and Colbert was an employee. There are those who will argue he was the number one person in late night, but all that meant was that he was a big fish in a pond that was shrinking.

This brings up another argument they don't want here.

 

3. Trump was right when he said nobody watched late night.

I will grant you by the dictionary definition the President was punching down every time he tweeted when someone in late night chose to say something nasty about him. But sadly, the numbers do bear him out. 2 million viewers a night is not a big deal; six million isn't really that impressive and Colbert hadn't drawn that in years.

To be clear he did act even more like a bully then he should have with everything he has done against the networks ever since his second term. He would have done better to concentrate on governing. But there's a bigger story.

 

4. The numbers for late night tell us that Colbert and his colleagues vastly underestimated the sway they had over America.

In 2016 Donald Trump received just under 63 million votes in his first run for the Presidency. 8 years later after throwing everything they had at him, he received 77.3 million votes 14.3 million more then he did in 2016.

You can debate about a lot of things but it's hard to argue that late night had any real effect in changing anyone's mind. Why would it? If at most you are reaching 2 to 3 million viewers a night – and they're almost always the same ones, which means they agree with the political views Colbert and his colleagues aired -  how do you rationally expect to have any sway over the political conversation?

 Hell in 2024 Kirsten Gillibrand got 4.7 million votes in New York running for reelection. She was drawing more people in her state than Colbert was in the country! That's bring me to…

 

5. Unlike in late night, in the last decade Trump's hold on his base has not shrunk.

During this week Trump's approval numbers had reached record lows, almost the lowest of any President in history. And yet despite that he still retains the hold over his base in a way that Hollywood never has. The Saturday before his final episode Trump Bill Cassidy one of the Senators who voted to impeach Trump was demolished in his primary. 300,000 Louisiana Republicans voted against him. We saw he was capable in Kentucky and we will no doubt see it in the Texas runoff on Tuesday.

This is a national following in a way that late night has never had. I seriously doubt that Colbert has 60,000 viewers watching him in the state of Kentucky his final week, much less in the fourth district that Thomas Massie lost his primary.

 

Its worth reminding people that Colbert had only 1 republican guest on his show during the entire Biden administration and I seriously doubt he had any during his last year. If Colbert had been serious about speaking truth to power – hell if anyone in Hollywood had been – they would have invited almost anyone in the last decade who'd publicly stood against him and held them as heroes while they were still running for office. Cassidy, Romney, John Cornyn, any of the Indiana state legislators who tried to stop the gerrymandering effort last fall.

Hell Colbert made it clear he had nothing to lose. And honestly nothing would have pissed off Trump more than helping Republicans who were against him hold office?

But did he? Of course he didn't. Nor has anyone in late night. Nor has anyone in Hollywood. Not because they're loyal Democrats – end of the day they're too conservative for their taste -  or because they care if Trump is wrecking the country.  

No they want to make it very clear that they hate Trump and everything he stands for. If that means that they lay waste to their own industry – and given the raw numbers for late night that these statistics illustrate its very hard to argue that they're not doing just that – so be it.

Colbert's behavior in the last year bears that out. His behavior was a combination of nostalgia and scorched earth. He clearly believes or has convinced himself that he is the aggrieved party, the victim of the machinations of the powers that be to silence him for speaking the truth. First of all, that's an ego that is nearly comparable to his enemy and second of all, even if it were true that only proves how deluded he is.

Colbert wasn't an activist, not a politician. He was a white multi-millionaire who was employed by a corporation. He had a fiduciary obligation to that corporation to generate revenue for it. The numbers illustrate he was failing at that job.

Compared to most working stiff he was given a more than generous severance package: they gave him a year's notice, allowed him to keep his job while he found other employment and allowed him to get fully paid. They even allowed him to engage in the bad behavior that very well might have led to the company firing him in the first place, in public, private and at his job. He got a much better deal that anyone else who works in the world of late-stage capitalism then he and his colleagues have been saying is destroying the country.

Furthermore none of this will hurt him with future employers, if anything his bad behavior has guaranteed that he will be successful for the rest of his life. He will be wealthy beyond his dreams, celebrated by his peers and those who think that way, championed as a hero even though he accomplished nothing of note – including his supposed goal of bringing down the President. Talk about a golden parachute.

 These numbers paint a picture that is diametrically opposed to the one that Colbert and his colleagues in both late night and the industry are convinced is what actually happened. For me these numbers tell me something different. They tell me that Colbert's decision to attack Trump with full furor did nothing to reduce his hold on power and shrunk his audience to almost nothing. This caused his show to become less popular, causing it to become a financial drain for the company, forcing CBS to let him go to cut their losses.  He and his colleagues never had any real influence on America to make up for it and have done nothing to reduce the President's hold on the electorate right up until his last week on the air.

Colbert is not a victim of an unjust system. The Late Show was the casualty of his own actions and so are the people who were turning to it for entertainment night after night. Some of them might have been hard working people who wanted nothing more then to have an escape from the world around them and turned on TV at 11:30 and got reminded just how horrible it was and that some of them were, by extension, to blame for it. I have a feeling there might have been less of them then we think and that will be the subject of the next article related to this.

 

 

 

 

Suggestions for A Post-Trump America: The DNC's Autopsy of the 2024 Election Was Devastatingly Accurate. The People Who Need To Hear It The Most Say Its Fake News

 

I've been told on multiple occasions by numerous progressive groups in the aftermath of the 2012 election that the GOP did an autopsy of why Mitt Romney had lost against Obama, what those weaknesses were and that they chose to ignore them. Progressive Democrats chose to argue years later this was a moral flaw and proof of the GOP's failings – while ignoring, as they have done, the results of the 2016 election that followed.

For that reason when Ken Martin, the head of the DNC, finally released the official (albeit still incomplete) autopsy of the reasons Democrats lost in 2024, I was neither shocked nor angered that the loudest voices of the left did more than ignore what it said, they basically said that the people who'd painstakingly performed it had no idea what they were talking about.

I've known for a long time that when it comes to election denialism the progressive left makes anything that Trump or his colleagues say or do look like sane, rational people.  They have spent an incredible amount of time and energy arguing, with a straight face, that the conservative revolution is either a complete illusion and that America not only still wants liberal policies they've actually become more liberal in their thinking to the present day, results of elections be damned.  The incredible electoral demolitions of McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis didn't take place because Americans rejected liberalism but because the electorate was either misled or is too dumb to realize how much the conservatives and GOP are lying to them.  Furthermore if Democrats try to reach the rest of the country, either by the Third Way or Obama's attempts, they have betrayed the cause and their victories are irrevocably tainted. The fact that the voters have made their choices clear on multiple occasions is just another in the endless list of proving you can't trust voters with making decisions that affect their lives. If they're dumb enough to believe that the left all but says out loud, why should anyone trust them with the direction of the country?

The left has, if anything, less use for democracy or politics then the right does and in the last decade they've doubled down on that believe. Increasingly the academic wing of the party has pushed as hard as they can that Bernie Sanders, who is a socialist who only caucuses with the Democrats, should be the baseline for any Democratic candidate in any office around the country. That Sanders never won the Democratic nomination and has no real legislation to his credit, is irrelevant to the discussion as is the fact that the more the Democrats made Sanders the face of their party, their electoral footprint in much of the country, including rural America and white working class voters, has eroded to its lowest points in years. The party has allowed Sanders a ridiculous amount of influence in its thinking since the 2016 election and the Biden administration, none of which, I should make clear has done anything to convince the majority of left-wing thinkers to embrace the party even after Trump's first term. They remain convinced AOC and the Squad are the future of the party even though they are still a fragment of the party overall.

The arithmetic of the 2024 election made it very clear why Harris lost in 2024: she carried just eight percent of rural America and barely a third of the white working class voter, the lowest numbers for any Democrat in history. For all the abuse Martin has taken in some circles every indication is he is doing the hard work of what is necessary to rebuild the party. That included eventually firing David Hogg as Vice Chair when he made it clear he was planning to primary active Democrats, something that has been forbidden by DNC rules, the slow long process of rebuilding the party at a national level in every state of the union and recruiting candidates to run in every state and local office, including some deep red states and districts. There have been many signs in 2025 this strategy has been paying dividends: Democrats have been overperforming across the board, winning state seats in deep red districts, including in Iowa and Louisiana and overperforming – though not winning – in deep red districts Republicans carried by larger margins just last year. Martin should be applauded for making hard decisions that may very well may enormous dividends in a few months' time for his party.

The postelection report also tells uncomfortable truths. It says millions of Americans are suffering from poor access to health care and a failing infrastructure yet continue to be persuaded to vote against their own best interests with the Democratic party. It calls for a renewed focus on the voters of Middle America and the South who 'have come to believe that they are not included in the Democratic vision of a stronger and more dynamic America for everyone." It speaks to a reduction in support and training for Democratic state parties, voter registration shifts and 'a persistent inability or unwillingness to listen to all voters."

All of these are conclusions that are hard to escape for anyone who has been a Democrat for an extended period. More importantly it's clear that Martin is doing the work that the autopsy is calling for. And yet many Democrats are still calling for Martin to resign, particularly from progressives because it is not what they want to hear. They want to be told that the failings of the Democrats have nothing to do with them and everything to do with the Democrats complete and utter unwillingness to embrace their agenda.

In their mind multiple publications, including the left wing leaning The Guardian, say that the fact that the Democrats did not, in their opinion, put Gaza front and center during the election was a key factor in their defeat. It was a key factor in why progressives chose not to vote for Democrats – I've seen multiple left-wing articles arguing this point even prior to the election – but that's part of the left's reductive thinking: that what their top priority is at any given moment, must therefore be not just the Democratic Party, but America, if not the world. That none of the candidates of either party were running to be elected President of Gaza but rather to be President of the United States is not a consideration for the left.

The argument that publications like The Guardian make is that a significant portion of Biden voters who didn't vote for Harris said that her position on Gaza was key to their not voting. The problem is exit polling for every swing state on election night made it very clear that for the majority of voters, their top issue was the economy. The left wants to ignore that, mostly because for the majority of them, economic improvement is not their top concern but as the autopsy points out that's the problem the party cares about more then the left, for whom its clearly more abstract.

Furthermore The Guardian wants to make the argument, more or less indirectly that Harris was not a flawed candidate but that Harris was given unfair treatment because of her race and gender. Or in the progressive translation, they want the report to indict the media in all forms as racist and sexist, even though that's not a problem the Democratic Party should have to solve. By that definition they can continue to label the parts of the country they don't like as racist and sexist and therefore the party should not bother to win them over. To be clear the Guardian says it acknowledges gaps among male voters, suburban voters, rural voters and the Latino voter shift which is what a political party has to do because that's something they can solve. But as always they want them to call institutions racist and sexist at the same time even though it won't solve anything and will almost certainly isolate the very voters they're trying to win back.

The Guardian's contradictions can be the definition of hairsplitting. They argue that the autopsy doesn't mention Trump's appearance on Joe Rogan or Harris's decision to decline. The report spends a lot of time dealing with the Democrats failure to reach young men on digital platforms and the need to meet voters 'where they are' – which would seem to be by extension on podcasts like Rogan. But because they don't spell it out directly in the minds of the left, they're not saying it at all. To be clear by saying anything that is obvious to the left one gets no credit for it, so if they mentioned: "Harris should have gone on Joe Rogan" in big bold font, The Guardian no doubt would have said: "Why should we give them credit for saying what we already knew to be true?"

Its worth noting the remarks about the autopsy basically break down along ideological lines.  Liam Kerr, head of a centrist Democrat coalition, made it clear that their losses were because of 'a decade accepting all edits from every progressive group." Johnathan Cowan, the head of Third Way said this report was shelved because it would anger progressives – which as we can see is exactly what happened.

The clearest line that makes me think that the report is correct is this: At times, it seems Democrats are trying to win arguments while Republicans are focused on winning elections."  Martin by any measure is doing everything to help the Democrats do so in the last year and has been remarkably successful. For people like Hogg, who are very clear that winning elections is less important then ideological candidates who win the arguments.

The autopsy did what it was supposed to and provided lessons in order to move forward in the midterms. But most of the people involved want the lessons to be the ones that place blame on someone else whether it is those associated with the Harris campaign or the progressive wing.

Martin has spent the last year attempting to steer the party forward, which is honestly the right move. But numerous progressive groups made it clear that they wanted it released. Now groups like Roots Action, keeping with progressives, are angry with what was released, mainly because it didn't tell them exactly what they wanted to hear.

And of course the only thing they want to here is that the only reason the Democrats lost in 2024 is that they didn't agree to endorse the Justice Democrats platform fully and completely as part of the Democratic platform along with anything that the Squad chose to say in a tweet. That the reason any voter dares to vote Republican is because they are a racist even if their African-American, part of the patriarchy even if their female, xenophobic even if their LatinX etc. That the Democratic party should start giving voters IQ tests if they come to the polls and pull our voter outreach from any part of America that isn't on the coast. That they should stop trying to win voters in red states and focus on making the Virgin Islands and America Samoa full states.  And that when it wins its next election President AOC must dissolve the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and install herself as Queen for life to enact the warmth of collectivism throughout America.

It's a complete and utter fantasy, as ridiculous and absurd as any of the rants that you find at a MAGA rally. But if you, like me, have spent enough time among the progressives and liberals you know that in their hearts its what they believe America is and always wants regardless of the results of any election. They don't want an autopsy that reveals the truth; they want fanfiction.

Even in its admittedly incomplete form the autopsy of the 2024 has many strengths, not the least of which that it once again provides a key hypocrisy of a progressive talking point. It has become the gospel of the progressive that one of their critical objectives, one that justifies so much of their behavior, is that they are 'speaking truth to power'. This autopsy literally did just that and as always the progressives in power made it very clear that when they were told a truth that didn't agree with their preconceptions they could be as thin-skinned and mean-spirited as any reaction the once and current President ever reveals when he feels as wronged. That this autopsy basically gave an argument why he has this power is another irony that I can appreciate even as I know that the progressive voices will never see it for themselves, much less accept it.