Suggestions for A Post Trump America: Decision 2026 Edition - Part 9 Michigan Voters Have Never Wanted What Abdul El-Sayed Has Been Offering.

 

One of the states the Justice Democrats made their biggest push to the electorate in 2018 was Michigan where they ran five candidates for Congress in Democratic primaries and was one of five states where they attempted to run a nominee for governor.

At the time Abdul El-Sayed was 33 years old and had only held the position of health director of Detroit. He had done a great job rebuilding that city's Health Department after it had declared bankruptcy in 2012. By all accounts he did a super job, particularly in regard to testing after the water crisis in Flint. He was fully endorsed by the campaign and by the progressive movement but he only received 30 percent of the vote, losing to Gretchen Whitmer.

It was not much better for the five candidates who ran for office. Only three of them Matt Morgan, Rob Davidson and Rashida Tlaib managed to win their primaries. El-Sayed would campaign for those three but only Tlaib manage to win the general election. Whitmer would end up winning election by nearly ten percent over the Republicans while incumbent Debbie Stabenow easily won reelection over Republican candidate John James.

In 2020 Michigan barely went to Joe Biden after barely going to Trump for years earlier. Gary Peters was running for reelection that year and he beat John James but by a much closer margin then Stabenow, less then 2 percent of the vote. Two years later Whitmer would win reelection by an even larger margin over Republican Shane Hernandez, a far bigger margin then even the polls had expected.

Two years later Debbie Stabenow chose not to run for reelection. By that point Elissa Slotkin had announced her run for the Senate. She'd represented first the seventh and then the eighth district in Michigan for six years, elected to the house in 2018 but in a far more competitive ones than Tlaib's thirteenth. Prior to that she's been Obama's last Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Affairs.  Michigan ended up narrowly going to Trump yet again and it took until November 6^th to official call the race for Slotkin over her Republican opponent Mike Rogers. She would win by less than 19,000 votes out of over 5.4 million casts.

As these results show at no point was it clear that Michiganders have any more desire for the far left politics that El-Sayed and Tlaib have made a part of the Justice Democrat platform. And while El-Sayed is more centrist on many positions then say Tlaib (which may be why he doesn't have their official endorsement for this cycle) he has far more in common and he has done little to hide it. He campaigned for Sanders in 2020 (which Biden trounced Sanders in) has said 'regulating billionaires to fund infrastructure is not radical) and is just opposed to US military aid as the overwhelming Justice Democrats say. He's called for tougher enforcement of environmental laws and achieving 100 percent renewable energy in Michigan by 2030 which is not going to go over with Detroit. But the fact remains all of this pales in comparison to the one issue that is the center of his campaign for Senate and one that has zero to do with the people of Michigan at all: Gaza.

Why so many progressives believe that an issue that will guarantee them electoral success is to support a country halfway around the world and that America to this point has no troops on the ground might be the best example yet to argue the left is out of touch with most Americans. And indeed a poll taken the week before the primary made it clear that for most Michigan voters Gaza was not a top priority as is essentially the case for any American voter who is not a progressive. That the left has spent the last two years putting all of their chips for winning the hearts and minds of America on a conflict that doesn't effect their day to day lives, that only people in that region of the world can do anything to bring a resolution to, despite administrations of both parties doing everything in their power to resolve it, is by far the greatest delusion of the American left in recent years. Tellingly none of the candidates who've run on that as a platform for the Justice Democrats have tried to make an argument what they themselves would do if they were given power; they've chosen to frame it in what is essentially a compilation of their greatest hits, involving corporations, the establishment and good old fashioned bigotry.

By and large the electorate has been unmoved with only a handful of Justice Democrats managing to win primaries in deep blue districts. These victories have gotten a huge amount of attention from both the media and have been vilified or beatified depending on which part of the electorate cares the most.  And while it may come as a huge shock if I were to say this the midterms will not be determined based on the Democrats position on Gaza but rather on how the current Republican administration is doing in 2026.

To their credit the overwhelming majority of Democrats running for the Senate this cycle know this very well and this is true in every red state they're contending in, whether it is James Talarico in Texas, Roy Cooper in North Carolina, Mary Peltola in Alaska or Josh Turek in Iowa. Only El-Sayed has not gotten the message and in fact seems to have built his entire campaign on this fact – to the point he's going to be a difficult position going into the general.

As I wrote in an article earlier this month:

For El-Sayed, (Gaza) is the only issue that he cares about, regardless of whether he can do anything about it if he is the Senator of Michigan. Which brings me to his next problem: to El-Sayed, winning election to the Senate is simply a means to an end. He has been very clear that his main priority for winning is so that he can have influence over who becomes the Democratic nominee for President in 2028 as the Michigan primary is scheduled to be early in the calendar. In other words his run for the Senate is basically a shadow campaign to get inside the corridors of the Democratic power structure and the interests of the people of Michigan are secondary, if that.

To the average progressive, perhaps even more strongly in Michigan, this is all they care about which if nothing else shows that they don't even care about the electorate at large at all. And outside of Gaza, El-Sayed has had great difficulty giving a message that connect to any other part of the electorate, even the progressive stump speech. When asked to explain how his campaign would help the working class he answered: "I think a custodian who makes $14,000 a year is sick and tired of his tax dollars going to Israel."

 …In the final weeks of the campaign multiple polls showed El-Sayed winning by anywhere from 10 to 15 points against Haley Stevens. Instead, he barely managed to eke out a victory with 48.5 percent to Stevens' 47.5 percent. This argues that so much of the support that was for Al-Sayid was soft to begin with and that the primary was divided.

This leaves out the fact that at least 3 percent of Michigan Democratic primary voters chose Mallory McMorrow, who'd dropped out of the race a month ago but was still on the ballot. El-Sayed couldn't win a majority of voters in the primary in what by far was the closest Democratic Senate primary in 2026.

I've written about the obstacles El-Sayed will face in the general election before and I'm not going to relitigate them here. That said I think its time for me to get more personal for once because much of what will follow is going to go against my natural pragmatism when it comes to politics.

However I don't think its that much of a contradiction. I'm a Democrat and the majority of candidates I've promoted in this series have been the kind of senators our country will need in a post-Trump America. I've argued for centrist Democrats in red states, an independent in Nebraska whose vowed not to caucus with either party, several independents who have rejected affiliation in deep red states and to this point one centrist Republican. (There will be one more in a future article, for the record.)

At the same time I'm a loyal Democrat and I do think it is in the best interest of the country at the moment for the party to take back the Senate this fall.  I know that it has always been an uphill battle and to argue against a Democrat would make that battle all the harder for my party.

Finally I believe it is in the best interest of America for both houses of Congress to be made up of members who represent their party, their country and their voters. I've argued that many Justice Democrats such as Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush failed at that task and I have little doubt that many of their eventual successors will not be any better.  We can't have an orderly government if the inmates are running the asylum and that's as true for Melat Kiros as it is Lauren Boebert.

So even though it is against my party's interest I can not in good conscience endorse El-Sayid as a Senator nor can I argue that Democrats in Michigan do so. And that is for the same reason I have against all Justice Democrats, past and present. I don't believe he has the best interests of Michigan in mind.

He may feel very passionately about what is happening in Gaza and he is allowed to do so. But Gaza is not on the ballot this year nor will it be until at least 2028. Considering that seems to the crux of El-Sayed's campaign far more than the usual progressive issues I fail to see how his being in the Senate meets the moment.

Start with the obvious. El-Sayed has spent the last two years saying that Gaza is a public health emergency. Well he's a public health official and a doctor, so the best way to help that region would be to work there. The people of Gaza need qualified doctors and health officials there far more than they need people advocating for their cause in Michigan. And it's not like there's exactly a shortage of activists in that state alone.

The fact that El-Sayed has spent the last year running for the Senate in Michigan rather than using his abilities to help the people who are suffering there would seem to indicate that, like every other activist on the left, his concern stops at the water's edge. And it speaks that he's more interested in his own personal ambitions than what is a crisis he could do something more substantial to help with.

Furthermore there is a more consequential election that will deal with Gaza then El-Sayid's this year. It's the one in Israel. This election is the only one where what happens with Gaza is on the ballot and it’s the only one where the winner will affect the fate of that region. Putting it mildly it's more important for his main issue if Netanyahu wins reelection in Israel this fall then if El-Sayid does and I honestly wonder if he or any of his primary voters are aware of that.

What can El-Sayid do for the citizens of Gaza as a Senator from Michigan? Like every single activist who advocates for it he has been very vague on the details. Considering he seems more interested in influence the Democratic nominee for President in 2028 that's still two and a half year before any administration can carry out his policies.  A lot can change in two years and it will have little, if anything, to do with the Presidential primaries. For all he knows by that time Hamas may disarm, Netanyahu may be in jail and a three state solution may have been implemented. And if you think that's ridiculous it's not nearly as foolish as believing that a single Democratic senator in America can single-handedly change things in the Middle East. Yet apparently that is what 48.5 percent of Michigan primary voters seem to believe.

Right now El-Sayid has to convince the 51.5 percent of Michigan primary voters to unite behind him to defeat Mike Rogers in November. This means he's going to have to prove to the majority of voters in that state he is not everything he has spent the last year assuring the primary voters he is.  How he can thread that needle involves a dexterity that no progressive candidate has ever been in a position to do in the last decade. He has to move to the center without isolating the left-wing voters who got him this far and consider any move to the center to the right. It means he'll have the spend the next three months cozying up the establishment figures – Gretchen Whitmer and Haley Stevens far more then Rashida Tlaib, and we all know which group is more demanding of purity.

I also have somewhat more concrete concerns about El-Sayid in regards to control of the House of Representatives that I don't need to live in Michigan to know will be raised. As a New York resident every two years since 2018 there is an attempt by Republicans to tie New York Democrats to AOC and in a few cases Mayor Mamdani. This has some teeth in swing districts of which New York has four that were decided by less then one percent two years ago.

I have little doubt that something similar has been done with Rashida Tlaib in Michigan during a similar period and now that El-Sayid is the Democratic nominee for Senate it will have more teeth statewide then it ever has in New York. And while Tlaib and fellow Justice Democrat Donovan McKinney can shrug it off there are at least two districts where this could be an issue. The 10^th which is being vacated as John James tries to challenge for the governorship and the seventh where freshman Tom Barrett is being challenged by the ultra-left William Lawrence. The seventh is particularly tricky because Barrett ran ahead of Trump in 2024 and Lawrence was already considered a risky candidate because of his progressive nature. If he's tied to El-Sayid Barrett might very well  hold his seat. Control of the House seems a lock this cycle but it would definitely be easier if there weren't someone this far left on a statewide race as so many Congressional districts. This isn't something the Democrats have to worry about in regard to say Maine.

What troubles me the most about Al-Sayid is that I only recently realized when I received the first official campaign email from him. Here's the introduction:

We just fought through the most expensive Democratic Senate primary in Michigan history – and won it without taking a single dollar from corporate PACS.

I'm not thrilled how El-Sayid seems to framing the Michigan Democrats in the same way he refers to the Republicans. Both are beholden the corporate interest.

Next paragraph:

Here's something nobody tells you on election night: winning doesn't refill a bank account. The primary basically drained ours at the exact moment the real fight started.

Ok: if he actually believed this was going to happen going in, he has no business running in the first place.

Every day we're spending playing catch up is a day Rogers gets to define our campaign before Michigan hears it from us first.

Okay so you're now assuming that during the last year no one was paying attention to what you were saying for the last year but the people you were trying to convince to vote for you? That's even more naïve.

I'm not going to pretend that's not a real problem. It is. (No shit.)But it’s the same one we solved ruing the primary election with people like you, showing up when it mattered.

For the record I didn't give him a dime

So I'll put it plainly: I need help getting this campaign back on its feet immediately, so we can kept this momentum going and defeat Mike Rogers in November.

Then he asks me to split a donation between his campaign and the DNC. So to be clear he's shilling for the establishment now, the same people he spent the last year vilifying. Glad to know you still have principles.

To be fair none of this is different from any of the email blasts I've gotten from any Democrat running for Senate whether it is centrists like Sherrod Brown or Mary Peltola (who I'm working for) or fellow far let candidates like Troy Jackson or Annie Andrews. The difference is that when these thoughts are expressed by someone like Al-Sayid who has spent the last year basically spitting in the face of all things establishment, it's a lot harder to hide the hypocrisy then it is with all these other candidates. What should read as an automated blast (which it is) has a real disconnect that is harder to dismiss then the overwhelming majority of emails I've gotten over the years.

And he'll have to defeat a Republican who came with in a hair of beating a far more centrist candidate just two years ago and who has been hoping for a candidate like this for months. I have little doubt the RNC and the establishment, which is facing an incredible fight on all fronts in states they long thought were safe havens, will welcome the opportunity to put the Democrats on defense in a state where a Republican hasn't won an election to the Senate since 1994 but where every single poll prior to the primary showed Rogers ahead of El-Sayid. One poll showed him beating El-Sayid by 49 percent to 39 percent and currently have him ahead by at least three points.

And Rogers, I should be clear, is not a MAGA Republican, at least in the terms I use.. He served in the House from 2001 to 2015 choosing to step down in 2014 rather then run for reelection. That means he has none of the stench that is associated with the Trump era or even the Tea Party. While in Congress he introduced a measure to make education savings free of federal taxes and introduced the Health Savings Account program into Medicaid that became part of law in 2008. He was the primary sponsor of the Respect for American Fallen Heroes Act and introduced the Cyber Intelligence Sharing Protection Act.

Now I'm not pretending he doesn't have flaws – opposition to transgender athletes in women's sports, the usual open borders rhetoric, support for tariffs – but he's not a rabid conservative. He's made it clear he will not attempt to change the recent constitutional amendment in Michigan protecting legal access to abortion and he's made it clear he's in defense of Israel's right to defend itself. By the standards of so many Republicans in the Senate today, he's practically a moderate. Even if you admit some of the Trumpier things about him, the fact remains in two years Trump isn't going to be President anymore.

I want Democrats win this cycle but I also believe we should have sane people in the Senate. I made it clear that I didn't want Graham Platner to be a Senator any more then I wanted Ken Paxton to be. In both cases the candidates personal behavior was so beyond the pale I didn't want either near DC. It's not the same question when it comes to El-Sayid and Rogers but I do have an issue with Democrats who only seem interested in the Senate as a stepping stone to higher office – I had no use for when Hilary Clinton ran for the Senate in 2000 for that reason and while it's not quite the same thing Kamala Harris's run in 2020 smacked of that similar kind of ambition. That one of the foundations of El-Sayid's campaign is being a powerbroker in Democratic politics smacks of that same kind of ambition. El-Sayid should be running to represent Michigan, America and his party and there's nothing in his stump speech of campaign that makes me think he has any interest in any of them.

In a sense this is an abstraction for me but for the people of Michigan it isn't. So I'll conclude with this. I'm working for Peltola this year and I'll probably do some work in the fall of someone in the Midwest – maybe Sherrod Brown, maybe Josh Turek in Iowa. At the very least I'll donate to their campaigns because I believe they should be elected.

I'm not giving a red cent to Abdul El-Sayid. I'm not going to write letters for him or work the phone banks. I'm not tacitly endorsing Mike Rogers – although except for being a Republican I think he's more             qualified to hold office then El-Sayid and that's not a dealbreaker for me the way it is for some of the other Republicans running this cycle or some incumbents. I won't be dancing in the street if Rogers wins but I'm not going to lose sleep over it the way I would if Ken Paxton does.

As for those Michigan Democrats who are the only ones this choice matters for, I will phrase the question like this: On Election day when you walk into the voting booth, if you decide to vote for El-Sayid can you do it with the sincere belief that he is the best man to represent you? Or as you do it will you silently be thinking: "Please don't let this man win?" I'd urge you only to do so if you can say the former and if it is the latter, well, you can vote for every other Democrat on the ballot and leave your choice for Senate blank. No one will ever know except you.

The phrase 'vote your conscience' exists for a reason and I think there are times it has to exceed such things as partisan warfare. All I can say is that if you do it, you don't have to tell anyone and if you do it, there will people like me who completely understand why.

 

 

I Try to Predict the 2026 Astra, Conclusion

 

 

In this category the Astras slightly outshine the Emmys and not just because tomorrow night they'll be announcing all the winners.

(Yes I'm all too aware of what the Emmys are planning to do with the majority of the categories in Limited Series and if they haven't reversed course by the end of the month, I will be having words. But this is not the time or place.)

As I was saying if you are willing to show appropriate recognition to Half Man and The Girlfriend and ignore Ed Gein completely you're doing something right in my book. That said I'm in a tough position because there is still no overwhelming frontrunner in almost every single one of these categories after nearly a year. This allows me to a little bit ambitious in my picks and since the Astras overwhelmingly dances to its own drum in these categories they could go out of left field a lot.

So let's do this.

 

OUTSTANDING LIMITED SERIES

Miracle of miracles I've actually seen all six nominees. My personal preference would be either All Her Fault or Half Man as the former was on my ten best of 2026 and the latter will be. Now I think All Her Fault is a dark horse but it will come down to Beef Season 2 and DTF St. Louis.

I'm giving DTF St. Louis a slight edge. The Astras has always been willing to recognize comic limited series more than the Emmys are and I think they'll let this play out here.

Should Win: All Her Fault/Half Man

Will Win: DTF St. Louis (?)

 

For Best TV Movie I assume this will got Remarkably Bright Creatures considering its received three nominations overall.

 

BEST ACTOR IN A LIMITED SERIES OR TV MOVIE

My personal preference would be Paul Anthony Kelly or Richard Gadd. Kelly was ignored by Emmys and Gadd is Half Man's only nominee. But I think this will come down to Oscar Isaac for Beef and Matthew Rhys for The Beast In Me.

I'm going to go for Rhys for several reasons. First it was a superb performance. Second he was ignored for Widow's Bay and I think the Astras will want to atone for that. And third, they've already given his wife a prize. They should balance it out.

Should Win: Kelly/Gadd.

Will Win: Rhys.

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A LIMITED SERIES OR TV MOVIE

All five nominees for the Emmys are in this category along with Camila Morrone. It is a cutthroat category and I've seen the four major contenders and I could make a convincing argument for any of them.

My personal choice is Sarah Snook for her masterclass in All Her Fault. And she is the only contender with a prize to her credit: she won in this category at the Critics Choice several months ago. I could see them doing the same. There's a chance Carey Mulligan will manage to win for Beef but I think Snook will win by an eyelash.

Should Win: Snook.

Will Win: Snook/Mulligan

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A LIMITED SERIES/TV MOVIE

A better category to the Emmys in many ways. Jake Lacy is my personal favorite but I don't think he has much of a chance. Second choice would be Jamie Bell and he did win a prize in this category. I think it will come down to either him or David Harbour for DTF St. Louis and Harbour also won a prize from the Gotham TV Awards.

Honestly Harbour will be who I pick for the Emmys this year so I'm more than fine with him winning here.

Should Win: Lacy.

Will Win: Harbour.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A LIMITED SERIES/TV MOVIE

Why do you do this to me Astras? I want Grace Gummer to win for Love Story so badly and I know she won't.

Okay this comes down to one of two choices: Dakota Fanning for All Her Fault and Linda Cardellini for DTF St. Louis. Two former child actresses who have yet to receive their due from any awards circle. Two extraordinary performances as two very different mothers struggling under circumstances.

My heart says Fanning. My head and my heart say Cardellini. I'll give it Cardellini by an edge.

Should Win: Fanning/Cardellini.

Will Win: Cardellini.

 

OUTSTANDING DIRECTING IN A LIMITED SERIES/TV MOVIE

Okay this one I'm giving to Beef given the nature of how it's done.

 

OUTSTANDING WRITING IN A TV MOVIE

Much as I loved All Her Fault, DTF ST. Louis absolutely deserves this one.

 

OUTSTANDING LIMITED SERIES OR TV MOVIE ENSEMBLE

The two choices that are here are All Her Fault or Beef. And while I think All Her Fault had the best overall performances I have to give the edge to Beef.

 

I'm going to deal with the categories I care about and leave the rest alone.

Best Book to Screen Series: My personal choice would be Margo's Got Money Troubles. That said I have a feeling that this how the Astras are going to honor Heated Rivalry and I can live with that.

Best Documentary TV Movie I think it should go to either Mel Brooks: The 99 Year old Man or My Mom Jayne.

Best Stand up or Variety Special. It's time to things started with The Muppet Show.

Best Game Show: either Celebrity or Pop Culture Jeopardy is more than fine.

Best Talk or Variety show – I really don't care anymore. They've all used up my patience.

And I will be thrilled to see William H. Macy and Jason Ritter accepting prizes tomorrow and I'm overjoyed to see Shawn Hatosy taking yet another trophy.

 

That's that. Tomorrow I will be up late watching the Astras and hopefully on Sunday I'll be back with the results.

We're getting down to the nitty gritty with the Emmys. Keep watching this space for the predictions themselves.

Homicide Rewatch: Closet Cases

 

Every so often I'll read a post about TV from an organization involving African-Americans or LatinX or any other group of identity politics which will rank the number of TV shows that have characters with major roles of that group. The pattern is always the same. If it has dropped by two to three percent, it's condemned; if it goes up four or five percent it's met with something like 'improving but we've got a long way to go."

My reaction every time I read one of these pieces is that the people who are currently making these rankings are 30 or younger if they are truly nitpicking like this. Because as someone who came of age in the 1990s I'm fully aware that when it came to television those were the bad old days for every minority group that existed. It said a lot about where TV was that during that period Homicide was by far the biggest cause for minority representation when it came to African-Americans – and it's now understood that was the reason it struggled to survive each season as well as never getting adequate recognition by the Emmys. This was true every part of the 'Rainbow Coalition' during that period. So it says something that arguably the most controversial storyline it did during its entire run began in this episode.

I remember 90s TV and if you were a gay man there were exactly three characters that were represented: AIDS victim, drag queen or serial killer. In all of those versions you had to play into the notion of being camp. And the idea of having a series where one of the main characters was gay. The networks wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole. And the few shows that allowed gay character – well on Melrose Place we had Matt Fielding, who was playing by a straight man and who was in many relationships but never once was allow to have a sex scene. That was it.

What's more there was no sign the viewers wanted gay character. One of the biggest events in TV history had happened in the spring of 1997: 'The Puppy Episode' of Ellen. It is one of the most groundbreaking episodes in TV history – but by the end the year the ratings were lower than they were before Ellen had come out and the show was going to be cancelled the following spring. And to be clear it's always been easier for women to explore their sexuality in America than men on TV and film.

So the fact that Homicide was going to have one of its male characters openly explore his sexuality was, in 1998, the equivalent of putting a blindfold before venturing across a minefield. And even more dangerous was that this character was Bayliss.

Now I have to get somewhat personal. Like every fan of the show I was always drawn to Kyle Secor's work. Bayliss was always the heart of the series as well as its moral conscience. He was our way into the squad when the show debuted and no matter how many new detectives joined the unit, he still seemed that way five years later.  So I won't lie: the idea of him rejecting the heterosexual norms that he himself has been embracing for his entire life, it made me uncomfortable at 18. I can imagine many long-time viewers felt the same.

Because the idea of a character being bisexual was somehow harder to accept in 1998 then just being a gay man or a lesbian. I had a lot of trouble accepting it in TV characters for a very long time – if I'm being honest, I openly accepted it as a reality in maybe the 2010s. I could accept the gay or lesbian characters far easier than bisexuality.(That's the term that was prominent until fairly recently and since that was what Bayliss himself used later on I'm going to do the same for clarity.) It very well might have been as groundbreaking when Bayliss called himself 'bicurious' as it was when Will & Grace came out in the fall of 1998 and became the first TV show of any era to become a cultural and commercial hit with gay characters as the leads.  Secor's arc in the final seasons of Homicide was less noted than the successes in comedies but there's an argument its just as important for TV dramas down the road.

And in keeping with how the show works that storyline basically comes up in the denouement of an episode that has spent the better part of forty-five minutes showing all of the horrible obstacles gay men face in 1990s Baltimore in almost every incarnation, not the least of which is the Baltimore PD itself. The storyline itself is groundbreaking enough; that it comes during an episode that is showing Bayliss every single bad thing that can happen if he goes down this path and that at the end of the episode he's still taking tentative steps to do so is among the bravest work Secor has done or will ever do on this show.

The episode begins with a anonymous man being found nude with his face nearly beaten off and left in a dumpster  behind the Zodiac, a restaurant prominently known for a gay clientele. We learn quickly that Bayliss and Cox's long-simmering romance broke up the moment it met reality. Cox thought it was a Christmas thing and is more concerned with what it will look like if her relationship is discovered. (She basically confirms this in a conversation with Meldrick during the episode.) After that they have a discussion with the proprietor Chris Rawls. Pembleton sees the aftermath of what's going on between him and Cox and its clear he's stunned not only that they had a relationship but now its over. This in itself shows how their partnership has shifted. Bayliss was always trying to get Frank to open up before and Pembleton refused to share anything. Now Bayliss is being closed mouth and Frank almost seems heartbroken. "You don't tell me anything," he says in a Bayliss like tone.

I remember looking at Rawls and thinking that this isn't the kind of gay man I'm used to from 1990s TV. He goes against the flamboyant nature that was sadly common, asks if this is a hate crime or sex crime and is remarkably calm given the circumstances. In one of the best lines of the episode he's asked if he has any enemies. "Besides Jesse Helms?" Rawls says with a deadpan that would do Munch proud. He asks whether this could be related to the murder of a gay bartender that was similar.  And in a portent of a later scene he offers to tell him that certain aspects of his community don't hold the police in high regard but his clientele does. We're going to see examples of both sides before this episode is half over. And before he leaves Rawls compliments Bayliss on his tie.

Its Pembleton who notes that Rawls was flirting with Bayliss and says he handled it well. For Frank this is a comment of professional courtesy as he remembers just how badly Bayliss handled the murder of Zeke Lafeld in Hate Crimes which took place in a similar neighborhood and where he was incredibly uncomfortable to the point of homophobic.

There are no identifying marks on the body so the victim is initially a John Doe. Bayliss and Pembleton are forced to go to missing person with a description of "a well-tanned muscular white male who liked linguini." Bayliss puts his foot when he asks: "Was there any indication he was gay?" Cox: "I don't think they have a test for that." Clearly she's an ally.  This leads them to Higby, who has been transferred to Missing Persons and longs for the days of Homicide when he was disguising murdered hookers as OD's. (That's what was going on the last time we saw him.) And the moment Higby learns that the victim is gay. "I'm here after quitting time busting my hump for some (fag)!"  Higby's bigotry is deep in the roots (maybe he learned it from Gaffney when they worked the same shift) Immediately afterwards we see a group of protestors outside the squad saying that familiar chant: "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" Again its hard not to see that there's been some progress in America these days that many people of a certain age consider this a statement of Pride and not one demanding action. Giardello, interestingly, seems somewhat more on Higby's side. He's clearly annoyed that the bosses are leaning on him because of the protestors and let's not kid ourselves, if there were no protestors the bosses wouldn't care

Eventually they figure out that the food in the stomach was served at the Zodiac and Rawls identifies the victim as Allan Costello a regular who owns a nightclub. Allan was there the previous night with one of his 'hustlers' – a young man he was trying to help. He was reported missing by his 'brother' Sam – and we quickly learn Sam was his lover and the two of them live together. Sam is still afraid of what will happen if people learn his sexual identity. (Again a sign of how far we've come that this makes this story almost  a period piece.) Pembleton thinks that Sam lied about his relationship. Rawls points out he probably did it to make sure people would look for him and he doesn't trust the police. Rawls actually comes with the detectives to the nightclub where Sam does the books in order not to scare him.

The nightclub scene is interesting: while its somewhat stereotypical for the era it's less offensive then the overwhelming majority of shows on the subject would be at the time. More interesting is that Bayliss actually seems more at ease then we've seen him  in a very, very long time. And for a man who called Bayliss out on his homophobia and will call out racism time and again, its fascinating to see how uncomfortable Frank is seeing two men dancing together. Does he not have the open mind we've always believed?  Well, when asked if the two of them are together he jokes "We're joined at the hip." (Ain't love grand?)

Sam is very reluctant to come in, he pointedly doesn't want to ID  his lover's body and he resists Chris's entreaties. He makes it clear he didn't know who Allan was seeing and its clear he long lost patience with his lover's interest in saving these boys whether they wanted saving or not. Sam's instincts, unfortunately, are dead on. When he identifies the body he says something even more shocking for 1990s audiences: "I want you to find the sonofabitch who killed my husband!"

Bayliss then points out that 12 years together is longer then most marriages. He actually says that maybe these gays have the right idea, actually suggesting that two men might be able to get along better then couples of the opposite sex. "They got the same anatomy, the same hormones, they wash the same body…Same with the conversations they'd be easier, more direct." Of course immediately afterward he compares that to the relationship he and Frank have which hysterically undercut his entire argument and undoes his own argument by saying with a woman "You've got to censor yourself." Then he goes even further saying two men can borrow each other clothes as an advantage to same sex relationships. (Yes Timmy that's exactly why couples of the same sex want to get married. They want to save money on wardrobes.) I'm not going to reveal how Frank ends the conversation, because it's just too good a line.

Then we get to see the gay hustler culture in Baltimore and its just as unpleasant as with female prostitutes. They end up running into the new guy who says "Things are so much better in San Francisco" named Peter Fields at the club Floss who even the owner thinks could be dangerous. Fields was wanted as a material witness for a murder in Venice Beach and he was arrested in Baltimore for solicitation a few weeks earlier but somehow the old warrant never came up. It turns out Hoskins ran the check but California wouldn't pay to extradite him. He released Fields because he had nothing to hold him on – and more importantly California considered it a low-profile case. (Again I can't imagine this happening as often today.) Fields is rousted at Floss and the clientele doesn't bat an eye – I imagine this kind of thing happens more often then they want to admit, though not for these reasons.

Fields is unrepentant. When Frank asks what Costello's watch and wallet were doing in his apartment and doesn't bother to talk about the hammer. Bayliss asks why he dressed him up in lingerie and he admits it. Finally after endless pressing Fields basically says that Bayliss is only doing this because he finds him attractive. You can see the disgust going through Bayliss's eyes: he's had to do some difficult things to get a confession but to tell this narcissistic prick that he likes his 'nice, hard ass' – and then have to endure his laughter – clearly turns his stomach. And why did Fields kill him? "Because he was a flaming f----t. A queer!" And he is very clear that he is 'not like those freaks. I'm a red-blooded, heterosexual man!"  There will be no answers for Bayliss here then out of any other murder and its painful.

 

We're not allowed to forget what's going on in Mahoney-land. Lewis encounters Stivers in the squad and the two of them can barely talk. (How far we've come since the two of them were flirting over a stakeout.) Then Lewis goes to Kellerman and demands to talk. That Kellerman seems so untroubled – his dismissive "Oh, that again?" – justifiably pisses Meldrick off and he all but drags him into the box for a private conversation. Lewis actually says: "Maybe you're too stupid to panic!" which makes sense because he's been ducking even talking to Meldrick ever since he told him about the tape Georgia Rae had at Christmas. Kellerman doesn't want to tell her because Stivers has never been onboard with either the killing or the cover story and in his mind that makes her weak.  In addition to everything else there's now a distinct misogynistic streak developing in Mike that's going to become all the more prevalent in the rest of the season. Lewis, like Cox, reminds Mike that Stivers is in this as deep as the two of them.  Despite what Mike says he is panicking; it's just coming out as angry bluster more than terror.

Meldrick ends up telling Stivers the truth about the tape. Stivers reaction is perfect: "For all you know the videotape will show Kellerman executing Luther and the two of us standing by doing nothing?" She refuses to believe the delusion that Kellerman has been telling himself: she knows what she saw and the viewer did too. Stivers is justifiably pissed Kellerman's been holding out on her for weeks and has no use for Lewis's deflecting. She demands the three of them meet to know how they're going to handle Georgia Rae.

It’s the first time the three detectives have been in the same place for an extended period since the immediate aftermath of the shooting and the tension is thick. Kellerman is more concerned about being turned into Internal then the fact he's being blackmailed by Georgia Rae or for that matter having killed Luther. To Kellerman losing his job is as bad as facing criminal charges. When Kellerman says that he'd never compromise his badge he is thinking solely of being on the take of Georgia Rae. The possibility that he compromised himself when he shot Luther down and then relied on the blue wall to keep him safe is not considered the same thing  is as close to copaganda as Homicide has yet gotten. He makes it clear he plans to force Georgia Rae's hand. That Kellerman can't conceive Georgia Rae could outsmart them shows a combination of naivete and arrogance that makes you wonder if he learned anything from all the times Luther outsmarted them.

Kellerman's solution is to confront Georgia Rae and dare her to show the videotape. The problem is how: "As long as your bastard brother is still dead, its worth it." He thinks this means he's called her bluff. He's forgotten how the Mahoney's work. "Killing him meant that much to you?" Georgia Rae says. Kellerman: "Yeah. I guess it did." He practically dares her to do whatever she's going to do next. Though he's right: the two of them never see each other again.

In a smaller storyline Falsone is upset his wife took his son away for him over the holidays. He brought his old train set in to work and he wants to drive over to drop it off. He's still considering suing for custody with Janine. As with Meldrick Ballard tries to urge him as his wife to talk it out. He assures they don't know his wife – and today we're finally going to meet the former Mrs. Falsone. Paul knocks on the door and seems territorial about the man's his ex is seeing. And its clear within one minute exactly why this marriage ended. Janine then heads back inside before Paul tries to course correct. They agree to meet for lunch and we see an awkwardness we're not used to from the ultra-confident detective. Falsone wants to discussed increased custody – he only sees him every other weekend  - and immediately the meeting turns into them spitting at each other. It turns out Janine had an affair with another man who she's not seeing anymore and it degenerates to him deciding to sue for joint custody.

 

The real confrontations come in small moments. Kellerman has a conversation with Lewis and asks him if he was wrong. "I'm not saying you were wrong," he admits. "I'm just saying I wouldn't have done it."  To Kellerman this somehow cuts deeper that what happens in the final scene.

Bayliss has a conversation with Rawls at the end of the episode and decides to go on a date with him that night. When Tim tells Frank this his partner is baffled considering just a few days ago he broke up with Juliana. (Frank goes out of his way to make sure the two of them are alone before they talk.) Tim admits something very clear. He doesn't know what he's doing. "I don't know if you've noticed this Frank, but I haven't really been happy for a very long time. So I'm going to have dinner with Chris Rawls who I find it intelligent and funny and we're going to drink some wine and we're gonna laugh…and talk…enjoy ourselves…be happy. There something wrong with that?"

Frank says: "No."

Tim: I don't think so either.

I would argue, in a more ambiguous but no less crucial way, that this statement of Bayliss is as important to the idea of a portrayal of bisexuality on TV as the Puppy Episode was for gays and lesbians a few months earlier. Even braver we never see Rawls again and this is just the start of an ongoing discussion that continues for much of the remainder of the series. Homicide is too simple a show to argue that anything has been resolved by this decision and it will emphasize just how much trouble Bayliss will get on the job for taking it. That's brave, too.

At the end of the episode Kellerman gets a videotape in the mail that is delivered to him. He goes into the next room to look at it. Georgia Rae is on it. She's made a videotape to tell him there is none. Georgia Rae gave her brother the surveillance system but he never turned it on. He didn't like the idea of being recorded. (Which…kind of makes him the sensible one on the family tree.) Georgia Rae put him through all this because she wanted to see what Kellerman would do: to know if he really killed her brother. Now she knows because Mike told her. And she makes it very clear she will avenge her brother's death.

"I will have my revenge" are the last words of the episode. And she will. Not even she knows yet how much it will cost Kellerman, her and everyone in both their orbits.

One last thing: the next time you read a story from someone in the LGBTQ+ community about how America is descending into a fascist states because of the rights its taking away from part of this community (I read at least one at this site every other day) you'd do well to show them Closet Cases. This is an episode that aired on January 2^nd 1998 yet so many elements are so anachronistic it almost feels like a period piece. Are things bad for the gay and lesbian community today? Of course. But consider this. Back then a story like the one that the writers did for Bayliss was so controversial NBC was skittish about even airing publicity about it. Today stories like this are almost considered old-hat on shows like Grey's Anatomy and Will Trent. Characters of all sexual preferences are allowed to be on TV and be defined not by who they sleep with but how good they are at their job. (I can't imagine a show like Brilliant Minds where a character was openly gay would have been greenlit on NBC even five years ago, much less in the 1990s on HBO.) More people are allowed to just be happy and more of us say there's nothing wrong with that then they would in 1998. If that isn't progress, I don't know what is.

 

 

 

 

NOTES FROM THE BOARD

'Detective Munch': Discussing the Philip Robson murder Munch makes it clear that in fact it was a straight-up robbery. When Giardello says Robson was gay, Munch responds: "I don't think the shooter knew that."

If you're wondering about the reference to the laptop and the argument Giardello is having its actually an in0joke. In another of the way's Homicide was groundbreaking there was actually an online spinoff of the show called Second Shift which unfolded as a web-based serial and frequently used characters who were online personas as well as cameos from regulars such as Reed Diamond and Erik Todd Dellums. Walter Neal, the lieutenant on that show, appears as Lt. Neal. We'll actually be dealing with this in later seasons as actual crossovers take place.

Hey, Isn't That… Peter Gallagher who plays Chris Rawls had broken on to the scene as John in the classic Sex Lies and Videotape. He had primarily worked in TV before that most notably as Leo Frank in the miniseries The Murder of Mary Phagan and  the ABC version of An Inconvenient Woman. For much of the 1990s he was a major figure in indie films such as The Player, Bob Roberts, Short Cuts, The Hudsucker Proxy and Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle. He was never quite able to become a leading man and by the end of the decade was back to character actor status and was working in TV.

He would eventually achieve mainstream success when he took the role of Sandy Cohen, the patriarch on the hit 2000s series The OC. From that point on he was a fixture in TV in cable and streaming playing Dean Stacy Koons on Californication in 2009, Father Phil in the penultimate season of Rescue Me and Arthur Campbell on the USA spy drama Covert Affairs. He played Larry on Togetherness, Benedict Ryan on The Gifted, Deputy Chief Dodds across five seasons of Law and Order: SVU and Mitch, the Parkinson's afflicted father in Zoey's Extraordinary Playlist. He played Nick, Grace's billionaire boyfriend and eventual husband on Grace and Frankie and David Hamilton on Season 17 of Grey's Anatomy. His last major role as Axel on The Beauty.

On the Soundtrack: At the night club where Bayliss and Pembleton meet Sam Patti Labelle's New Attitude can be heard playing.

 

 

I Try to Predict theh 2026 Astra TV Awards, Part 2: Drama

 

As always the Astras really hears the beat of a different drummer when it comes to drama and your mileage of respect for them will vary depending upon your tastes.

If you think shows like The Boys, Outlander and From receive too little recognition then the Astras are your cup of tea. If, however, you like The Gilded Age and Slow Horses and believe Pluribus is a brilliant show then the Astras may leave you a bit cold.  I'm in the happy medium because there's recognition for Matlock and The Audacity and nothing for Your Friends & Neighbors and Knight of the Seven Kingdoms.

So here we go.

 

BEST DRAMA SERIES

I'm guessing this will go to one of the four nominees that overlap with the Emmys picks for Drama: The Diplomat, Paradise, The Pitt and Pluribus. For the record last year the Astras picked Severance over The Pitt so I can't say with confidence they'll pick it this time.

My personal preference is for The Pitt and it will do very well here. But don't rule out Pluribus prevailing in this category: in their short history the Astras have given Best Drama to an Apple TV show three different times: Servant in their inaugural awards and Severance both seasons it was on the air. Personally I'd be fine if Pluribus were to win.

Should Win: Pluribus/The Pitt.

Will Win: The Pitt.

 

BEST ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES

A very strong field with four of the five nominees for the Emmys in this category along with some deserving nominees. Always glad to see Walton Goggins and Ramon Rodriguez here.

My personal preference at this point is that Sterling K. Brown should get it for Season 2 of Paradise. But I have no problem with Noah Wyle winning for The Pitt. He's absolutely going to go back to back at the Emmys this year and I'm fine with that.

Should Win: Brown.

Will Win: Wyle.

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A DRAMA

This field did pick all five nominees for the Emmys, including Chase Infiniti. And much as I'd like to see Kathy Bates win for Matlock or Carrie Coon win for anything this is going to be a showdown between Keri Russell for The Diplomat and Rhea Seehorn for Pluribus.

I think Seehorn wins this by a hair and it's not just because of the Golden Globes. The Astras like her a lot: Seehorn won Supporting Actress in a Cable Drama for the final two seasons of Better Call Saul when the Emmys were falling all over Julia Garner and Jennifer Coolidge.  I'll be pulling for Seehorn at the Emmys but we'll see where it starts. (Of course the Astras has also given Keri Russell a win in this category the first season this show was one the air…but I'm still comfortable with my pick.)

Should Win/Will Win: Seehorn

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A DRAMA

The Astras only nominated two cast members from The Pitt and no one from Pluribus. On the plus side they did nominate Jason Ritter for Matlock and Bill Skarsgard from Welcome to Derry. It balances it out.

My personal preference is for Tom Pelphrey for his extraordinary work in Task. But I think Patrick Ball will pull out a win for The Pitt, mainly because they'll be less division then there's going to be at the Emmys. I'm pretty sure Pelphrey will prevail at the Emmys but that's later on.

Should Win: Pelphrey.

Will Win: Ball.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A DRAMA

No Karolina Wydra or Julianne Nicholson. On the plus side we do have Christine Baranski for The Gilded Age and Emilia Jones for Task. Balance.

My personal preference among those wonderful actresses from The Pitt is Taylor Dearden and her incredible work as Mel. Now Katherine LaNasa didn't win in this category last year; it went to Isabella Merced for The Last of Us who was even nominated. This is a category the Astras could go for someone who won't show up at all – and Baranski has won in this category before.

I think it'll go to Baranski or Allison Janney for The Diplomat. But either way it’s a great group.

Should Win: Baranski/Dearden.

Will Win: Janney (?)

 

OUTSTANDING GUEST ACTOR IN A DRAMA

Since Jeff Kober wasn't nominated (no one from The Pitt was) I think this one will go to Bradley Whitford for The Diplomat. He's one of the only Emmy nominees in this category.

 

OUTSTANDING GUEST ACTRESS IN A DRAMA

Easy. Shailene Woodley wins for Paradise on her way to her first Emmy.

 

BEST BROADCAST NETWORK ENSEMBLE

Will Trent has dominated this category for a while. But I'm giving the edge to Matlock.

 

BEST CABLE DRAMA ENSEMBLE

No Emmy nominees. I'll go with Welcome to Derry.

 

BEST STREAMING ENSEMBLE

The Pitt, no question.

 

BEST DIRECTING IN A DRAMA

All right. This is going to come down to The Gilded Age, Pluribus or The Pitt. And since Pluribus involves by far the most elaborate direction for its success I'm betting they go for this. (For the record the Emmy in this category last year went to Slow Horses and the Astras didn't even nominate the show. In fact they gave Best Director to Will Trent which makes me love them all the more.)

 

BEST WRITING IN A DRAMA

Much as I'd like to see Task or High Potential win, it's the same showdown as above. The Pitt won in this category last year but the momentum is building for Pluribus. I'm going to give the barest of edges to Pluribus but this is a category where anything can happen. (And remember the Emmy ended up going to Andor in this category.)

 

And that's it for Drama. Tomorrow I deal with Outstanding Limited Series/TV Movie as well as other ephemera. (For the record I think the Astras did better here than the Emmys overall in terms of nominations.)

Hold On To Your Seats As I Try To Predict the 2026 Astra TV Awards Part 1: Comedy

 

One of the great joys for me as a critic over this past decade has been the rise of the Astra TV Awards. Just as eclectic as the Critics Choice Awards when it comes to nominations and far more so when it comes to the actual awards themselves I have always deeply admired them even though it is frequently difficult for me to watch them. There've been extenuating circumstances the last three years (though in the last year's case the error was clearly mine) but this year I intend to watch and celebrate as much as I predict.

The depth in which they've evolved with each new year has led to more interesting quirks that I find entertaining as well as occasionally infuriating but I've always respected them more for charting their own path. I mean, they're willing to nominate Elsbeth and Will Trent season after season; how can I not love them?

So I intend to break this down over three articles leading up to the Astras themselves this Saturday where hopefully I can see how accurate I am and not really care if I'm wrong.

Let's begin with Comedy.

 

First of all I need to tell there are two major omissions in the Astras that you won't see on Emmy night: the Astras chose to completely shutout Season 4 of The Bear and the current sensation of audiences and critics alike Widow's Bay.

In the former case the Astras were absolutely correct and the Emmys were wrong when they gave it the seven nominations they did. In the latter, well, there's no way to hide this: the Astras screwed up big time, particularly when they chose to give so much love to I Love LA. (Their other choices are valid.) On the plus side it will make for a fascinating group of awards this cycle.

So let's begin.

 

OUTSTANDING COMEDY SERIES

On the plus side I think the omission of Widow's Bay would lead to an easy choice for Best Comedy Series. Hacks is by far the overwhelming frontrunner to win at the Emmys and I see no reason it won't prevail here too. I know the Astras does march to the beat of its own drum so don't rule out Shrinking being an upset but I think they've got this in the bag.

Should Win/Will Win: Hacks.

 

BEST ACTOR IN A COMEDY

Well with Matthew Rhys not here this race is wide open and it’s a big field filled with pretty good choices.

My personal preference would be for Jason Segel for his incredible work for Shrinking, which is criminal that it has gone unrecognized to this point. But I think that it's going to go to one of the men from Only Murders in the Building and having seen Season Five I'm going with Martin Short.

Should Win: Segel.

Will Win: Short.

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A COMEDY SERIES

I want to assume Jean Smart has it locked up but last year she lost to Natasha Lyonne for Poker Face who wasn't even nominated. And in 2022 she lost to Selena Gomez who wasn't nominated by the Emmys that year.

My personal preference (isn't it always?) is for Carrie Preston finally nominated in the comedy category. But I really do want Smart to get everything that's coming to her and that means taking the prize for the final season of Hacks. As for everybody but Lisa Kudrow, there's always next year.

 

SHOULD WIN: Preston/Smart

WILL WIN: Smart.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A COMEDY

I won't lie there are a couple of nominees I'd like to see prevail. Paul W. Downs is more than worthy for his work in Hacks. John C. McGinley should really win something and I'm glad he was nominated for Rooster. And Nick Offerman's work was a masterclass in Margo's.

But come on, this is Harrison Ford's the lose for the second straight year. He did win in this category last year and I missed it so I want to see him get a standing O here.

Should Win/Will Win: Ford.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A COMEDY

Now Hannah Einbinder has done well winning the first two Supporting Actress in a Streaming Comedy Awards in 2021 and 2022. And I suspect she'll win the Emmy. But last year when she did win the Emmy the Astras gave the prize to Catherine O'Hara. So in the case I'm going to go off the reservation slightly.

It's a formidable group but in my case it comes down to two choices: Janelle James for Abbott Elementary or Michelle Pfeiffer for Margo's Got Money Troubles. James did win the Critics Choice Award earlier this year and she has won before in this category. My personal preference is Pfeiffer by an eyelash but I'll give the edge to James.

Should Win: Pfeiffer/James.

Will Win: James.

 

BEST GUEST ACTOR AND ACTRESS IN A COMEDY

I've seen the majority of the nominees in both categories so here are my picks.

I'd personally love to John C. McGinley win for recreating his iconic Dr. Cox in Scrubs but Michael J. Fox has this locked up. And I think Kaitlin Olson will finally get what's coming to her for playing DJ in Hacks.

 

BEST BROADCAST NETWORK COMEDY ENSEMBLE

Very tough call. My personal preference would be Abbott Elementary or Scrubs but I suspect it will go to Ghosts.

 

BEST CABLE COMEDY ENSEMBLE

None of the nominees are nominated in the Emmys so I'll just go with my personal preference The Lowdown.

 

BEST STREAMING COMEDY ENSEMBLE

I think Only Murders in the Building wins this one but don't rule out Hacks pulling it out. Both have great guest casts.

 

BEST DIRECTING AND WRITING

I don't know which episodes have been nominated in each category but for the moment I'm giving the edge to Hacks in Writing and Abbott for directing. Hacks has always done very well in the writing category (It's won the last two years) and Abbott Elementary has done just as well for directing with the Astras.

That's it for comedy. Tomorrow I take up drama which will be slightly easier and more difficult at the same time.