My Predictions for the 2026 Emmys Week 1 Conclusion: Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy Et Al

 

First of all having seen all seven performances in this category, damn you Emmys for making me have to choose. I can take some measure of relief that for five of the nominees we'll be seeing them again in years to come but still, no one should have to make a choice like this.

Now on a more serious note there is a clear favorite in this category but the dark horse is gaining momentum as we speak (I'll actually be talking about that when we get to her). There are also a couple of X factors working against the favorite, some of which is beyond the scope of her work which was, as always, a master class. Still never has the phrase: "It's an honor just to be nominated' been meant with more sincerity then in this category, much as has been the case for the entire decade so far.

With that in mind let's deal with the nominees for Supporting Actress first.

 

Dale Dickey, Widow's Bay. For Playing: Rosemary, the perpetually put upon assistant at the Mayor's Office who knows a lot and will gladly tell you. Pro: Brace yourself. This is Dale Dickey's first Emmy nomination. Can you believe it? This year alone she had roles in The Hunting Wives, The Lowdown, Fallout, Bosch: Legacy and Dutton Ranch. I've marveled at her in Unbelievable, Vice Principals, she's had roles in True Blood… why did it take this long? Most of the actors in Widow's Bay have clearly been cast both on their appearances and deadpan delivery and Dickey has always been great with both. She's not as showy in her brilliance as all the other actors (its who she is) but as always she can make clear with so few words just how great a talent she is. Witness her wonderful moments during Tom's mushroom trip when she stops off at a convenience store and between flashes its clear Tom has raided the place – and she's still scratching off lottery tickets unperturbed. She's a joy to watch in this like everyone else. Con: Look Rosemary was fun during the party but come on, we all know that if someone from this category wins it's going to be the one who won the dancing competition.

Hannah Einbinder, Hacks (EXPERTS PICK). For Playing: Ava Daniels, trying to help Deborah Vance realize her legacy while striking out on her own. Pro: If you can separate the politicizing of the performer about social justice (which I can but others may not be able to) Einbinder's work in the final season of Hacks was just as magnificent as Jean Smart's final season. With the fighting between them behind it became clear that Ava was Deb's best friend as much as Deb admitted she was Ava's. And we got to see her do her usual humiliating hysterical bits all season: her preferring to take a male escort until she learned he was a magician, her trying to find a way to do her own series by stealing the salt and pepper shakers of Deb, her magnificent work in 'Montecito' where she really leaned into playing Deb's lesbian lover and making Deb uncomfortable while absolutely wanting to hit Leslie Bibb. And this was balanced perfectly by the series finale when she learned about Deb's plan to end her own life after a European vacation and spent much of it in denial and then deciding to enjoy it with all the fun she could get. Of course she tried to talk Deb out of it, but then she decided to support her – and then remarkably what brought them together in the first place – comedy – saved Deb's life for the second time. Einbinder has not gotten nearly as much respect as Smart has at the Emmys (though to be fair this has been an incredibly crowded field) and she deserves one more Emmy. Con: It's not so much her politics that may hurt her as the momentum from at least one and possibly two of the nominees in this category. She did win the Astra for Outstanding Supporting Actress earlier this week against a crowded field but she's won twice before and it came to nothing.

Janelle James, Abbott Elementary. (MY PICK). For Playing: Ava Coleman, the vice principal of Abbott Elementary, facing increasing professional challenges with her new personal life. Pro: James was stunned back in January when she managed to win in this category at the Critics Choice Awards over Einbinder who'd won the Emmy a few months earlier. I wasn't. James has been the comic spark that has kept Abbott rolling for five seasons. In her second administration (and yes, there were quite a few jokes about the White House this season) Ava did everything to show both immense professional growth while trying to ignore it. She managed to find a mall when there was a water heater break for school and then tried to ignore the attacks of parents, before working to get them back to Abbott. She engaged in another battle with her great rival over no homework, which ended disastrously. And she ended up fighting to save Abbott against her will in the season finale – and did. This was balanced by a great personal growth, not only with her colleagues (though she really doesn't want to call them friends) particularly her meddling with Janine and her increasing love for her working class boyfriend which has caused her more to put herself front and center in that relationship and even acknowledge "he's a good looking man with a good heart." I've wanted her to win since Season 1 and I think it's time. Con: This is an extremely crowded category with a lot of incredible performances. Don't take her lightly but I don't think it's happening this year.

Kate O'Flynn, Widow's Bay (DARK HORSE…AND RISING FAST). For Playing: Patricia, the town outcast trying to help the Mayor while boosting her popularity. Pro: Ever since the already classic 'Beach Reads' episode aired Kate O'Flynn has been skyrocketing in the odds for an Emmy. With good reason. For much of the first season you can tell that Patricia has spent her entire life as a doormat, believing nearly being the victim of The Boogeyman should give her cache but no one in the town thinks so. It's clear that Tom's subtle bullying has been a weight on her all her career as well. So she leans into Sunset Cocktails as a chance to help boost her. Then she ends up finding a book in her bookmobile that is clearly right out of the Hiro Murai set of things you know are lying to you. And so she manages to arrange a wonderful party, that seems to go very well, that leads to an incredible dance number, a toast where she seems to have achieved everything she ever wanted – and then of course, she learns she's been manipulated by dark forces into a leading a human sacrifice. In the episodes that follow you can tell just how ridiculous she's been taking by everybody around her and that she seems to be more upset about how badly her party went then the dark forces surrounding the town. This week she took prizes from both the Dorian Awards and the TCA (for Best Comedic Performance) and I think the momentum is shifting to her. Con: The question is if O'Flynn and Widow's Bay can overcome the sentimentality for the gorilla that is Hacks. It's a close question.

 

Michelle Pfeiffer, Margo's Got Money Troubles. For Playing: Shayenne, the single mom of a soon to be also single mom trying to get married while her old life hangs in the background. Pro: Under other circumstances I would absolutely be pulling for Pfeiffer to win in this category. For one thing her husband has been hogging the spotlight in TV for the last decade, I think she should get some of the credit for once. For another, in what is her first major TV role in her career Pfeiffer is clearly having the time of her life. Her husband has always written well for women of a certain age and Pfeiffer absolutely nails every line she says, whether trying to support her daughter for doing what she did as a teenager, trying to reinvent herself for her new churchgoing husband, having no use for Margo's father showing up after her granddaughter is borne (with good reason as it turns out) and an utter discomfort with her grandson the whole time. The season finale is magnificent for her, particularly in the courtroom where so much depends on her grandson not crying as he has done on every occasion he's been put in her arms. Throw in the fact that we get to hear her belt out 'Angel of the Morning' with Elle Fanning and so many other musical numbers and its wonderful to see her back in form. Con: We all know how unsentimental the Emmys are. But the show has been renewed for a second season so it's pretty safe to say she'll get another bite at the apple eventually.

Meg Stalter, Hacks. For Playing: Kayla, trying to hold on to her role and her own agency among increasing challenges from her father. Pro: Over the course of the series Stalter's Kayla has become Hacks secret weapon. Few character have shown more emotional growth yet while being intellectually clueless at the same time as Stalter's incredible work as Kayla. Unapologetic about everything she says or does, she is willing to do the wrong thing for the right reason every single time and she takes the fact that her father is cutting her off for denying the Schaffer name incredibly personally. The final half of the season shows Stalter at her absolute best, showing her real friendship if near sibling bond with Jimmy, helping Deb achieve her dream and in the series finale taking back what's hers with an incredibly rousing speech with Jimmy – in which they have to share a microphone. I've been pulling for Stalter being nominated for the last three seasons in this category: the fact that the Emmys finally gave it to her as a valedictory is a triumph for both her and for the Academy. Con: We all know if someone from Hacks is going to win in this category it will be Einbinder and for all her brashness in her onscreen persona I suspect Stalter is fine with that herself.

Jessica Williams, Shrinking. For Playing: Gabby, branching out into a new form of psychiatry and then experiences a setback so bad it hurts her professionally and personally. Pro: For the third consecutive season Williams has been nominated in this category for her hysterical and heartfelt work as Gabby. She has been spreading her wings throughout the third season, hoping to venture into trauma psychiatry and a better personal relationship with Derrick #2. But that led to tragedy when after weeks of helping build a relationship with a patient that was hard to get to open up that patient overdosed and she spent the last third of the season struggling to recover. Williams work has always been hysterical and she's as much the beating heart of this series as anyone else. Someday she'll win in this category. Con: But that ain't this year. Williams' misfortune is that she has been nominated in what every year in the decade has been a category filled with incredible talent and that hasn't changed in 2026. There are going to be some winners from Shrinking this year but she won't be one of them.

 

My Prediction: It's a close call and Einbinder may hold on to win but I think the Emmys might very well want to give Patricia a moment in the spotlight. O'Flynn is given a slight edge.

 

OTHER PREDICTIONS

Guest Actress in  A Comedy

I've seen all seven nominees, in part because five of them were in Hacks. I think Kaitlin Olson will finally get her moment in the Emmy sun. Sorry Betty Gilpin, I would love to see it.

 

Guest Actor in A Comedy

Michael J. Fox already won the Astra in this category. He gets this one going away.

 

For Outstanding Directing Widow's Bay gets this for the season premiere. For Outstanding Writing, Hacks gets this for the series finale. The latter seems a shoo-in considering that Hacks has won in this category twice already at the Emmys. The latter they've only won once in and let's be honest Widow's Bay is a technical masterpiece.

 

Next week I'll be dealing with Drama and the battle between The Pitt and Pluribus.

 

 

 

Emmy Watch 2026 Phase Three Conclusion: 2026 Dorian TV and TCA Awards Announced

 

We are in the final countdown of pre-Emmy Awards. This week the last two groups that give awards that are relevant to this year's Emmys announced their winners. In fact one of them did so on the same day as the Astras. (I don't think that's the reason almost no one was there.)

On Saturday GALECA gave its relatively new Dorian TV Awards for 2026. As you might expect some of the awards are more influenced by the fact that it is primarily an LGBTQ+ group but as has been the case throughout its short history, less than you might think. Here are the relevant winners:

BEST TV DRAMA: Heated Rivalry

BEST TV COMEDY: Hacks

BEST LGBTQ TV SHOW: Heated Rivalry

BEST TV MOVIE OR LIMITE SERIES: Half Man

BEST NON-ENGLISH LANGUAGE TV SHOW: Squid Game

BEST WRITTEN TV SHOW: Hacks

BEST TV PERFORMANCE – DRAMA: Rhea Seehorn, Pluribus

BEST SUPPORTING TV PERFORMANCE – DRAMA: Francois Arnaud –

Heated Rivalry

BEST TV PERFORMANCE COMEDY : Jean Smart, Hacks

BEST SUPPORTING TV PERFORMANCE – COMEDY: Kate O'Flynn, Widow's Bay

BEST GENRE TV SHOW – Widow's Bay

BEST ANIMATED SHOW – South Park

MOST VISUALLY STRIKING TV SHOW (tie) Alien: Earth/ Pluribus

CAMPIEST TV SHOW: The Hunting Wives

Throw in the fact that Hannah Einbinder was given the Wilde Wit Award and it seems that Hacks and Widow's Bay got the boosts in comedy while Pluribus got a boost in drama. Personally I have give props to GALECA for recognizing shows that the Emmys didn't like Half Man and The Hunting Wives, considering how much I advocated for both in my predictions for the Emmys.

Then yesterday the Television Critics Association gave their awards for 2026. Again I will highlight the relevant awards.

PROGRAM OF THE YEAR: Heated Rivalry

OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT IN COMEDY: Widow's Bay

OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT IN DRAMA: The Pitt

OUTSTANIND ACHIEVEMENT IN MOVIES, MINI SERIES OR SPECIALS:

Death by Lightning

INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT IN DRAMA: Rhea Seehorn, Pluribus

INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT IN COMEDY, Kate O'Flynn, Widow's Bay

OUTSTANDING INTERNATIONAL SERIES: Squid Game

OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT IN ANIMATION: Long Story Short

For the record both groups also gave Outstanding Reality Show to The Traitors and both of them honored Stephen Colbert: The Dorians did so for current affairs; the TCA with late night and talk

Aside from the fact that Heated Rivalry is ineligible for Emmys we do get a sense of certain awards being locked down. The race between Hacks and Widow's Bay would appear to be tightening, though the fact the Astras also honored the final season would appear to think it still has the edge. The Pitt is more or less putting the icing on its inevitable Best Drama win.

These last two awards in my opinion make it clear that the award for Emmy in Best Drama is officially Rhea Seehorn's to lose. Keri Russell might have built some momentum at the Astras but Seehorn just snatched it back.

The biggest change is that both these awards demonstrate is in Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy. With Kate O'Flynn taking both awards from both organizations and beating Smart at the TCA, I think the momentum for her winning Best Supporting Actress has shifted away from the favorite Hannah Einbinder. We'll have to see it holds up but it's pretty clear there's an edge.

That's it for all the pre-Emmy Awards. I'll be dealing with the Emmys themselves the next three weeks. Keep watching this space.

My Predictions For the 2026 Emmys, Week 1, Part 4: Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy

 

Everyone in this category has been nominated at least once by the Emmys. Three of them were nominated last year, two of them have been nominated multiple times in this category and two others are seasoned veterans who only in recent years have the Emmys started to catch up with their caliber of work. With last year's winner ineligible we will have a new winner in this category for the third straight year.

As with last year there is an overwhelming frontrunner and I'd really like to believe he'll win this year – but we were down this road last year and the exact same set of circumstances apply. That said, it's hard for me not to believe the stars are aligned.

So here are the nominees.

 

Colman Domingo, The Four Seasons. For Playing: Danny, half of a gay couple going on vacation every year. Pro: The 2020s have witnessed Hollywood's overwhelming recognition of Colman Domingo after decades. He's already won an Emmy, been nominated for 2 Oscars and has been nominated in both comedy and drama this year for roles he's already made iconic. Domingo's versatility is honestly more on display as Danny as he gets a chance to do a kind of heartfelt comedy that has been missing from the intensity that we associate him with. Four Seasons has become something of a sleeper hit in large because of Domingo's work and in the future it's the kind of role I hope to seem play more often. Con: It's the same problem he had last year, really: Domingo is the sole nominee for his show and that really does work against these nominees. But, as he is currently the frontrunner for Best Guest Actor in a Drama for his work in Euphoria, I think there's a good chance he won't go home empty handed.

Paul W. Downs, Hacks. For Playing: Jimmy a Hollywood agent dealing with a business that shifting everyday and facing his past coming back hard. Pro: It's amazing how much Jimmy has grown during the run of these series. Facing his agency's near collapse he spends as much time in the final season trying to help his two favorite clients succeed while dealing with the fact that the business he's been trying to build is suffering from boycotts from last season. In the second half of the season his old boss cut the legs out from under his agency financially and forced him and Kayla to return to their old stomping grounds and him taking a final blow by sending him to the mailroom. And yet that humiliation led to his ultimate triumph as he and Kayla managed a coup in the series finale that gave them the power we knew they were capable of having. A role that might have once seems like a mere cameo has grown to the point that people want a spinoff with him and Kayla. A great triumph. Con: The thing is Downs is also the writer and co-producer of Hacks along with his wife which means he's already gotten quite a few Emmys for writing and producing by now. Considering that Hacks is nearly assured to win Best Comedy and Best Writing for the series finale that probably means he'll be getting two Emmys anyway. He's not going away from Emmy night empty handed so he doesn't need an acting win.

 

Harrison Ford, Shrinking. (EXPERTS PICK, MY PICK) For Playing: Paul, a legendary psychiatrist facing the end of his career but perhaps a happier life. Pro: He should have won last year; all due respect to Jeff Hiller. And as always every moment watching Paul in Season 3 demonstrating that he is still capable of being the funniest man on the screen when he's working with some of the funniest people in TV history. And as he came to accept how his professional life was ended it looked like his personal life was improving. He finally married the doctor he's loved, he began to embrace a real relationship with his daughter and he showed that he was capable of being a good friend and colleague and the kind of person you need to lean on even as he's reluctant to do so. That's before you consider the fact that Ford has never won anything in his entire life and we want to hear what an acceptance speech is from Han Solo and Indiana Jones. He received the lifetime achievement award from SAG-AFTRA this year so we got a hint and he has already won Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy from the Astras. And come on, he's now so comfortable with his own history that Paul can walk into his office singing John Williams theme music and we all love it. Con: The thing is every single thing I said this year can just as easily be applied to this year. Now I'm thrilled Jeff Hiller won but I also have mentioned the Emmys lack of sentimentality. Ford deserves to win on the merits but considering so does everyone else in this category that may not be enough.

Nick Offerman, Margo's Got Money Troubles. For Playing: Jax, a former wrestler and heroin addict who comes back into the life of the daughter he left behind when she gives birth. Pro: Since there was a time that the Emmys basically chose not to nominate Offerman no matter how great his work was, I'm thrilled to see that he's double-dipping this year. (We'll get to that.) And it's good to see him doing a role that's more of a mix of comedy and drama then we've gotten as he plays a man who comes back into his daughter's life when she needs him and yet can't stop getting in his own way, either overcompensating as a father or when his failures come ending up relapsing to heroin. We also see the good in him, with his acceptance of Margo's purpose in Only Fans and being willing to help her when her mother leaves the field for a bit. He gets to play the gentle giant he hasn't quite yet managed to do on TV in a while and you see every real part of him as well as the fracturing relationship with all the women in his life, whether its his daughter and both his former loves. It's a superb performance with genuine soul. Con: I can see Offerman winning in this category eventually but I just don't see it happening this year. Margo's already been renewed for another season so we know he'll get another bite at the apple. Or maybe we'll get a second season of Death By Lightning…but one thing at a time.

Stephen Root, Widow's Bay (DARK HORSE) For Playing: Wyck, the old fisherman in Widow's Bay trying to convince the mayor that there's a curse on this town. Pro: Okay if it weren't for Ford being here I'd absolutely be pulling for Root who's been acting just as long as Ford in TV but gotten far less credit. As someone who grew up watching Newsradio and King Of The Hill and who really loved his work as 'The Raven' on Barry just a few years ago I know just how extraordinary an actor, comic, dramatic or otherwise Stephen Root. And honestly he's absolutely perfectly cast given that his last major job was in Barry a show that was just as capable of using surrealism and horror, which is Widow's Bay whole oeuvre. Refreshingly he gets to play someone whose essentially a good guy here and who is right on everything even though no one initially takes him seriously. And Root is so good at Wyck that you absolutely believe he is the kind of man who would dig up the grave of the town founder, be non-plussed said founder is still alive, have issues taking him out on the sea to drop his corpse, then deliver a monologue giving his entire backstory as a warning to what not to do – only to learn that its been completely disregarded, then give the only natural response. Root deserves to win as much as Ford does. Con: That said, the show has been renewed for a second season so he'll get another chance. And I think if he loses he won't set the theater on fire.

Michael Urie, Shrinking. For Playing: Brian, a gay man facing fatherhood while trying to mix with the friendships he's built. Pro: Let's not kid ourselves. If it weren't for one other prominent name I'd absolutely be pulling for Urie. His work as Brian is very much the comic highpoints and there's so much ego and narcissism but also a very big heart. We see it as he tries to be strong and push the surrogate of his child out of their life but can't, gets terrified in the delivery room when Ava hasn't signed the adoption papers yet but eventually does, the way his friendship with Derek and Liz has become a small joy (I love their bond) and the way he's stunned his father can be accepting of his granddaughter in a way that's never happened before. Throw in the fact its always hysterical every moment he's on screen and the wonderful recreation of a duet from Les Mis with him playing Javert that absolutely should be shown in the Emmy highlight reel and he definitely deserves to win. Con: Urie, however, is not Brian. We know like everyone else he wants his co-star and co-nominee to win in this category. And as we saw last year he was just as thrilled when Hiller won and I suspect it'll be just as great to see his reaction this year if Ford does.

 

Tyler James Williams, Abbott Elementary. For Playing: Gregory, a teacher moving forward professionally and personally. Pro: First of all, still pissed he didn't get nominated last year. And only slightly less irritated he has yet to notch a win in this category. Williams work as Gregory is one of the standout comedy performances of this entire show far more when he's not saying anything then when he is saying something. And he spent a lot of time saying some funny dialogue this year too particularly with his relationship with Janine. We saw it when he realize her ex-boyfriend had so much of his old stuff at Janine's place, then tried to move without saying he wanted to move. We saw as he and Janine started fighting over their trip, then broke up, and then he ended up getting drunk and partying down in a way that was just as hysterical as Janine's rage. Then they worked things out and got back together and now it's clear he's thinking of proposing in Season 6. And of course, he keeps moving forward professional while just always making the wrong moves so much of the time, and that's funny, first when he says that he could do a better job teaching Barbara's class as well as creating 'Serious Day' as a countermove to April Fools Day. He ended up becoming Vice principal achieving his professional dreams to. So could we place get around to giving him an Emmy? Con: To be clear much as I'm frustrated with the lack of recognition I really do think there's someone in this category who deserves it more. And I think Williams would be fine losing to Han Solo.

 

My Prediction: The experts think its going to happen and so do I: we're finally going to hear Harrison Ford give an exception speech.

 

Tomorrow I will wrap things up in comedy when I deal with Outstanding Supporting Actress in this category and make my own preferences known for Guest Actor and Actress as well as writing and directing.

My Predictions for the 2026 Emmys, Week 1, Part 3: Outstanding Lead Actress in A Comedy

 

As has been the case for pretty much the entire decade this category is filled with a vast array of talent and an overwhelming favorite. We have three previous winners from this decade, a TV icon nominated for playing another TV iconic role and a brilliant young actress in this category for the for her second TV comedy who hasn't even turned 28 yet.

Next year we're going to have a wide open race where someone new will prevail  but for now, let's go through the nominees.

 

Quinta Brunson, Abbott Elementary. For Playing: Janine, an elementary school teacher finding her way through occupational and personal difficulties. Pro: Just as with the show itself, every year I keep thinking that there's no way that Brunson can top what she's done in the previous season. And every year Brunson keeps finding ways to prove me wrong. Sometimes it's opening entirely new fronts, such as when she broke up with Gregory and then got so completely drunk that she reached a level of unpleasantness that managed to stun Ava who'd brought her on that night out. Sometimes its with her basic goodness as we see her trying to find new strategies to get Abbott out of the mall and manage to save the livelihood of everybody. And in recent years it’s the delightful fun we get with her romantic byplay with Gregory, whether it is nerdy love in their Halloween costumes, the way they do role play to buy a new home, the way that they break up over going on a trip and the way they find their way to back each other. (You know, with a little help.) Brunson continues to astonish as a writer and a performer and there's never a moment I don't love her onscreen. Con: Brunson actually has gotten more than enough respect from the Emmys already with a prize for writing in its freshman season and for acting in its second. I have no objection to her getting more down the road but there are more deserving performers who do deserve more recognition.

 

Ayo Edebiri, The Bear. For Playing: Sydney, the lead chef of a restaurant which is on a deadline before it goes bankrupt. Pro: Edebiri is the only actor on this show who has been nominated every season its been on the air. With good reason. In a series where nearly every character is suffering from trauma so deep it has made their ability to function almost impossible Syd is the only one who is capable of seeing beyond the trauma with a  genuine vision, a support system and a genuine love for what she does. Even as the pressure on The Bear mounts to succeed or bust – literally -  Syd manages to find a way to keep going that is awe-inspiring on a show that barely registers as a comedy most times. She's already become a hyphenate both on TV and film and in a season that was big on style and low on sense she kept things going. Con: The moment she lost to Jean Smart two years ago was the first domino that led to The Bear peaking in the minds of the critical and audience imagination. There are signs that the show may have regained its forward momentum for its final season but Edebiri has never beaten Jean Smart and that's not going to change this year.

 

Elle Fanning, Margo's Got Money Troubles (Dark Horse). For Playing: Margo, a college dropout turned single mother who turns to OnlyFans to find financial security. Pro: She's a distant, distant second in this category but much like the title character she plays one can never truly rule Fanning out. Her work as Margo was arguably the greatest comic performance by an actress in a freshman series (Matthew Rhys had the one by an actor) and that was because she made Margo a complete mess and yet lovable every step of the way. She was trying to be a good mother, trying to find a way to use her literary gifts and trying to find a way to be a good daughter. And I loved the way she did it all the way through, whether its rating penises like Pokémon characters, going into fight against unknown forces or Only Fans leads, creating a web personality based on a wrestling character, singing with her mother in Vegas or getting to know her father. I had no use for any of Fanning's work in The Great; Margo shows that she has all of the talent that her sister has in this format. The fact that her sister is also nominated this year in a different category makes for one of the best stories this Emmy season. Con: Honestly she can afford to wait. Margo's Got Money Troubles has been renewed for a second season which means she'll be back in the ranks soon enough. She's got time for the Emmys to give her her due.

 

Lisa Kudrow, The Comeback. For Playing: Valerie Cherish, a former TV star who is leading a new sitcom that is entirely being written by AI. Pro: You have to love a show where the lead character has done three seasons in twenty years and somehow still hasn't learned a damn thing. Its amazing that every decade Kudrow brings Val back and somehow she's simultaneously completely behind the times and has a perfect view of the industry. We see this as Val finds herself fighting her dream of running her own comedy but is now at the forefront of a battle she has no comprehension of how to fight. It's hysterical that a woman who has a camera on her at all times really can't seem to understand her industry and Kudrow has been exceptional and making you realize that Val is not the hero Hollywood asked for but the hero…that doesn't even know the meaning of the word. It's really astonishing Kudrow has been nominated for every season her show has been on the era but that's because she is the icon that Val only believes she is and she never lets us forget it. Con: The thing is, The Comeback has always been more of a critical sensation then an awards one and the critics keep forgetting. The Comeback was favored by some to be among the leaders in nominations in this category and instead it only received three with Kudrow being another one.  And as much as the critics love Val its always been a cult sensation in an era where that's basically becoming rarer. Even if Kudrow didn't have the misfortune of competing against another icon, I really don't think she'd have much of a chance of winning.

 

Jean Smart, Hacks. (EXPERTS PICK, MY PICK) For Playing: Deb Vance, trying to write the final line of her legacy in a long and storied career. Pro: My readers know that during the 2010s in particular I was very annoyed when the same actors and actresses won the Emmy in one category year in and year out. So why am I not bothered that Jean Smart is doing the exact same thing I abhorred the Emmys doing for Julia Louis-Dreyfus six consecutive years? Honestly because Smart deserves it more. During the first two decades of this century she was playing iconic roles in some of the best dramas and limited series of that period and she never got an Emmy. Also Veep was a much crueler comedy then Hacks is, a show that is about a love story between Deb Vance and Ava Daniels. And honestly watching the final season of Hacks I didn't want the show to end because it meant I was never going to see another moment of Smart's incredible work as Deb and how she kept finding new ways to make her character funnier and lovable. Her determination to form her legacy after being cancelled from late night. Trying to build a nightclub and casino in Vegas. Going on The Amazing Race with DJ. Pretending to be the lesbian lover of Ava so she can get a Bob Mackie outfit. Fighting back after being beaten by the network to end up doing the biggest crowd in a comedy event in Central Park. And in the series finale making plans to end her life on her own terms – and then comedy saves her yet again. How can I not want Smart to tie the records held by such talents as Alison Janney and Julia Louis-Dreyfus for most Emmys won by a female performer? That's a legacy Deb could be proud of. Con: The off, off chance that the Emmys will recognize someone else. But this is the final season of Hacks. They're not going to ruin her legacy any more than the show is.

 

PREDICTION: The final season of Hacks cemented the legacy of Deb Vance. The Emmys will cement Smart's in a month.

 

Tomorrow I deal with Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy. I have the same prediction for the winner last year…but we saw how that played out.

Just Because Something Is A Law Doesn't Mean It's The Final Say. Two Historic Lessons We Need To Take A Lesson From

 

 

In the first two decades of the twentieth century progressivism was at its height. They fought for many reforms that were great things for our society: antitrust action, women's suffrage, direct democracy, better working conditions, safer food and drugs.

They also wanted to get rid of alcohol.

Its rarely talked about in the same breath as these reforms but during that period there was an odd alignment of religious leaders like Billy Sunday with politicians on both sides of the aisle to lead a campaign to ban alcohol. And they were incredibly good at it. By 1919 33 of the 48 states plus Alaska, D.C. and Puerto Rico were 'dry'.

At the same time they managed to invade both parties and after the 1916 election to make a movement for what was first known as 'wartime prohibition' even though it only took event in July of 1919, eight months after Armistice day.

As early as 1907 TR would write: "Everybody out to believe in temperance but the professional advocates of (it) tend towards a peculiarly annoying form of egoistic lunacy. But the 'Dry's were such a force that in 1917 both houses of Congress approved the Eighteenth Amendment or Prohibition by what amounted to supermajorities. Exactly one year and eight days later Nebraska became the 36^th state to ratify it. On October 28 1919 Congress enacted what would be known as the Volstead Act to enforce it.  President Wilson, who never liked the act, vetoed it. Two hours later, Congress overrode it.

On January 17^th 1920 William Jennings Bryan, one of the biggest leaders of the Temprance movement  quoted Matthew 2:200 "They are dead that sought the child's life! They are dead! They are dead!"

Needless to say the fact that it was now part of the Constitution that the drinking of alcohol was a crime didn't resolve the issue. Indeed if you've seen any movie or TV show about the 1920s you know that bootleggers, flappers, speakeasy patrons and most of the politicians who'd voted for the act in the first place were essentially ignoring it, even as the Justice Department enforced it with all of the effect of putting bandages on bullet holes.

It says a lot about how misguided this movement was that alcohol was on the right side of history for once. The main reason both political parties went along with it was it was an election year and both sides wanted the votes of the Dry's and the 'Wets' as of yet didn't have nearly enough political power to overcome it. The biggest fights over it came in the Democratic Party which at the time had its greatest strengths in rural America rather then the cities. Because Bryan was still such a force in the Democratic Party at the time that it was difficult to get around the dry part of it and as a result during the 1920 and 1924 conventions the party was so badly divided that its conventions took an immense amount of time because they couldn't agree on any part of the platform, much less who should represented. It took eight days and forty-four presidential ballots to agree on a Democratic ticket of Ohio Governor James W. Cox and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They got hammered by the horribly flawed Warren G. Harding who received nearly 60 percent of the vote.

1924 put that to shame. It was already clear that Prohibition was becoming a disaster but the rural states led by Bryan refused to back away from their position and the Wet's led by Governor Al Smith of New York. The convention that year took place in Madison Square Garden but rather then provide home field advantage it was witness to the greatest show of political dysfunction on history. It took two weeks to finish the whole thing and Bryan was doing everything he could to force his vision on to everything. It took 103 ballots to come up with a candidate nobody even knew: John W. Davis and as a humiliation Charles Bryan, William's brother was Vice President. This led to an even bigger disaster for the Democrats that fall: as Calvin Coolidge won with 54 percent of the vote. Combined with third party candidate Robert LaFollette's progressive party, the Democrats received 28. 8 percent of the votes with over 70 percent of America voting against them.

That humiliation essentially killed the idea of temperance as part of the Democratic Party. Four years later Al Smith was nominated for President practically by acclimation. And while he lost in nearly as big a landslide to Hoover as his predecessors it was the first sign that the mantle of Prohibition political power was cracking.

Two weeks before FDR took office Congress adopted the Blaine Act proposing the 21^st amendment. It took even less time for 36 states to ratify it then it had taken to ratify the 18^th amendment: after just eight months Utah became the 36^th state to put it into law. While part of it was no doubt in order to create new jobs because of the Great Depression in large part most of the country was tired of it.

Of course there were quite a few other states who never bought into it. South Carolina rejected it unanimously and North Carolina rejected it with 70 percent of a vote to consider it. Mississippi remained dried until August of 1966 when 19 of the counties chose to legalize alcohol.

Of course by that point most of the same kind of people who'd loathed the idea of alcohol leading to damnation were now concerned of another kind of threat which in their mind lowered the morality of the country. And that was happening because of a different kind of political movement.

I suspect I will get torn to pieces in some circles by comparing the temperance movement that led to Prohibition to the battle for civil rights. But the fact is both were movements that were based almost entirely on morality that would never have succeeded if there wasn't some kind of electoral arithmetic involved.

Its almost unheard of for someone who holds elected office of any kind to make a decision based entirely on the morality of the issue. And that holds true for political parties as well. Every decision that they campaign on is based on a kind of calculus: how many votes this position will earn me; how many votes this position will lose me. That is the reason why so many politicians use a lot of words to say nothing when running for office: they're trying to piss off as few people as possible and that's the easiest way to do it.

I suspect most elected officials in the 1910s had as little use for prohibition as many of them did for civil rights during the 1950s and early 1960s. But in both cases they were forced to take positions they opposed because the electorate thought otherwise and they wanted to hold on to power. In the latter case that same electoral arithmetic was in play and differed depending on what part of the country you were campaigning in as well as which party you were a part of.

And from 1948 to the early 1960s the calculus involved whether the votes of Northern African-American votes against the loss of Southern white votes. What was actually happening in states like Alabama and Mississippi by Martin Luther King and his followers was very much being done to convince those in Washington to try and influence enough northern politicians to outnumber the Southern ones who were blocking it.

The South had been a Democratic stronghold since Reconstruction precisely because it has embraced white supremacy. Not coincidentally the Republican Party had dominated politics at every level for the next seventy years with only 16 combined years of Democratic Presidents between 1860 and 1928 and Congress overwhelmingly in the hands of the Republicans. When FDR began his impressive electoral run the Southern votes became less important to the Democratic party then they'd been in the previous eighty years.

When Truman became president and started to cautiously embrace the Civil Rights movement, the South started to rebel first with the Dixiecrat movement in 1948 and then with more and more states going Republican under Eisenhower. By 1960 both parties would putting civil rights as part of their political platforms but they were still doing so by trying not to offend the South.

It's telling that it was mostly the actions of a Southern Democrat – Lyndon Johnson – that the civil right movement began to get legislation passed in Congress, first as Senate Majority Leader and then as President. Johnson was doing so as much for the South as he was for the black man. He genuinely believed in civil rights but he also knew, far better then Northern liberals like Hubert Humphrey, how much Southerners were adamant about any changes to their way of life. To Northerners, civil rights was more of a moral issue. To Southerners, it was a direct threat.

And LBJ knew exactly what was going to happen even as he signed the Civil Rights Act into law. "I think we just handed the South to the Republicans for a very long time," he said after doing so. And history has proven, sadly, that he was right.

Johnson understood politics better than almost any President in history and part of that was the understanding that just because something that has become a law on Monday will not make those who virulently opposed it embrace it on Tuesday. He had grown up during the era of Prohibition and he knew all too well that was the case. LBJ should be celebrated for doing the right thing – and for being fully aware of the political realities of that situation.

It's a lesson that so many of those who've embraced the left-wing causes in the decades to follow that have never realized.

 

In all the decades that have followed since then almost every minority group has managed to make enormous achievements when it comes to representation and legislation that has backed their cause. Yet each group has engaged in a kind of willful blindness that I can equate to both Prohibition and to an extent what followed in the aftermath of the legislation of the Civil Rights acts of the 1960s.

As we all know the Republican party and the conservative movement managed to seize electoral power starting in the 1968 election and in four of the next five Presidential elections to follow. In the 1990s they would take back both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years and hold it for the next twelve. In the 21^st century they've effectively held the House for eighteen of the 26 years so far this century and the Senate for twelve of them.

All of that power was based has its origins in the 'backlash' movement that came following the 1964 election. And it was felt not just in the South but in the industrial North and its suburbs as well as the Sun Belt.

In all the years since then the left has increasingly chosen to frame this as morally bankrupt and racist and there is some truth in this.  But it doesn't change the fact that both sides view politics and government completely differently and it has cost the cause of reform more extensively in my lifetime in ways the left refuses to acknowledge.

To the left and identity groups a piece of legislation backing the rights of an identity group is in their minds the end of the discussion. Once something has become the law of the land, it is carved in stone and the people who disagree with it have to shut up and take it. That many of their predecessors chose not to do so when segregation was the law of the land and that they continue to protest any law that they believe is wrong doesn't stop them from demanding their opponents take the laws they hold dear as doctrine.

And it's not like the reformers didn't know just how effectively the right could lead its forces. The last sustained battle for equality on a purely political level was the fight for the ERA during the 1970s.  When that battle was lost the left did what it always did and took the wrong lesson: they essentially walked away from the battlefield and ceded the ground to the right.

I hold my greatest contempt  for those who chose to abandon that fight. You knew all too well just how powerful the forces who opposed equality were when it came to achieving their goals. And yet rather then redouble your efforts you essentially abandoned all political methods to keep all of the rights you gained locked down. Basically you chose to argue: they wouldn't dare touch any of the existing laws.

And that was the dumbest possible thing you could have done having just gone through that battle. Did you really think that the conservative forces were going to accept the decision of Roe V. Wade as the final say on abortion? Or the Voting Rights Act the final say on African-American rights? Hell when the Obergfell decision came in, in your heart of hearts, did you truly think that the opposition who'd spent all their time opposed to gay marriage were just going to start flying rainbow flags in Tennessee and Mississippi?

I do have to admonish those in the 1960s who walked away with the job half done and then each generation of leftists that followed basically took such a dim view of politics that year after year you ceded more ground to the opposition based on the concept that 'they wouldn't dare do this." It proves the critical difference between how the left and the right view politics. The left views that their view is the only one that counts and that the opposition must surrender when a law is passed. Any dissenting opinion is dismissed as irrelevant. The right views the opposing forces as a source of political power and they will cater to them regardless of morality. You can't exactly pretend it hasn't worked out well for them.

The left has spent much of  this century arguing that the problem is the system and that wide scale reform is necessary to bring about the change we need. I will agree that campaign finance reform and term limits are good ideas but where I differ is that this would not solve the fundamental issue that past movements of reform have showed us. In order to get a cause passed into law – whether it is a horrible one such as Prohibition or a good one like civil rights – you have to convince those who hold office that it is worth their time to do so. The only way to do this is that your cause at a grass roots level has enough political power to overcome the calculus that elected officials must make when serving.  For the record that's also the only way you can change the system in the first place.

By and large the current generation of self-styled progressives have made it clear that it is the job of those in the system to make the reforms necessary without them personally getting involved at any level. They are proud about being anti-establishment, ignoring that you have to be part of the establishment – Congress or a state legislature – to bring about the changes you campaign on. They are just as willing to criticize Democrats as they are the Republicans as both being obstructions to the cause and since they are unwilling to form a third party that is separate from either that can bring about the change they need, they basically stand on the sidelines or on the fringes of the Democrats, judging those for not adapting a platform which they feel is correct but they don't have any political support to pass.

None are willing to take the battle to the grass roots level outside their own friendly confines of college campuses or in the deep blue districts they maintain residence in.  They look at the historical causes of reform which brought about so much of the equality today and rather than take lessons from it for a battle plan, they judge those who brought it about either for not having the values of today or for leaving the job half done.  They see no reason to learn anything from it, believing that history is on their side and it is the job of everyone else to get on board.

But history doesn't work that way. Both the Prohibitionists and those who worked for civil rights understood that you needed the overwhelming support of the people if you wanted your moral vision to become the law of the land. If in both cases they misjudged whether their vision would hold electorally then at least they understand how the game was played and what the rules were. Those who argue 'the game is rigged' deny  that they don't want to play the game by the rules that they're allowed to. And so they make a virtue of not playing it at all. That this leaves the field to people who clearly don't have these moral dilemmas and will keep rigging the game to make things worse for everyone else has done nothing to make them to even try to fight the battles that count..

Myself I'm very aware of how the game is played and how badly its rigged. But that's not an excuse to let the bad guys keeping changing the rules every time they get the dice. I know that there are ways to beat them at their own game but it's a long protracted one that's not going to be over in years or perhaps in my lifetime. But that's not an excuse to leave the field in a forfeit.

The battle for reform in a democracy is a game that never truly ends. It must be passed from generation to generation to keep them informed of how previous campaigns were won and what the rules are now. You have to know what strategies have failed and what you have to try in the next round. You have to know that the opposition is just as determined to beat you as you are to beat them. And you have to understand that if you refuse to play, it affects not just your teammates but your opposition and everyone else. It's not an easy battle and you will lose as often as you win. But you keep fighting and you learn from your mistakes.

Most of all you have to learn that your victories are only as permanent as you are willing to keep fighting for them. You let your guard down for a moment, the opposition will take advantage to tear it down. It may seem like we've been losing a lot of victories we gained in the past but they're only permanent if we allow the opposition to define the rules or to wear us down so that we surrender. And if you're willing to let that happen, then you're giving your opponents an edge they'll never relinquish.

The game isn't over. The bad guys haven't won anything yet. Learn from your mistakes and start playing again. Accept the rules and find a way to fight through them. Victory is still possible if you can accept how the system works and how to win within its confines.

Consider this another reminder from someone who followed the advice of a real Progressive and is spending his time getting in the arena himself this year.

My Predictions for the 2026 Emmys, Week 1, Part 2: Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy

 

 

With Seth Rogen ineligible we are guaranteed for the second time in this decade to crown a different winner in this category. And despite having ignored Steve Martin and Adam Brody it remains a formidable lineup with quite a few nominees who have yet to receive their due from the Emmys in long careers. Of course they are almost certain to be 'cursed' to lose to one of the greatest actors in TV history receiving his first nomination in this category – but certainly not his last.

Without further ado let's go over the nominees.

 

Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, Wonder Man. For Playing: Simon Williams, a smalltime actor trying to land his dream role with a shady government operative. Pro: Unlike the vast majority of the MCU TV universe this series connected with critics and fans because it had a beating heart at its center rather then a show that was designed for Easter eggs. A large part of this had to do with Abdul-Mahteen as Simon, who as we all know managed to win an Emmy for basically being able to do the exact same thing in Watchmen. And because this was a series far more about being a failed actor rather then a superhero origin story it had the ability to connect with critics and audiences. It was a pleasant surprise and Abdul-Mahteen deserves all the credit for getting it there. Con: Even before Season 2 was unexpected cancelled after being renewed Abdul-Mahteen was facing a major obstacle. His nomination was the only one Wonder Man received which cut any real chance he had of winning in an already stacked category down to nearly non-existent. I guess he's now facing where Simon was at the start of his series but he'll get through it.

Steve Carell, Rooster. For Playing: Greg Russo, an author who comes to work at a college campus after his daughter's marriage implodes. Pro: I've seen quite a few episodes of Rooster and I now plan to see it in full when Season 2 begins. In keeping with Bill Lawrence's comedies as a whole, Rooster is a heartfelt show that gets its comedy from human foibles and in its title role Carell actually gets to use his trademark awkwardness, which left me cold as Michael Scott, in a far more tender and friendly fashion. It pays off big time as we see a divorced man on the other side of his fifties facing the fact that he wants to reinvent himself yet again. So he returns to his alma mater and tries to be a better father and professor, all in the same ridiculous ways that make us love everything Lawrence does in the last decade. Carell embraces Greg with a charm and sincerity that I never once sensed in all the time I saw him on The Office and you get a sense of humanity and the knowledge of past mistakes that you keep making despite your best intentions. The fact that Carell has never gotten an Emmy despite eight nominations would seem to make him an overwhelming sentimental favorite. Con: Unfortunately Carell's nomination is the only one Rooster received this year. And as Kathy Bates ended up proving last year, often that means the Emmys chooses to leave you on the outside looking in. Carell must hate the term: "Better Luck Next Time' but in this case it's almost certainly going to be true.

Matthew Rhys, Widow's Bay. (EXPERT'S PICK): For Playing: Tom Loftis, the mayor of Widow's Bay whose trying to turn his island community into the next Martha's Vineyard, right about the time a centuries old cure resurfaces. Pro:  I've been a huge fan of Rhys ever since his incredible work in The Americans and he's been one of the greatest TV actors in the 21^st century. But I  never for a moment suspected that he could be as good at comedy as so many veteran actors that he displayed. His Tom is a wonder to watch even in only the seven episodes that are available for eligibility: someone who is determined to make his town that he loathes with every fiber of his being a resort attraction and denies all good sense and his own eyes that there is a huge supernatural presence until his second supernatural encounter with a Sea Hag. Then of course he goes completely in the opposite direction, ending up on a mushroom trip that has to be experienced to be believed and then having a conversation with the town founder even though he's been dead for over three centuries (as one does). His incredible work is one of the biggest reasons this show became the cultural phenomena it did so quickly and why he made Emmy history this year (we'll get to that) but why he might be able to join a select crowd of those who've won in both comedy and drama in the same acting category. (And two of them are nominees this year!) Rhys can never get enough recognition in my eyes and I'm fine with it. Con: The only thing that might work against him is the sentimentality factor combined with some of the incredible comic performances in this category which I'm going to get too below.

Jason Segel, Shrinking. For Playing: Jimmy, a psychiatrist facing an empty nest and the urge to start dating now that his professional life is back in order. Pro: Segel managed to win in this category at the Astras this weekend and despite the glaring absence of Rhys, he's more than a deserving candidate. His work has been a masterpiece of comic awkwardness mixed with trauma for two seasons and in Season 3 they let Jimmy have less trauma and be more awkward as he found himself very gradually starting to date again with so many hiccups before he ended up with someone who might be his potential soul mate. We saw him increasingly take on the role of a grownup, deal with his relationship with Paul, making amends and being there for his neighbors and trying to find a way to heal decades long grudges with his own father. Combined with the fact that despite having been in TV for twenty five years he has yet to win an Emmy (why?!) he's more than overdue. Con: For the second straight year Segel's work has been overshadowed by another male lead in an Apple TV comedy. I think its inevitable Segel will win in this category but I don't see it happening this year.  

Martin Short, Only Murders in the Building (MY PICK, DARK HORSE) For Playing: Oliver Putnam, a podcaster trying to solve the murder of a doorman in his building while being forced to face his own shortcomings. Pro: Short is the only lead who has been nominated every season he's been eligible and while this speaks in part to the flaws of the Emmys it also shows just how much he still has it after nearly half a century in the business. This season showed more sides to Oliver then we've gotten in five years: newlywed with a hot wife overseas pursuing her dream, longtime tenant of the Arconia facing just how little his neighbors think of him, and a deep dive into his backstory of his childhood which explained a lot about why he is who he is. As always he remained the egomaniacal bastard we all love, the good friend we know he's capable of being and the competent crime solver he can be – all while being hysterically funny every moment he's onscreen. He's gotten a disproportionate amount of recognition from the Emmys compared to his constant brilliance and combined with so many of the personal tragedies he's undergone recently, sentimentality could push him over the top. Con: The Emmys just ain't sentimental anymore.  They seem more willing to recognize performers based on things such as merit rather then legacy and that's actually a virtue that I've come to respect  over the last twenty years or so. Much as I'd love to see him up there, I just can't see it happening this year.

 

PREDICTION: Rhys will triumph in a landslide. I have no problem with that and I'm guessing neither will his co-nominees.

 

Tomorrow I deal with Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy. Now we all know who's going to win but  I will go through the motions because it is an honor to lose to Jean Smart.

My Predictions for the 2026 Emmys: Week 1, Part 1: Outstanding Comedy Series

 

As my readers are well aware this is the time of year I devote a significant amount of time and energy trying to predict who will win in this year's Emmy which will occur about a month from now.

For better or worse (I'd actually say better) trying to handicap the Emmys has become more difficult in this decade then before as both the nominees and increasingly the awards have increasingly had the capacity to surprise, and almost always delightfully so. We found that out two years ago when Hacks managed one of the biggest upsets in the 21^st century when it defeated what seemed to be the unstoppable juggernaut that was The Bear for Best Comedy series and we sure as hell found it out last year in Drama when Severance and The White Lotus were essentially manhandled by The Pitt. In both cases I was overjoyed and that was true with many of the smaller winners, including Jeff Hiller for Somebody Somewhere and the continued superb performance by Slow Horses in writing two years ago and directing last year.

With that in mind I'm going to try and up my game. For all categories in all I'm going to do what I did last year: I will have an Expert's Pick, based on what Gold Derby says and my personal pick. But I'm also going to include a new category 'Dark Horse' in which I will highlight a possible under the radar competitor which might manage an upset. This will be based on the statistics at Gold Derby based on which is currently running second to the experts pick or where a certain amount of momentum appears to be building. I have been guilty of this myself last year: I underestimated the support Tramell Tillman and Katherine LaNasa were getting in the Supporting Actor and Actress category in a Drama.

In all of these keep in mind that what the experts say is meaningless to an extent: no one saw Hiller or Britt Lower pulling off the upsets they did.

So here we go. I'm going to start with Comedy.

 

 

Part 1 Comedy

 

Abbott Elementary (ABC)

Pro: In its fifth season Quinta Brunson's masterpiece showed absolutely no signs of losing momentum. We saw our favorite school suffer some of its greatest challenges yet: a busted water heater forced it to relocate to a mall for several episodes, Ava tried to force the student body to do no homework, and in the season finale it looked like Abbott would be forced to show down. But like the little engine that could both the school and the faculty kept plugging away at every single obstacle thrown at them in hysterical and moving fashion. Increasingly we see the faculty managing to find happiness in their personal lives as Ava may have found happiness with a working class man, Barbara embraced the idea of being  a 'glam-ma', Mr. Johnson finding his own custodial better half,  and our favorite couple Gregory and Janine continued to move towards domesticity, with a slight but hysterical hiccup, that leads us to thing wedding bells might be on the way soon. How can you not love this show? Con: Despite leading the way to the network sitcom revival the Emmys have bestowed the status of perennial bridesmaid on this show for the last three seasons. Unfortunately that's unlikely to change this year.

 

The Bear (FX ON Hulu)

Pro: As the dramedy made its way to its final season we saw the staff at The Bear facing its greatest struggles, the possibility of financial collapse, how so many of the staff wanted to go their own way, and the endless trauma that seems to follow Carmy and everyone in his family. By the end of the season Carmy had realized he couldn't cook anymore and was planning an exit strategy one that shifted the entire core of the show towards the final season. It was a hell of an emotional journey. Con: The fact that The Bear was nominated at all in for Season 4 actually seems miraculous considering that its stock has completely plummeted in the eyes of critics and even most fans. The overwhelming number of critics organizations either ignored it entirely (Critics Choice, Astras, most of the Guilds) or gave it just token nominations (SAG-AFTRA only nominated it for Best Ensemble). It received just seven nominations a mere two years of setting records for most nominations and wins for a Comedy series. Institutional memory brought it back for Season 4 and nothing else.

 

Hacks: (HBO MAX) (EXPERTS PICK, MY PICK)

 Pro: Every season it debuted since 2021 Hacks has been a force at every Emmys it was eligible. In addition to its upset victory on 2024 it has to date won 12 Emmys. In its final season much like Deb it decided to go out on top and it was absolutely wonderful. Deb spent the last season trying to change the narrative of her legacy after being cancelled both literally and figuratively last season. She spent most of the final season trying to have a sellout as Madison Square Garden and in typical Hacks fashion it had to reinvent itself at the last minute and still came out ahead. The same was true for every single regular: Ava finally achieved her dream of her own comedy series based on the last five years, Jimmy and Kayla spent the season in a fight with the agency that they had broke from, seemed beaten irrevocably and in the last moments came out on top thanks to their own ingenuity. Marcus helped open a casino and comedy club in Vegas where all of the great things about this show had started. And in the series finale when it seemed that the journey was ending in a tragic place, comedy yet again saved Deb's life. The show has been nominated for 25 Emmys, the most of any series this year. It has already prevailed at the Astras and other awards shows. So the only question is: can anything stop the inevitable? Con: It has nothing working against it except the fact that there's something beneath the surface – which I'll get to at the end.

 

Margo's Got Money Troubles (Apple TV)

Pro: In another year this show would be the phenomena freshman comedy of 2026. It was one of the great shows of the year anyway with a plot that seemed so much like it sprang from the mind of David E. Kelley I was stunned to learn it was yet another adaptation. But come on, who else could you think of coming up with the idea when a college student gets knocked up by her professor she decides to raise her money by going on OnlyFans and deciding to use both her creative writing skills and her father's pro-wrestling career for inspiration, leading to a custody battle? The entire series had the bubbly spirit of its title character with Elle Fanning finally realizing the joy that I never saw out of her in The Great and an incredible supporting cast from Mrs. David E. Kelley (Michelle Pfeiffer) as the ultimate GMILF and Nick Offerman as the absentee father from every single role down from Marcia Gay Harden to Nicole Kidman as a former professional wrestler with a law degree (because what else do you expect?) I loved every minute of the show and I can't wait for Season 2. Con: The biggest thing working against it is a show that came out two months later. Now one of the best comedy series of the year is merely the second best freshman comedy to debut on Apple TV in 2026.

 

Nobody Wants This (Netflix)

Pro: As Noah and Joanne began to forge their way into a monogamous relationship as you might expect chaos ensued. Noah's family was doing everything possible to undermine it while Joanne had to deal with the chaos of her big sister Morgan involved with an older man who happened to be her therapist. This storyline was very much the backbone of Season 2 and led to a fair amount of agita. The show continued to be the kind of comfort food and comedy we all needed led by the always incredible Adam Brody and Kristen Bell and a delightful supporting cast. It was always fun. Con: The fact that aside from here, the show received just one other nomination demonstrates just how much it has dropped in the opinions of both fans and the critics. It might be a bit on the nose to say that nobody wants this show to be here anymore but it's definitely got no real chance to win here.

 

Only Murders In The Building (Hulu)

Pro: If nothing else this show should be the sentimental favorite by now. In Season Five Charles, Oliver and Mabel went from finding a finger in Oliver's wedding shrimp to the greatest threat the Arconia has yet faced. All of this was fixed with the usual comedy were used to: a casino in the hotel, a cybernetic doorman, a mobster, the one percent playing Clue for a trophy, Charles taking testosterone (that was the scariest). We saw Oliver embrace the possible of domestic bliss with his new wife, Charles facing yet another encounter with a dangerous woman and an increasing array of guest stars so great it would overwhelm any other show but this one. And just as with every season we saw the wonderful byplay between these three incredible actors that makes this one of the greatest accomplishments of the 2020s. Con: As Selena Gomez once said: "But we never win anything!" And that just be the same pattern we get year after year after year. I guess this is what happens when there are just so many comic masterpieces on TV these days. But seriously, who has to die for them to get some love from the Emmys?

 

Shrinking (Apple TV)

Pro: Bill Lawrence had a hell of a year and it was never better felt in the third season of his second masterpiece for Apple TV. Jimmy faced the possibility of dating again and an empty nest. Gaby dealt with professional problems and personal happiness. Liz and Derek faced their own family struggles with the kind of charm they always do. Brian embraced the idea of fatherhood. And Paul faced both his illness and his legacy with the kind of brusque humor we always get. All this plus Jason Segel and Michael Urie giving us the recreation from Les Mis we never knew we needed but now can't live without. This is one of the most glorious shows I've seen in a decade filled with comic masterpieces. Each season the Emmys keep giving it more nominations. Earlier this week it received the prize from the Astras for Best Streaming Ensemble over even Hacks. It deserves to win…Con:…just not this year. Oh there are definitely going to be some awards for the actors this season but the grand prize isn't going to come this year. And if there is an Apple TV comedy that manages to upset Hacks it will be…

 

Widow's Bay (Apple TV) (DARK HORSE)

Pro: Not since the early seasons of The Bear has their been a streaming cultural phenomenon quite like the comedy/horror/surrealist matchup that is Widow's Bay. It has become both a crowd pleaser and a critic pleaser in a way that few shows manage to do in an era when our attention is split in every direction. And even with only seven episodes eligible for awards this year (the last three aired in June) it is without question one of the most original things I've seen on TV this decade. With Kate Dipold and that master of the mashup Hiro Murai behind the camera, we are led into a town which is almost certainly the setting for a horror film to anyone who is not Tom Loftis at the start of the season. He is determined to drag his town kicking and screaming into the 21^st century despite the fact he loathes it with every fiber of his being and you know, despite their being a curse that may or may not stop everyone whose born there to die when they leave the island. Matthew Rhys, who really has to stop showing off (he's taking the attention away from his wife) demonstrates he can do comedy just as well as everything else and he is joined by an incredible cast of character actors who seem to have been cast as if they just look odd as well as their talent. This is a hysterical parody of horror and there's love for it by far: 19 nominations is nothing to sneeze at. It could very well pull an upset. Con: This is Hacks last chance at the big prize. I'm not saying Widow's Bay won't upset it but the Emmys do have a history of coronating quite a few great shows at the end of their runs. We most clearly saw it with Fleabag and I suspect everyone will be fine if Widow's Bay waits until next year. (Don't sic the Sea Hag on me!)

 

MY PICK: This year I'm confident Hacks goes out with the grand prize and I couldn't be happier.

Tomorrow my pick for Outstanding Lead Actor in A Comedy.