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.

 

I SAW IT THIS TIME! And Other Reactions to the 2026 Astra TV Awards

 

Well before we get started I finally found out what I've been missing the last three years of the Astras.

Not much. Not in terms of the awards: they're still absolutely brilliant. But its basically a meeting in a tent where most of the recipients aren't present. Perhaps its because of the timing, perhaps its because of some kind of controversy, but at this point they've stopped trying to do the Astras as an awards show and are basically making it a testimonial dinner where most of the guests of honor have other plans.

For all know this is what happens with most critics awards groups that don't center their plans around film – perhaps this is what the TCA and the Peabody awards are like if they were televised. Honestly I'm not that upset because I do believe the awards should matter more than the speeches. That said having seen them when they were held in auditoriums I can admit it's somewhat of a shame. Considering how good their track record is as well as their eclectic nature I'm kind of disappointed.

Well let's get on with it. (Sigh.)

Much as I am a fan of the Astras overall I'm also aware of how little real influence they have on what the Emmys will eventually do.  So I think I'll shake it up this time and try to use it as a model going forward. I will look at all three of the categories I will be covering in the Emmys starting on Monday and see how much the winners might or might not either boost or at least foreshadow what the Emmys will do a month from now. And since I'm going to be looking back at previous awards as a metric I'll be taking my own advice.

So let's start with Comedy

 

OUTSTANDING COMEDY SERIES: Hacks

 

BEST ACTOR IN A COMEDY: Jason Segel, Shrinking

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A COMEDY SERIES: Jean Smart, Hacks

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A COMEDY: Harrison Ford, Shrinking

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A COMEDY: Hannah Einbinder, Hacks

 

BEST GUEST ACTOR AND ACTRESS IN A COMEDY

Michael J. Fox, Shrinking, Christina Ricci, Wednesday

BEST BROADCAST NETWORK COMEDY ENSEMBLE

St. Denis Medical

 

BEST CABLE COMEDY ENSEMBLE: Rooster

 

BEST STREAMING COMEDY ENSEMBLE: Shrinking

 

BEST DIRECTING IN A COMEDY Hacks

 

BEST WRITING IN A COMEDY: The Comeback

First of all props to the Astras for recognizing St. Denis Medical when the Emmys doesn't.

Now when it comes to Hacks I'm relatively sure the Astras are dead on with their predictions: not only the show but Smart and Einbinder are considered locks. I'm impressed how well Shrinking did here: I expected Ford and Fox to win and I'm glad to see it winning for Jason Segel.

However as I mentioned in my original predictions, there's an elephant not in the room and its Widow's Bay. This is by far the biggest mistake the Astras have made in their brief history because that show is going to be a presence in almost every category Hacks and Shrinking won in. So we're going to be seeing ripple effects in the awards shows that I'll be covering in the final weeks.

 

Now let's look at Drama

 

BEST DRAMA SERIES: The Pitt

 

BEST ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES: Noah Wyle, The Pitt

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A DRAMA: Keri Russell, The Diplomat

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A DRAMA: Patrick Ball, The Pitt

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A DRAMA: Sepideh Moafi, The Pitt

 

OUTSTANDING GUEST ACTOR IN A DRAMA: Macaulay Culkin, Fallout

 

OUTSTANDING GUEST ACTRESS IN A DRAMA: Tai Anderson, The Pitt

 

BEST BROADCAST NETWORK ENSEMBLE: 9-1-1

 

BEST CABLE DRAMA ENSEMBLE: Welcome to Derry

 

BEST STREAMING ENSEMBLE: The Pitt

 

BEST DIRECTING IN A DRAMA: The Pitt

 

BEST WRITING IN A DRAMA: Pluribus

First of all props to the Astras for recognizing Welcome to Derry.

The Pitt's dominance shouldn't really surprise anyone but again one wonders how realistic it will be. For the show itself and Noah Wyle it's a sure thing and it's just as likely for Patrick Ball. However just because Sepideh Moafi won at the Astras doesn't mean she'll win at the Emmys.

Keep in mind that in many of the supporting categories many actors and actresses who were nominated by the Emmys aren't here. In the Supporting Actress category alone Karolina Wydra and Julianne Nicholson were ignored by the Astras and Wydra has gotten her share of nominations elsewhere. And contrarily Jeff Kober, who is the front runner for Guest Actor for The Pitt wasn't nominated at all.

In the case of Keri Russell for The Diplomat, however, it might boost her prospects. Russell did win Outstanding Female Actor in a Drama at SAG-AFTRA earlier this year. That said she's won in this category two years ago and it did nothing to stop Sarah Snook for winning in Succession. And as a reminder Kathy Bates won in this category last year and it ended up going to Britt Lower for Severance.

All in all, it's a mixed bag.

 

Finally Limited Series/TV Movie – and with the Astras this year TV Movie means a lot.

 

OUTSTANDING LIMITED SERIES: Beef

 

OUTSTANDING TV MOVIE: Remarkably Bright Creatures

 

BEST ACTOR IN A LIMITED SERIES OR TV MOVIE: Oscar Isaac, Beef

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A LIMITED SERIES OR TV MOVIE: Sally Field, Remarkably Bright Creatures

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A LIMITED SERIES/TV MOVIE: Charles Melton, Beef

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A LIMITED SERIES/TV MOVIE: Linda Cardellini, DTF: St Louis

 

OUTSTANDING DIRECTING IN A LIMITED SERIES/TV MOVIE: Beef

 

OUTSTANDING WRITING IN A LIMITED SERIES/ TV MOVIE: Bait

 

OUTSTANDING LIMITED SERIES OR TV MOVIE ENSEMBLE: Beef

This will probably help Beef's prospects in some circles but its still not clear how much. The show and Isaac were already frontrunners but one can't tell how much this will help Charles Melton's chances in a category where DTF: St. Louis is the frontrunner. Linda Cardellini was already the front runner for Supporting Actress

Now as for the rest it’s a mixed bag. As great a performer as Sally Field is, no one has won an Emmy of any kind for a performance in a TV movie since 2013.  That's a lot to overcome even for an actress as great as her.  The movie will win no question. And to confirm this the only nomination Bait won in a category which the Emmys didn't nominate it for.

The Astras overall have a good track record in this category but we're not going to see for awhile (and in some cases, perhaps not on Emmy night at all. Sorry I couldn't let that go.)

Outstanding Game Show: Pop Culture Jeopardy

Outstanding Standup Variety Special: The Muppet Show

I just mentioned those two wins because I got them correct. Humble brag.

We're in the final stretch now. Tomorrow I officially start my Emmy predictions for 2026 interspersed with some of the other awards shows in the final weeks leading up to Emmy night on September 14^th.

Stay tuned.

 

 

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.