Friday, August 7, 2026

Homicide Rewatch: All Is Bright

 

Written by Rafael Alvarez; story by James Yoshimura & Julie Martin

Directed by Matt Reeves

 

Homicide's track record with introducing new characters has always been decidedly hit or miss and that's particularly true with female regulars. Generally the show's pattern has been that they start out like gangbusters and then as time goes by they become less significant to the overall plot until they eventually end up leaving. While there were outside factors in each case, we saw this play out with Isabella Hoffman as Russert and we've been seeing it playout with Michelle Forbes's Cox this season.

It would have been easy to assume the same pattern was going to play out with Callie Thorne's Laura Ballard.  Just like Russert she was introduced as a force of nature in the three part season premiere and has been less of a presence ever since, barely getting ten minutes of screentime in the four episodes that followed. But perhaps because they were now facing the certainty of their star leaving the show and a still uncertain future the writers now knew they had to build up the new arrivals as forces in their own right. They've spent much of the first third of the season on Paul Falsone to the point you might have forgotten that Ballard and Gharty were still there.

All is Bright seeks to rectify this in what is one of the biggest departures from the pattern. This is the first episode in years in which the main story features entirely along two detectives who the viewer has little knowledge of. Gharty has the advantage of having been around a few episodes over two previous season so we know his character a bit but we don't know his prowess as a detective and we haven't seen Ballard in action at all. So there's something of a thrill that when the teaser ends and a name is written in red under a detective who to this point we've never seen investigate case as a primary.  The result is a tour de force by Thorne and it confirms that the writers have no intention of failing Ballard. And though the viewer can't know it yet it's a harbinger of how well it will do by the various newcomers who will join the unit during the final seasons.

That is does so in one of the bleakest storylines the show has done – in a Christmas episode, no less! – is a tribute to how the series has complete confidence in everything it does even as it's future is still uncertain going into the end of 1997.

Its entertaining seeing Ballard and Gharty bickering about how apparently a waitress at Jimmy's mistook them for a married couple. (Considering how so many partnerships are closer then marriages its harder to argue this.) Ballard's annoyed about the assumption, Gharty's annoyed that Ballard doesn't think he's good enough to be married to so Ballard just says they'd be fine together. Pembleton and Bayliss talk about the darker parts of humanity while driving to crime scenes, Ballard and Gharty bicker about whether the fact that he spills gravy on his pants is a disqualifier for a husband.

The victim is Philip Longley, killed as his local laundromat with a bottle of liquid detergent and he hits the machine on the way down. Cox actually misses that at the crime scene someone poured bleach down his throat. This leads to Gharty asking at the morgue: "Anything else in his system? Drugs, alcohol, fabric softener?" (It was that line, more than anything, that made me accept Gharty as murder police.) The owner doesn't know much. She went to get quarters for the machine and when she came back Longley was dead on the floor.

Longley's parents assume that their son was a victim of urban crime, but we already know this isn't a robbery. As we'll see they didn't know their son at all or for that matter, neither did the many women he was seeing. Gharty handles it with decorum we haven't seen him use so far this series and he and Ballard get to some part of it.

Philip seems to have been what was then referred to as ladies' man and now more accurately might be called a 'man-whore'. We see four different girlfriends, all of whom seemed to be fine just sleeping with him. And its clear he was whatever each of the women he was sleeping with wanted him to be.  "Pick your adjective we got it covered," Gharty tells Giardello. Its clear all of them knew about the other women but none of them had a reason to kill him. Then we get to the very real motive: Longley was HIV positive.

Its worth noting Longley was aware of his diagnosis and yet made no effort to tell any of the women he was sleeping with during this period. Ballard immediately finds this as a reason to hate the victim and honestly it's hard to blame her.  It's one thing to be a womanizer, it's another to be one who has a fatal disease that is transmitted sexually and not tell your partners. Gharty immediately shows his problem saying Longley had AIDS and doesn't want to tell the mother.  Tellingly his mother knows and has been keeping it from her husband, not even planning to tell him if it led to her son dying. She spent all her savings keeping him alive for the last six years. Gharty actually has the moral high ground when he points out she also knew of her son's womanizing. He swore that he used protection and she believed him – except with Rita Hale who isn't his address book.

There are many extraordinary guest performances in Season Six and the Emmys was more than generous for once. But Kathryn Erbe's work as Rita, the woman who was a victim of Philip Longley before he met his end, is one of the most haunting in the entire series. Considering that during the 1990s Hollywood was giving a fair amount of awards recognition to those who played victims of AIDS its surprising that Erbe didn't get nominated. Then again, maybe it's not. With the sarcomas of the disease all over her face and a death shawl practically hanging over her, her Rita has all the mark's of someone dying of AIDS but doesn't wear the cause of victim. Indeed her first line is of someone who is expecting the cops to show up at her door, who almost seems more than happy to confess to her crime.

Much of it involves a long monologue by Erbe in which she tells the detectives the story of who she was before and when she met Longley. She was practically a virgin, still waitressing, barely out of college and she fell in love with him because he put maple syrup on his scrambled eggs like her.  Marriage and children were discussed. Then there was a blood drive.  She learns she's HIV positive. And Phil reveals what we already know. He played the same line on her with every other woman he's been with. "My life is over, Detective, I get sicker and sicker. Soon enough I die." The treatments that are working just fine for the man who infected her are not doing a damn thing for her. She makes it clear that all the headlines about the AIDS epidemic being contained are a bad joke as far as she's concerned. "Their cocktails work for two-thirds of the people who need it. For the rest of us, it doesn't do jack." She has less than five months to live and nothing to lose.

She's on the verge of confessing when Ballard walks out the room with Gharty behind her. Ostensibly its because she doesn't believe in her condition a woman of Rita's size can do this. Gharty says "You're angry enough you find the strength." He points out she did just admit. "He gives her AIDS. She gets sick. He doesn't." Ballard doesn't want to get the confession out of her.  Gharty keeps pressing her and blows up: "You don't want to go after her because she's sick." Ballard retaliates: "You want to go after her for exactly the same reason." Then she loses her ground saying: "You know what's unfair? What Longley did to her." Gharty then acts like a grownup (for once) "Let's forget about the disease…and treat her like any other suspect."

The show also takes a bit more of the shine off Falsone. The moment he learns Hale has AIDS he's stunned that Kellerman and Lewis don't seem more bothered and seems determined to get the courthouse. His excuse is that he's suing for custody of his son and he doesn't want this to be used against him. But that's a straw man argument and we all know it. The way he argues against Meldrick saying that you can't get it by breathing the same air really sounds like the kind of rhetoric you'd hear from an anti-vaxxer. That immediately afterwards Kellerman confronts him about leaving the Mahoney file on his desk – and then he starts right up taunting him again – is perhaps the best explanation why so many fans took a very hostile look at the character by this point.

The scene in the box between Gharty, Ballard and Hale is one of the best scenes in the entire season, arguably one of the best interrogation scenes of the entire series. Considering that at this point the two actresses had little experience in TV and the other has no experience in the interrogation room, its striking just how well it holds against any of the scenes we've seen Braugher and Secor do over the years.  What's also clear is the empathy she shares with the suspect: they're both 29, she broke up with her fiancée in Seattle and she's dating again.

When they go back in the room Hale almost seems to enjoy haranguing the detective about the single life: "Always wear a rubber." She says she should do public service announcements instead of sitcom stars. (That said her argument about using her as a public service announcement does foreshadow how some groups have dealt with diseases like lung cancer in the 21st century.) Eventually Gharty starts leading the conversation where it needs to go. Finally Hale denies it saying that she was at home sick as a dog. Ballard tries a sympathetic approach saying that if she explains her story to a jury it'll be okay. Hale explodes. "Nothing will be OK!"

Both detectives get to the same point. Gharty thinks she did this because she felt nothing mattered she was still going to die. Ballard says the killing was justifiable based on Longley's actions. "So you gather up the last bit of strength that you have and you follow him to the laundromat."

(I have to tell you when Rita tells you that poor people are told 'a healthy dose of bleach will clean out the virus', you might get triggered, )

Her last words on the subject will haunt anyone. "Philip Longley murdered me. I murdered Philip Longley. Wouldn't you have done the same?"

Ballard actively pleads with them not to charge her and Giardello is utterly unsentimental. "Don't we have an infirmary at the state prison?" He points out Rita Hale committed premeditated murder and ignores Ballard's attempt to try and argue this is self-defense. He tells her that in Italy a person with AIDS can't be sent to prison. (Or at least it was true in 1997.) He tells them of one man who robbed eleven banks in one summer and each time he was caught and released. Ballard tries to argue that this is a reason to let Hale go. Gee reminds her this is Baltimore, not Italy.

Ballard storms off and Gharty finds her. He admits he understands why she did what she did but he doesn't believe she should get away with it. He's closer in spirit to Pembleton in this case. Ballard then says that she's worried about all of Longley's girlfriends who didn't know about his having HIV.  So then they spent the next several hours notifying them of his condition and we see it play out (see below)

 

What stops this episode from getting too bleak is that the B-plot centers on John Munch. Munch has no more use for Christmas now then he was partnered with Bolander but now he owns a bar and has to get it ready for Yuletide customers.  Now he's summoning his inner Charlie Brown saying that Christmas is too commercial. His fellow detectives and Billie Lou are helping him at first but in typical Homicide fashion one by one he's abandoned.

It is the fact that he's busy cleaning that we finally meet someone we've never met in five and a half seasons – Munch's own Ghost of Christmas Past.

 Yes its his first ex-wife  Gwen, played by that fireball of comic energy Carol Kane. In a wonderful touch a performer known for her brilliant eccentricity a comedienne chooses to turn her panache so low its practically a straight woman.  And that's because she knows Richard Belzer is the comic star of Homicide and when you get a chance to use that power you don't get in his way. She can joke with the best of them but all of them are delivered almost deadpan. She's here for a sad reason: her mother has died. John can't even bother to mask his unhappiness:

John: She loathed me and I loathed here right back.

Gwen: She didn't loathe you.

John: She despised me.

Gwen: She didn't despise you.

John: She disliked me?"

(Pause)

Gwen: Okay, maybe loathed is the word.

Munch doesn't know how he can help his mother-in-law met a horrible end. Gwen's response: "Sorry to disappoint you." She needs him to plan what she believes will be a very elaborate funeral.

Gwen's mother was a literary critic of some note and she is planning a funeral in which she expects everyone she ever reviewed to show up to pay their respects. (Clearly Gwen has to good a view of both her mother and critics overall.) Gwen goes through the funeral with starry eyes, thinking of what an extraordinary life her mother led and so many experiences. Munch argues she did a number on him and he honestly thinks she did on Gwen. When Gwen says she likes some of the men she brought home John can't contain himself: "Briscoe?"  The more he brings it up Gwen tells him to stop the car and she gets out in the middle of the road, hailing a cab.

The joke, of course, is that Mrs. Munch is buried to an empty room with only Gwen, a shill that Bernard paid as the deluxe package and Peter Maas, the author of Serpico and The Valachi Papers, among others. (Of course he knows David Simon from around.) John immediately tries to console his ex-wife. "It's not an empty room, there's you…and me…and a woman crying…" Maas came down from New York to "have a last laugh at a petty, vindictive, parasitic old hag."  He uses his own prose to illustrate that Gwen's mother was a bitter old crone who didn't know "good writing if it were tattooed on her forehead."  He came to the funeral to make sure the woman was really, most sincerely dead.

The end of the episode balances all the parts. We have one of those rarities for Homicide a conversation between two female characters. I'm not sure it was quite pass the Bechdel Test; they're not talking about men so much as their fears of the single life. Ballard talks about her failed engagement without every mentioning the man's name (save to say he was an idiot) and that while she's cautious, she's not sure she trusts her own judgment. Cox points out she's no help as she definitely doesn't trust her own. (We're going to get an example of that in the final minute.) Their final exchange is about how frequently you should get tested.

The final scene is in the Waterfront where the Yuletide joy is in full swing. Pembleton has a drink and goes home to be with his family.  Gwen is now in the position of realizing just what a monster her mother was and John is trying to make his wife feel better.

And what happened next? Well in the Waterfront they say Munch's heart grew three sizes that day. He raised his glass and says one of the sweetest things he'll ever say on the show:

"On this evening a solemn ceremony was held to convey the remains of Genevieve Talbot. She was a strong woman possessed of many opinions. She lived life on her own terms. She had a daughter, a beautiful daughter, who took as her husband a charming if somewhat peculiar man. Genevive Talbot loved her beautiful daughter and so feared for her happiness that she did everything she could to discourage this union for the man was hopelessly peculiar and quite perverse. And the daughter, she was a rare gift, who deserved much, much better."

And after a season of flirtations and longing on one part Bayliss gives Cox a Christmas present and the two kiss for the first time. On some shows this would be a sign for happiness going forward. On this show…well, that's actually one of the more daring themes of the final season.

To wrap this up I have to tell I have a special place in my heart for All Is Bright because it's one of the darkest Christmas-set episodes in all my years of TV viewing. Does that make me peculiar and perverse? Maybe. But maybe once you've been deluged in twenty-four hours of It's A Wonderful Life sometimes you want a different kind of Christmas episode. Because a lot of Christmas's are really like this, with random hookups and bad holiday experiences. I love 'The Constant' don't get me wrong but there's something to be said to ringing in the holidays with Blood Makes Noise over a woman getting tested for HIV.  And sometimes we need it more than we think.

Anyway, Merry Christmas.

 

 

 

NOTES FROM THE BOARD

"Detective Munch": Typically for Christmas we get to see a lot more of Munch's Jewish side then usual, starting in the Waterfront. Lewis actually gets the best line: "Hey Munch, you're gonna make some poor orphan I nice Jewish mother someday.  

As you'd expect the best scenes come with Undertaker Munch who seems determined to mark up the price.  John then tells his brother: "When you were nobody, when you had no connections, when you asked your brother the Homicide cop to pass around a few business cards to the relatives of those recently  departed, who was there for you?" Bernard then meekly goes back to his calculator and comes up with a reduced rate. "You're a real mensch. "

That plus his eulogy at the end really shows the worst and best parts of him

Mahoney PTSD: Kellerman gets back to the squad and finds pictures of Luther Mahoney on Falsone's desk. It's almost as if Falsone is openly taunting him now. He confesses to Juliana he has yet to tell Lewis or Stivers about what Georgia Rae has on him. Kellerman is dodging it, saying he's waiting until after Christmas. Juliana tells him to man up. When he does tell Meldrick at the end of the episode he tries to assure Lewis that even if Georgia Rae has a videotape we don't know what's on it. Lewis doesn't bother with this: "We know what's on it. Kellerman ices dealer. News at eleven." Kellerman tries to tell the story on the official report and Lewis makes it very clear that this he's not buying that either.

Continuity Error: When Munch goes to SVU we'll eventually see Gwen and she seems to have lapsed into some kind of mental condition, either bipolar or schizoid-effective. There's no real evidence of it during this episode, though her outburst might be a precursor of a condition that developed later. (There was a lapse of nearly a decade between that appearance and this one.)

FUTURE INMATE: Kathryn Erbe already had a decent resume having starred in What About Bob, the sequel to The Mighty Ducks and the Nicolas Cage film noir Kiss of Death. Then after this role Tom Fontana would cast her as Shirley Bellinger, the Susan Smith type killer who spent the better part of three seasons as the only woman on OZ waiting on Death Row before being hung. It was one of the most memorable stints on this series.

Immediately after her character was killed off she would be cast as Detective Eames on Law & Order: CI. (And in the way episode are aired 'All Is bright' aired immediately after The Subway, which meant if you watch Homicide that December you saw the two main leads of that show and didn't know it.) She was so focused on that she did nothing else during its run and has done relatively little for awhile afterwards. But by 2017 she was acting more regularly playing Kay Ambrose on Season 1 of The Sinner, Jacqueline on Season 4 of How to Get Away With Murder (Jimmy Smits' ex-wife) and has since been seen on Pose, Instinct, The Good Fight, The Blacklist and had a recurring role on the series City on A Hill. Her last role was in the Emmy nominated Black Rabbit,

Hey, Isn't That…Carol Kane broke into Hollywood in the 1970s starring in small roles in such seminal films as Carnal Knowledge, The Last Detail and Annie Hall. She was nominated for Best Actress for playing Giti in Hester Street in 1975. She would start in such cult films as When A Stranger Calls and La Sabina before finally breaking out as Simka, the girlfriend and future wife of Latka on Taxi. She is best known to millions for playing Valerie ("I'm not a witch, I'm your wife)in The Princess Bride and the Ghost of Christmas Present in Scrooged.

Let's focus on TV for the rest of this. She played Aunt Sylvia on the Emmy winning Brooklyn Bridge and received an Emmy nomination for playing Marguerite Birch on Chicago Hope in 1995. She had the role of Annie in the one season show Pearl, LL on the Showtime critical hit Beggars and Chooser's, would play the Penguin's mother on Gotham  and Lillian on Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt. She PLAYED Bianca on Los Espookys, Mindy Markowitz on Hunters and is currently playing Pelia on Strange New Worlds. I could tell you about her voice work but that's another page.

By the way you'll blink if you miss her but Jenny is played by Rhea Seehorn in what was her first screen role. Her career for the next fifteen years was not that great. She was a regular on one season comedies like 'I'm With Her'  an even more short-lived series The Singles Table, a role on The Starter Wife and played Roxanne on Whitney for three season, and the recurring role of Ellen on Franklin & Bash.

All of which is to say if you never heard of her before she was cast as Kim Wexler its not your fault. Vince Gilligan seeing something in her as Kim is just as remarkable as what he saw in Bryan Cranston and Bob Odenkirk.

Oh and in case you were wondering…yes the Matt Reeves who directed this episode is THAT Matt Reeves. He was a TV director for shows like Felicity and Homicide before he managed to direct Cloverfield. After that came the Andy Serkis led Planet of the Apes franchise and now Batman. It's not just great actors that get their start in TV.

Thursday, August 6, 2026

Tracking the Justice Democrats: Now That The Primaries Are Over, Let's See What The Justice Democrats Have Actually Accomplished

 

The next time one of your self-righteous socialist or progressive colleagues (but I repeat myself) launches into a diatribe about how AOC and the Squad are the future of America interrupt them and say you are typing the following question into your iPhone:

"How many seats have the Justice Democrats flipped that were Republican?"

My readers already know the answer but I'm going to tell verbatim what the algorithm tells me when I type it in:

Justice Democrats have not flipped any Republican-held seats in general congressional races.

To back it up there's are two quotes from the centrist Democrat site Third Way under the term Electoral Performance:

Justice Democrats have not flipped a single Republican-held seat blue over the last four cycles.

Candidates endorsed by Justice Democrats have lost 63 of the 72 non-incumbent races in which they have competed – an 88% loss rate.

(My private thanks to Third Way for making it clear that someone in the Democratic Party knows what they're doing.)

There's a joke in there about how Siri and Alexa know that socialism is still unpopular with the American electorate but the New York Times hasn't figured that out yet. Privately, however, I find it exhausting that in eight years no one who works in legacy media, whether it is CNN or Rolling Stone, seems capable of doing a one minute search on the internet to actually find out if what Bernie and the Squad are saying about their policies resonating with the masses  are true. Why hasn't anyone from Rachel Maddow to Sean Hannity confronted them with this? Why haven't George Will and Bret Stephens done their homework? It's one thing to worry about socialism taking over the Democratic party – I myself have concerns about it -  its another to keep saying it every two years as if it's doctrine.

I want to believe so badly that this election cycle will be the one where the media finally wakes up and realizes how little the average voter wants what Bernie and the Squad have been selling. Certainly the Democrats themselves should be capable of pointing out this simple reality to the left wing of their party: if nothing else Elizabeth Warren should be able to understand basic arithmetic. But seeing as that is increasingly unlikely to happen, it falls upon yon author (as well as the good people at Third Way, who I hope will be the North Star going forward for my party) to tell you  where the Justice Democrats actually  are at the end of the 2026 primaries.

This week marked the end of the last  primaries where the Justice Democrats were running new candidates. By their standards (which as you can see  are incredibly low) this has been a good cycle for them. Compared to the hyperbole that they and the media seem to greet  everything they do it’s as underwhelming as Supergirl's box office.

So here's the complete record of the new group of  Justice Democrats who ran this cycle in order of the dates of their respective primaries:

March 3rd

 

TEXAS

As I mentioned Frederick Haynes III won the nomination for Jasmine Crockett's  old district. Crockett held similar values to the Justice Democrats though she wasn't an official member.

ONE HOLD

 

NORTH CAROLINA

Nida Allam tried to run against Valerie Foushee in the fourth district  on an anti-ICE platform, was endorsed by Bernie Sandrs, gun control activists and the working families party. She lost.

ONE PRIMARY LOSS

 

 

ILLINOIS MARCH 17TH

Two challengers, Junaid Ahmed and Kat Abughazaleh tried to win in the 8th and 9th district respectively.

Both received less than 26 percent of the vote.

 TWO PRIMARY  LOSSES

 

 

PENNSYLVANIA May 19th

Chris Rabb ran in the 3rd. He's running unopposed in the general. No Republican opposition.

ONE PRIMARY WIN.

 

June 2nd

NEW JERSEY

Adam Hamawy is running to succeed Bonnie Watson Coleman in the 12th district.

He won, albeit with just under 28 percent of the vote.

ONE PRIMARY WIN

 

CALIFORNIA

Three new candidates were running for in California along with Ro Khanna who won his primary: Mai Vang in the 7th was challenging Doris Matsui, Saikat Chakrabarti in the 11th (Nancy Pelosi's former district) and Angela Gonzales-Torres was challenging Jimmy Gomez in the 34th district.

. Chakrabarti finished in a distant third, Vang finished first in her primary and Gonzales-Torres finished second. Under the rules of California politics both Vang and Gonzales-Torres advance to the general election. We'll deal with their prospects in the general below.

 ONE PRIMARY LOSS, TWO PENDING FOR GENERAL ELECTION

 

NEW YORK, June 23rd

Claire Valdez, another Democratic Socialist who was elected to the 37th district in 2025 would attempt to run for New York 7th to succeed Nydia Velasquez. She would be challenging Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso and Queens Councilwoman Julie Won. In the 13th Darializa Avila Chevalier would be running to challenge Adriano Espaillat, who has represented the district since 2017 and is the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Both candidates won, in large part thanks to the endorsement of Mayor Zohran Mamdani. (I've written about why this happened in a previous article.)

TWO PRIMARY WINS

 

COLORADO, July 1st

Melat Kiros, a democratic socialist. defeated Diana DeGette in the primary in the Colorado 1st. She is heavily favored to win in the general.

 

 PRIMARY WIN

 

August 4th

MISSOURI

Cori Bush was challenging Wesley Bell for the seat he defeated her in the Democratic primary in 2024 in the Missouri 1st.

Bell beat Bush in their rematch by a landslide. For those keeping track Bush has now run as a Justice Democrat all five cycles. She lost the first time she ran in a primary, won her primary and the general in 2020, was reelected in 2022 and was primaried by Bell in 2024.  She's the ultimate Justice Democrat candidate in every way that counts.

PRIMARY LOSS

 

MICHIGAN

Donovan McKinney

McKinney was challenging Shri Thanedar in the Michigan 13th. The main difference is that Thanedar renounced his membership in the DSA in October 2023, after they failed to condemn Hamas after the terrorist attacks in Israel.

McKinney managed a narrow victory beating Thanedar by just under 4 percent.

PRIMARY WIN

 

TENNESSEE August 6th

Justin Pearson

Pearson was running to contend in the newly redrawn Tennessee 9th. He managed to win in a landslide over his nearest competitor with 65 percent of the vote.

PRIMARY WIN

 

 

So to recap of the fourteen candidates the Justice Democrats recruited this cycle seven won their primaries (I'll get to one of them below) five lost and two are advancing to the general while holding one  old seat.

Only by the incredibly low bar that the Justice Democrats have set in four consecutive election cycles could their track record in 2026 be seen as a 'movement'. Particularly when you consider that in 2025 they announced that they were planning to have candidates to run in all fifty states and that they could only come up with fifteen to run in eleven. Add in that Allam and Bush had already tried before (in Bush's cases, multiple times) and it's hard to argue that people are lining up to run under their banner.

For the second consecutive election cycle the only districts they chose to run in were some of the most blue in the country. The exception was Pearson who had planned to run before a recent Supreme Court decision led to Tennessee redrawing its maps make the one deep blue district in the state now majority red. By that point Pearson had already announced his candidacy but it's clear that this wasn't the race he'd signed up for. To his credit he decided to keep going but this district is overwhelmingly favored to go to his Republican opponent.

And its not clear for the two other candidates who managed to advance to the general election whether they'll have a chance to win. Vang managed to finish ahead with 31.2 percent of the vote to Matsui's 29 percent. However its not clear where the 37 percent of the vote that when to her Republican challengers will go.

Gonzales-Torres is in a worse situation in the 34th district, finishing second to Gomez. Gomez won far more decisively getting 46 percent of the vote to Gonzales-Torres 30.7 percent. In order for her to overcome that deficit she's going to have to make up a lot of ground and there are fewer voters to win.

And historically California has never been as friendly to the Justice Democrats as one might think. In the first two election cycles 8 Justice Democrats tried to run under that platform (other than  Ro Khanna who was an incumbent when he joined). Only three were able to advance to the general and all lost. The same happened this year for Saikat Chakrabarti, one of the original founders of the Justice Democrats, who could only come up with 17.6 percent in the primary and finished a distant third.

I have no doubt that the Justice Democrats will use their successful primary challenges of incumbents in New York, Colorado and Michigan as signs that they have 'put the establishment on notice' and the media will parrot it.

Several things. First the left is always putting the establishment on notice when they protest or go on social media. Equating a college campus march with a primary victory shows their lack of context. Second, they will as always ignore the numerous primary defeats – including in Missouri and North Carolina, where they couldn't successful primary an incumbent.

And lastly the Tea Party in its first cycle in 2020 managed to win 39 seats in the House and multiple primaries in the Senate. Two of them, Rand Paul and Mike Lee are still standing after sixteen years while Marco Rubio was a fixture until he became Secretary of State. That was a movement that America's still reckoning with. (I found out all of this with another Google search.)

Four election cycles after their founding by the end of the 2026 election cycle the Justice Democrats in the best case scenario will have fifteen members in the House of Representatives. That means they have three percent of one house of one branch of Congress. The Freedom Caucus alone has between 30 and 40 members and they are far closer to where their party is then the Justice Democrats have ever been – and no one can argue which group has power to set the agenda in the House no matter which party is in charge. That won't change this cycle even if the Democrats do regain control of Congress this cycle – and at least until the Democrats win the Presidency we're not going to know if they have the same kind of influence the Freedom Caucus has.

Far more than the far right, the far left wing of the Democratic Party has a more visceral contempt of the political establishment. That most likely explains why they feel a primary victory against a Democrat is the equivalent, if not better, then prevailing over a Republican in the general.  This argument has always been prevalent among the Sanders-Warren wing of the Democratic Party and its even more true for the Squad. Perhaps to them a defeat in the primary is less meaningful then losing in the general election; it would certainly explain their overall strategy over the past few election cycles even before this one.

But there is a difference and anyone who works in politics knows it.  Mainstream Democrats are aware of it and the Republicans definitely are. And it is infuriating to see every single media establishment essentially argue that a primary victory by Claire Valdez is ranked by them the same way Cait Conley's was in the same state. If Valdez wins in November it doesn't change the math for House Democrats at all; it just changes the name of a member. Democrats like Hakeem Jeffries know that Claire Valdez can take a cruise for four months and still win this fall. They're going to spend far more time and money helping Conley defeat Mike Lawler because that actually matters.

And it's not just New York; there are swing districts in nearly every state that the Justice Democrats chose to run candidates in. If the Justice Democrats had wanted to help the party they would have run in them. Instead they put their own brand ahead of the party they share their name with and half the time it still  resulted in failure for them. Worse they forced many state parties to spend time and money helping either beat back challenges to incumbents or lost to new members who have made it clear they show no loyalty to the Party many of them will be representing next fall. Yet the media still acts as if their accomplishment count for more then the many Democrats in those swing districts who the Party is counting on to do what the Justice Democrats keep demonstrating over and over they can't.

So for the next several months whenever you read an article or see a story on TV or social media arguing about how the left, radical or otherwise, is taking control of the Democratic Party/America simply do exactly what I have done but that the rest of the media, liberal, conservative or otherwise, has apparently not. A five minute internet search. It may surprise you; it may reassure you; it might even bother you. But remember that even if you think the algorithm is misleading you, figures don't lie. And I'll take statistics and voter counts over the vibe any day of the week.

 

 

Howard Gordon and Vince Gilligan on The X-Files to Now :How Vince Gilligan's Experience on The X-Files Helped Shape Plur1bus Or: How To Show What's Important When The World Ends

 

 

I said when I began this series that one of the most important things both Gordon and Gilligan learned from their work on The X-Files was what not to do with a serialized drama. And that's far more true of Gilligan then it is of Gordon, if for no other reason then he was there from Season Two to the end of the original run.

Unlike Gordon who wrote several episodes that were mythology-adjacent, if not directly related to the conspiracy Gilligan never wrote a single script that had to do with the mytharc. The closest he came was co-writing several episodes that had to do with Scully's relationship to the conspiracy, whether in regard to her being diagnosed with cancer (Memento Mori) or the aftereffects of the experiments on her (Christmas Carol, Emily). Other than that all of his episodes fit the traditional monster of the week format.

And the interesting part of Gilligan's tenure on The X-Files was that he basically was an optimistic writer as well as its resident humorist. Gilligan spent much of the show poking fun at the tropes of the series but never with the kind of meta that Darin Morgan did. With him he was gently poking fun at it. We get the clearest sense of this in his first comic episode, the classic Small Potatoes.

 Mulder and Scully are called to a small Virgina town where babies are being born with vestigial tails. The most recent mother Amanda Nelligan claims the father is from another planet, which naturally brings our agents there.

When Mulder questions Nelligan about how she got pregnant, Amanda tells her that the father just showed up on her door one day. It wasn't an alien; it was Luke Skywalker. With perfect comic timing Scully says: "Did he have his lightsaber?" "No" Amanda says. "How many times have you seen Star Wars?" Scully asks absolutely delighted. "368. I should break 400 by January."

(Was it possible that Gilligan's taking a gentle dig as the nerd culture that was forming online, including on The X-Files?")

Mulder wants to go home but then they find out all five babies have the same father. This leads them to a sperm bank and the janitor Eddie Van Blundht. "The H is silent" he will constantly remind us.

Fans of this episode – and everyone loves it – knows that Eddie has the ability to make faces and turn into anyone he wants. This is a direct reference to the Bounty Hunter we saw as early as Colony. But Gilligan cleverly indicates that he's not taking it seriously and neither is Mulder. When Scully asks him if Van Blundht is an alien, Mulder is dismissive: "Not unless aliens live in trailer parks." This is clearly a dig at Carter and how the mytharc is so portentous: we're not going to dignify the idea that someone who has to power to shape shift would do so only to impersonate Jedi Knights.

And so Gilligan spends much of his humorous monsters of the week episodes going out of his way to gently puncture everything that Carter and his colleagues hold sacred about the aliens. He will usually do so by doing everything in his power to make one, if not both of our beloved agents, look like stuffed shirts.

 The best example of this is Bad Blood where the episode opens with a young man being chased through the woods by a figure in dark, screaming for help. Then he trips and is staked by Mulder. Scully runs up looking horrified. Mulder gets her to look at the fangs, saying this man is a vampire. Scully pulls them out. "Oh, sh---" Smash cut to the titles before Mulder can complete the obscenity.

The episode then shows how Gilligan is going to play with the format in which our agents are being sued for $446 million for their role in the wrongful death of their killer. Skinner wants their report and Mulder asks Scully what she's going to say. So Mulder asks Scully to tell what she said and then Mulder tells Scully what he saw.

The episode then goes out of its way to show how Scully sees Mulder and Mulder sees Scully. Both versions show the narrator as the calm, rational human being and their partner is the person who is the burden to everything. Mulder (in Scully's version) is an overexuberant, hyper person, who loves his slideshows and points out trivia, all the while pushing his partner to do autopsies in the dead of night. Scully (in Mulder's version) is a whining harridan who hates being dragged around the country by their partner and keeps falling over herself in front of a buck-toothed sheriff. (In Mulder's version. In Scully, it's Luke Wilson.)

What's the most telling part of the narrative is that in reality Sheriff Hartwell and the entire town are vampires – but they're not the monsters.  Late in the episode Hartwell apologizes to Scully for putting them through all of this. "He makes us all look bad. He's not who we are any more. I mean, we pay taxes. We're good neighbors. Ol' Ronnie, he can't quite seem to grasp the concept of 'low profile'."

There's a deep irony here. Mulder and Scully have stumbled on to a town of monsters but they're not monsters in the sense that they've been hunting all this time. This is one of the best ways Gilligan pokes fun at the entire Monster of the Week format, something he'll do quite a bit more often. Perhaps the real problem with so many of the monsters we've met over the five seasons so far (and more to come!) is not that they're mutants or demons but that they don't have a community. Perhaps Eugene Tooms or Flukeman wouldn't be a threat if they had their own village somewhere. And its worth noting that though the vampires have both Mulder and Scully at their mercy when the episode ends they choose to 'pull up stakes' because while they could kill our heroes, it would just draw the wrong sort of attention to them.

But there was always a darkness to Gilligan's humor and in a sense that darkness was a foreshadowing of what would come in Plur1bus. In 'Je Souhaite' Gilligan's directorial debut Mulder finds himself the master of a genie and given three wishes.  He tries to be altruistic and wishes for world peace. And how does the genie grant it? By erasing everyone but him from the planet.

And in the Pilot of Plur1bus  Gilligan's aliens manage to invade Earth and create a world that is a perfect paradise with no violence, crime, pollution or deviancy. And how do they do that? They manage to eliminate all but thirteen people on Earth into a hive mind.

Gilligan's aliens are completely different from Carter's. The aliens do not invade on UFOs nor do they colonize through black oil or bees. They arrive on a transmission and they manage to create a compound which the best scientific minds on Earth synthesize. Then they manage, in ways Gilligan and his writers have yet to explain, to take over the minds of every single person on Earth so that they all become the same brain. And all they want to do is create a paradise for those who live. The cost is one's individuality, one's soul, everything that makes you a human being. And what's surprising is that in Season 1 there only appear to be two people left who don't want to go along with the program.

As with the vampires in Bad Blood the aliens in Plur1bus want to be good neighbors. They are willing to accommodate everything that the remaining thirteen people who have not been processed want. In the case of one such survivor that means allowing him to live out all of his fantasies, played in the level of James Bond in Las Vegas or being able to fly Air Force One.   In the later episodes Zosia, who is established as an inspiration for a major character in Carol's fiction, tries to befriend her by playing games, going through couples massages and eventually rebuilding the diner she once used when she was deciding to become a writer.

These are not the hulking bounty hunters we spent all of The X-Files watching but there is a similarity: in The X-Files the aliens can take the form of any person on Earth ; in Plur1bus they have the minds of every person on Earth. As a result they always refer to themselves as 'we' whenever they talk to Carol about anything. In one example of the humor of the show Carol demands to that Zosia use terms like 'I' and 'you' and Zosia visibly struggles with it.

We also know far more about the aliens in the first season of Plur1bus then we ever got to during The X-Files. At one point Zosia tells Carol that they come from a planet called 'Kepler 23' and that they plan to spread everything they've been taught across the known universe, in theory, through a great radio transmission. Human emotions affect them so strongly that it causes them physical pain and that extends to not wanting to cause emotional pain either. They are also incapable of either lying or refusing any request that their subjects. Carol becomes aware of this in the worst way possible when she drunkenly calls for a grenade and Zosia shows up on her door with it. She doesn't believe they'd give her a live grenade until she pulls the pin – and it detonates, severely injuring Zosia.

The aliens also seem incapable of hurting living things, whether they are animal or plant. As 'John Cena' tells us if an apple falls from a tree they can eat it, but they can't actually pick an apple. They are currently surviving of a kind of protein found in dead humans but as they are told within a decade they will all starve to death from lack of nutrition. In another irony the aliens have managed to solve most of humanity's problems but Earth has done nothing to solve their own.

The biggest difference between Carter's alien invasion and Gilligan's is a difference in style. As any fan of The X-Files knows the mytharc episode were increasingly dragged down by a lack of action and forward movement and burdened by every single character giving long ponderous speeches in purple prose that is often referred to as 'Carter-speak'.

Gilligan, by contrast, has always been a far more visual storyteller: many of his series are an example of show, not tell. Plur1bus is by far the biggest example of this writ large as so much of the first season focuses on Carol Sturka (Rhea Seehorn) one of the few women left untouched by the hive and how she tries to resist in Albuquerque.

Like Scully Carol has a skeptical worldview but hers was always cynical to the point of unpleasantness. A best-selling romance novelist who seemed to hate everybody except her lover Helen she never liked people when things were normal.  Established early in Pluribus is that all of the aliens only seem to want to fulfill the fantasies of every human on Earth and Carol is the angriest person alive. Indeed her anger is so toxic that just being in its presence can be fatal to so many of those who are still alive – something that sickens Carol when she learns the consequences of one such outburst.

So much of the first season is done in long, visual sequences where action speaks louder than words. We see Zosia (Karolina Wydra) traveling from one section of South America to an airstrip in the opening teaser of the second episode. We see all of the aliens working to clean up the mess and Zosia traveling as the rest of the aliens silently work as one. A similar section takes place with Manousos, who we will learn maybe the only person left on Earth who shares Carol's worldview. We watch him in the opening sequence of the fourth episode in his darkened apartment, assessing his food supplies, rationing what he has and methodically working his way through a shortwave radio. Gilligan doesn't formally introduce us to him until the sixth episode when he starts his long trek to see Carol in New Mexico.

Carol spends much of the first season trying to learn the truth about the aliens, who are incredibly forthcoming. She learns very quickly that they will do anything to make her happy and that they don't want to hurt people. In fact they can't do it either physically or mentally. Indeed we eventually learn the process to finish conversion involves an invasive medical procedure and because that will cause harm, they refuse to do it unless the subject consents.

In the Season 1 finale we get the clearest picture yet as to how to aliens are planning to convince everyone else to 'join them. One of the remaining unchanged is a Peruvian girl named Kusimayu.  Two and a half months after the invasion she has agreed to the process. She lives in a small Quechuan village.  The mood is cheerful and hopeful and its clear 'they' are trying to make Kusimayu feel good about her choice. She says she's not scared and she feels happy to do this.  In the last moments before the process begins she's among the pets she keeps and is stroking a young goat. She asks if it will hurt and they assure her it won't.

They take out a large tube that has been kept in cold storage. (This could be an homage to The X-Files where we learned that the alien fetus – or the wellspring – was kept that same way for nearly thirty years as early as the season 1 finale.) They open the tube and she inhales. As in the pilot she begins to seize and passes out.

She opens her eyes and has the same beatific smile we've gotten used to over the course of the series. Immediately after doing so all of the members of her community begin to pack up clearly intending to leave the village forever. 'Kusimayu' opens the door to the coop and the animals begin to run free…with one exception. The goat that she was stroking just a few minutes ago runs after her. She walks away from it without even looking back.

Gilligan has illustrated without a word of dialogue what the cost is of being part of the hive and it's devastating. In a single moment you give up everything you ever cared about as a human being without thinking twice.

Later on Carol and Zosia slowly manage to become involved in large part because the aliens want her to write her next book. This is another humorous twist. By this point they have read every book on Earth and they want something new to read. That Carol has never thought her literature of great value prior to the invasion is wonderful because it turns out that, like the teller of the Arabian Nights, it might keep her human. And sure enough after the two of them have sex – which Carol initiates – she manages her first chapter of her new book.

It's difficult to register the sincerity of any one of the Hive mind but there seems to be genuine delight as Zosia reads the first draft and sees the changes she's made by turning Raban into a woman and discusses how this would be possible through canon. That the world might be saved via a cheap fantasy novel is a very Gilligan touch and it’s a far more direct idea then 'the truth'. Which makes you wonder if what Zosia and the rest of the hive is thinking involves thought or is just an act.  Do they realize that if Carol joins them that they would never read another story from Wycaro?

But  by design that fits the kind of writing Gilligan has done, not just in The X-Files but all of his series afterward. He has always been interested in character rather than story, even when he his shows have some of the greatest plots and continuity in 21st century TV.  Pluribus is a show about the angriest woman left in a world that many of the human's left now consider a paradise but that she argues isn't because all of what makes us a human – our individuality – has been taken away from them. For all her contempt for the world when it was normal, she understands it is the flaws in humanity that makes us who were are, even if that it is our rage and ways of causing pain.

This is seen more clearly in the second half of the first season which focuses more on Manousos (Carlos Manuel-Vespa). Manousos is just as resistant to the aliens as Carol but for a different reason: he believes that they are thieves who are taking what is not theirs anymore. He knows from the start that this is a lie when the alien who is taking the form of his mother talks to him warmly. "You're not my mother," he says. "My mother was a heartless bitch."  Again Gilligan's writers argue that by taking away the bad characteristics of those we love, we are robbing them of their humanity. He equates all of the things they are willing to do to help him as he makes an increasingly perilous crossing to find Carol, and at every level refusing the help of the aliens.

One almost sees a sense of Mulder-like stubbornness in Manousos as he seems more determined to die on his way to see Carol then to take any help from the aliens. But unlike Mulder, who rushed headlong into danger thinking the truth would protect him, Manousos knows all too well what he's getting into every step of the way.  The seventh episode of the show focuses on his long journey from Paraguay to the tip of Columbia, syphoning gas from cars, focusing on learning English from a series of cassettes, hunting and fishing as he goes. When he reaches a point he can travel no further by car and the aliens try to warn him away (compassionately) he takes out his gas can and then sets his cars on fire. Manousos is clearly a man of faith – we see him sleep in a church and with a religious icon hanging from the mirror – but it's not a blinding one, it just has simple moral principles.

Taking this further, at one point in his journey, he suffers horrible injuries and is hospitalized. When he escapes from the hospital he demands to know the cost of the medical care they have given, as well as for an ambulance he is going to take. The aliens immediately give him the bill – and in a Gilligan twist, an itemized receipt.

 Throughout his journey he says the same three sentences in English over and over. "My name is Manousos. I am not one of them. I wish to save the world." What makes you who you are is a recurring theme throughout Gilligan's work starting with what he did on The X-Files and how Manousos simply and eloquently phrases it is one of the simplest and most profound things ever written in 21st century TV. 

By the time Manousos arrives (twelve days before Kusimayu commits to the process on the timeline we see) Carol has clearly started to rethink her priorities. She tells Zosia that she intends to hear him out and send him on his way. In typical the two people who most want to save the world not only don't meet in person until the end of Season 1 but spend much of their initial discussion disagreeing where to initially meet because Carol, like all white women, is afraid of being raped by strangers have their entire conversation, arguably the one that might save the human race, take place over Siri in google translate. Their priorities are different. She wants to see if there's a way to reverse the process believing their basic humanity is intact. He thinks that the transformation has taken away their souls – something that the opening of the season finale implies – and the best thing is to exterminate them.

If one wanted to draw parallels to The X-Files one could see this as a meeting between this show's Mulder and Scully, only it is simultaneously hostile and absurdist. By the end of their first encounter Carol is so annoyed by Manousos she tells him "We'll save the world tomorrow," gets royally drunk and when she wakes up puts a chair blocking her door.

When Zosia tells Manousos everything about their relationship Carol is horrified particularly when Zosia tells Carol: "We love him the same as we love you." For Carol this is the most grotesque violation yet. When Zosia starts seizing – in large part because Manousos is choosing to experiment with radio waves – her reaction is to take her rifle and threaten him with it.

In the final twenty minutes Manousos asks very bluntly: "Do you want to save the world or get the girl?" It seems for a while as if Carol has chosen the latter.  In this he is not unlike Mulder seeking the truth at any cost. For a while it seems like Carol has chosen the alternative as we see a montage of the two traveling the world as a couple and Carol looking happy – genuinely happy for the first time in the entire series. Looking at this we are reminded of both Gilligan's final episodes of the series 'Je Souhaite' and 'Sunshine Days'. In both he made essentially the same argument: it's less important to find some existential truth then the friends and loved ones you meet along the way. In Je Souhaite the real truth Mulder finds is watching 'Caddyshack' with Scully in the final scene and in the latter Scully argues that proof of the paranormal is less important then that of human connection. One could see him making the same argument here in his scenes with Carol and Zosia at a ski chalet by an open fire.

But ironically it is Carol's inability to just be happy that saves her humanity as she asks the questions she needs to about how they've improved the process. And because Zosia is unable to lie she tells her exactly what we saw in the opening scenes: that very soon they'll have a way to do this without an invasive procedure. Carol tells them they can't do this if Zosia loves you. Zosia says they have to do this because they – and she uses I – love you. This is a parallel to so many of the experiments Scully went through during the various biological experiments done during her abductions, which also involved a lack of consent.

Immediately afterwards Carol comes home and she's back to her old, bitter self. We'll have to see in later seasons (when Gilligan and his crew finally come up with them) if these parallels between Gilligan's first show and Plur1bus continue. But I should add that at the end of the first season one of Carol's last lines is "We save the world." This is a line that no one on The X-Files ever said during its entire run – and in typical Gilligan fashion its delivered by her in such a way that it sounds more like an annoyance than something that she really wants to do.

Wednesday, August 5, 2026

Decision 2026: What's Behind Door Number Three? How An Increasing Number of Deep Red States Are Offering Another Choice To Exhausted Voters

 

 

I want my readers to imagine the following scenario.

You are the citizen of one of the many states in the Union where a significant portion of the population (many of whom frequent sites like this one) will tell you with a straight face one of two conflicting stories. Either that 'no one lives there' or 'these states have a disproportionate amount of power'. Both of these arguments, often used in the same paragraph by the same author, show both the de facto bigotry of urban America versus rural America as well as the judgment that the electoral college counts for the entire voting population.

You've lived your entire life in one of these states – Montana, Idaho, either one of the Dakotas, Kansas or Nebraska. All of these states have been Republican during  that period at a national and local level.  In some of those states until fairly recent Democrats did have a base there but as the party has increasingly embraced a platform that while inclusive in the general sense of the term doesn't fit the populace of your particular state, the party has become so moribund that many local elected offices Republican candidates basically run unopposed.

You might not be a Democrat. Perhaps you’re an independent or just a dissatisfied Republican who for years if not decades has seen your state increasingly be left behind economically as the one-party rule gives neither party any real reason to take the concerns of its populace seriously. Perhaps you might not agree with the social justice part of the Democratic platform, perhaps you do. In either case you're desperate for some kind of change in leadership.

The problem is that, for all intents and purposes, you have no real choices at the ballot box. If there is a Democratic party in your state, it is likely so atrophied over the course of so long that signing on is nevertheless an exercise in futility. It has always been difficult to recruit Democrats to run in these states during the 21st century and the results have played out time and again. In North Dakota in 2024, for example, Kevin Cramer won reelection with 66.5 percent of the vote while the Democratic candidate Katrina Christinasen got just 33.5 percent. And that was actually an improvement compared to how she did two years earlier when she ran against John Hoeven when she only got 25 percent of the vote.

And these are not regions of the country that the left wing of the Democrats are rushing out to run in. When the Justice Democrats made their inaugural bid in 2018 they made an effort. They tried to run candidates in Kansas, Nebraska, Utah and even the delegate at-large primary in Montana. James Thompson in the Kansas 4th and Kara Eastman in the Nebraska 9th were the only ones who won their primaries and both lost in the general. After that election, with the sole exception of Eastman making another failed attempt in 2020, whenever the Justice Democrats have gone west they've usually gone straight to California or Colorado and pretend the rest of that region isn't there. It rejected them, so they feel just as justified in rejecting it.

So once again you are left with a bad choice or a doomed one.

Or…you could try what some deep red states are now trying. It's not a great option but it's an option.

When Dan Osborn announced that he was running to defeat Pete Ricketts in Nebraska as an Independent there was a Democratic primary. It was won, overwhelmingly, by Cindy Burbank. However on July 21st she filed her paperwork with the Nebraska secretary of state to officially drop out of the race so she would not take votes away from Osborn. As I wrote in an earlier article Osborn has a decent chance of defeating Ricketts for the nomination even though there is a Democratic primary. She withdrew just one day after Osborn's signatures to be on the fall ballot were verified.

Nebraska Republicans were infuriated by this as many believed Burbank's run had been entirely for show, a manipulation of the ballot process done in order to ensure no Democrat will be under the ballot. Indeed the Secretary of State of Nebraska had done so in March arguing Burbank was not a 'good faith candidate'. She sued in order to get back on the ballot and was successful in her attempt, partly because a deadline to raise that objection was missed.

These kinds of maneuvers, frankly, are far more common in many Republican run legislatures and while this decision might seem as morally suspicious those in charge acknowledge that legally there is nothing they can do.

So Osborn has a decent, albeit still uphill, chance to win election in November. What I was mostly unaware of is that in the last several weeks in many other deep red states a similar movement is taking place.

In the Montana Senate Race incumbent Steve Daines chose to retire last earlier this year. U.S. Attorney Kurt Alme chose to run and on Tuesday won the Republican nomination. The Democratic primary was more crowded but Alani Bankhead won the nomination there.

However there's a third candidate on the ballot Seth Bodnar the former President of the University of Montana who resigned in January and officially announced he would run as an independent. During his run Jon Tester a Democrat who was defeated in the 2024 election revealed a text message in which he made it clear the Democratic party was 'poison' to his campaign.

Bankhead at the moment is refusing to withdraw from her campaign to clear the field for Bodnar. The few polls that are available show that Bodnar in a one on one race would have a better chance than Bankhead. What's not in dispute is that Alme will easily win if both stay in the race and the deadline is next Monday for one of them too.

In recent days other states have shown a similar trend. In Idaho Republican Jim Risch is running for reelection for the third time. Running against him is Todd Achilles who has an interesting history. Achilles was registered as a Republican before February of 2024 but changed his representation to Democrat so that he would qualify to replace one for a seat in the Idaho House of Representatives. Six months after that he changed his representation to unaffiliated, arguing that issues such at the national debt and foreign policy was a reason he left both parties. He resigned in July of 2025 to run for the Senate as an independent. In May David Roth won the Democratic primary and earlier this week, chose to withdraw in favor of Achilles.

In South Dakota Mike Rounds is running for reelection for his third term. After winning the Democratic primary earlier this year Julian Beaudion announced he was also withdraw from the race clearing the way for Brian Bengs, also an independent to run against Rounds in the fall.

Interestingly earlier this year it seemed another more prominent Independent run was going to take place right next to Dan Osborn. Roger Hamilton, a prominent megachurch leader in Kansas, spent much of the first half of this year considering a run as an independent. This might have been an easier path in a state that hasn't elected a Democrat to the Senate since the Great Depression. However he chose the safer route and decided to run in the Democratic primary and having won on Tuesday faces a very uphill run against Roger Marshall.

Many prominent Republicans, both in these states and nationwide, have claimed that the majority of these runs are little more than stalking horses for the Democrats rather then truly one of a third party. I'm inclined to think two things can be true. Yes the Democrats would love to rid the Senate of Republicans such as Deb Fischer and Mike Rounds by any means necessary. And while they might quibble at a term one of their own used like toxic they're not naïve as to their chances in Nebraska or South Dakota for the foreseeable future. Fewer Republicans will make it easier for them to have a majority in the Senate next year.

That being said having endured so much of Biden's term where most acolytes of AOC considered Joe Manchin a DINO I can only imagine them running screaming from the room if they ever had to be part of the same party where candidates like these were members. A brief look at Todd Achilles statements on politics would confirm this.  He has criticized Republicans on supporting the Iran War, has criticized cuts to Medicaid and has been a major critic of DOGE, particularly in regard to the VA. But he also believes in reducing the National Debt and is opposed to 'corporate socialism' and supports the administrations approach on the consolidation of the meat-packing industry. He has voted to cut Idaho's income tax and the grocery sales tax while a member of the statehouse And considering his support for the military and veterans (he deployed twice to the Persian Gulf in the 1990s) its impossible for me to imagine the stridently anti-military wing of the Democrats allowing him even near him.

With the exception of Osborn all of these candidates are facing immense challenges. (This will be true for Bodnar even if Bankhead does withdraw.) In addition to be heavily Republican states all of these candidates will start their races with a severe disadvantage when it comes to money. With no major party to send them funds it will be difficult to match their  Republican rivals when it comes to TV, campaign events or social media. All of these states are very big and very rural so travel is going to be a bigger deal then it would in a state like Ohio or even in the South.   And even though they are very much independents it will be hard for many not to see this as a fig leaf to help the Democrats win.  So its hard to imagine any prominent politician of note campaigning for someone like Bengs or Achilles even if they had not made it very clear that they didn't want their endorsements as part of their campaign.

The road for these men will be hard and lonely and it is very much uphill. Of the four independents I listed Osborn has the best chance with the Ricketts' odds of victory currently ranked at 72 percent at political sites. Kurt Alme's chance of election are ranked at 84 percent. And at the moment both Jim Risch and Brian Bengs have a 94 percent chance of winning reelection. Jamie Davis, running in Louisiana, has just as much a chance winning on a far left platform as Achilles and Bengs do as Independents. Adam Hamilton has just as good a chance winning has a better chance winning in Kansas as those two men.

Myself I have few illusions any of the three independents I listed have much of a chance in November.  I see Bodnar, Achilles and Bengs more as test cases than having even a longshot at winning. What I want to see is how well they will do in comparison to Evan McMullin's run against Mike Lee in 2022. McMullin ended up losing to Lee by 10.4 percent in 2022 but it was by far the best performance by a non-Republican in Utah since 1976. If any of these candidates can lose by a similar margin or overperform they will have confirmed the precedent McMullin set four years ago and that Osborn confirmed two years later: that one can do well in a deep red state if one rejects the traditional label of a political party.

As someone who has longed for a third party as the solution to much of America's problems I believe this trend could only benefit democracy in America, not just in states such as Idaho or Utah but nationally. It would be a long term project, I have no illusions of that, but for the health of our American political system I share the beliefs held by men such as Achilles and all of those who are running as independents this cycle.

And as a short term measure it might also help offer succor and hope to a section of America that has been faced with the options that have done much to hurt both that region and the country as a whole for so long. Many in our political system tend to call elections "choosing between the lesser of two evils." A third choice can only help improve them nationally and it seems these states are offering that.