Decision 2026 Gubernatorial Edition Can Four Governor Races This Cycle Offer the Democrats A Path Back To National Power?

 

You have to hand it to the Democratic Party: we're consistent. Regardless whether we win or lose any election the explanation for the result will always favor the left-side. This is clear when it came to our interpretation of Barack Obama's historic 2008 victory.

The explanation that the left chose to take away was that the Democratic Party's win was based on assembling a multi-racial coalition because we had carried overwhelming majorities of the African-American vote, the women vote, the LatinX vote and what was then considered 'the gay and lesbian vote'.  Because the left has always preferred the idea of diversity in its politics – and because it has always had a contempt for the white working class -  the lesson that became canon was that the Democrats were going to be the permanent party based on our country's seemingly inevitable path towards becoming majority minority.  Therefore the Republicans were doomed and our path forward was now to only focused on making identity politics identical with political power.

This was always going to be a dangerous path to follow as it made the categorical assumption that this coalition would permanently hold together and that the GOP was just going to roll over and take it. Neither of those things happened and as we saw two years ago Trump and the Republicans managed their biggest gains in almost every major identity group in decades.

Our focus should have been the one that focused on electoral math and honestly there was a bigger lesson from both of Obama's wins we should have taken. In the 2008 election 96 of the 365 electoral votes Obama received were from the Midwest essentially mirroring Clinton's path to victory in 1992 and again in 1996. Furthermore Obama had carried Indiana, the first time any Democrat had managed that feat since LBJ's landslide in 1940 something Clinton had not managed to do in either of his wins.

This should have been the biggest news. With the exception of Illinois none of the states in the Midwest have the kind of urban or ethnic populations that have been the Democrats strong suit since the signing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Indeed many times during the era of Democratic dominance (1932-1968) many of these states were key electoral strongholds for the GOP.  FDR had trouble carrying many of these states in his 1940 and 1944 runs for the White House and Kennedy basically split the Midwest with Nixon in 1960.  In the era since the signing of the Civil Rights Act had sent the South to the Republicans the Democrats return to power had been aided by their making inroads into the Midwest. Carter wouldn't have won in 1976 had he not carried Ohio, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

So for an African-American nominee for President to essentially sweep all of these states should have been the clearest sign that it was not diversity that was a winning formula for Democratic candidates but the neoliberal path that Clinton has mastered in his win. And it's worth noting Obama's reelection four years later happened in large part because he nearly duplicated his success in the Midwest carrying six of those seven states and losing only Indiana. It was clear what the path forward was.

But leave it to the Democrats: as always we chose to listen to our far left flank and you can see where it's taken us ever since. And sure enough the more we embraced the multi-racial flank the more it cost us the Midwest. Only the more diverse Illinois and the far left Minnesota have been consistent ever since and while its clear how necessary Wisconsin and Michigan are to any electoral victory most of the left refuses to admit why.

Some will admit that the Democrats need to win the rest of the Midwest not just Ohio but also Iowa and Missouri. What they refuse to do is give any ground to the right to do so. The path to the victory is always to the left and it's not their fault the voters in those states reject it.

But despite the fact that half of 'The Squad' – Ilhan Omar and Rashida Taib – are from Minnesota and Michigan, the path of the Justice Democrat has rarely done well for them. In addition to those two candidates the Justice Democrats ran fourteen other candidates in the Midwest and only Matt Morgan and Rob Davidson (who ran unopposed in Michigan's 1^st and 2^nd districts) and Randy Bryce in Wisconsin's 1^st won their primaries. All three went down to defeat that fall. They have rarely made an effort to compete in that area since. Morgan Harper ran in Ohio's 3^rd district in 2020 and Nina Turner would tried in Ohio 11^th in 2021. Both lost. Donovan McKinney managed a primary victory in Michigan this week.

None of this should be surprising. While there are progressive roots in some of these states the overwhelming majority of the population is basically white and rural with little inclination to that of the Sanders-Warren wing of the party. This is an area that a mix of the Rust Belt and the Farm Belt which has suffered the most from the loss of jobs that only expanded from the financial crisis. There is nothing in the Justice Democrats platform or that of the Sanders campaign that offers them a way forward and indeed many of their ideas such as the Green new deal and their positions on gun control are diametrically opposed to their values.

The left wing of the party has essentially done what it always does: it chose to dismiss them as inconsequential, part of flyover country. And as a result the Democrats have been suffering at a state and local level in many of them ever since Obama's administration was completely over. The left can afford this attitude. The Democrats do so at their peril.

If there is a way back for the Democrats at a national level the Midwest is clearly the best place to start, if only because it is a more populous region then out west and our roots there have not atrophied the way that they have in the Deep South. And while one might be able to prevail at the Congressional level in some of these states, a big step forward would be win at the gubernatorial level as well. And in one of the biggest steps forward for the party during this cycle there is a possibility that they might – emphasis on 'might' – be able to take the governor's office in four of the most critical states in that region, two of which are swing states, two of which have been under Republican control for the majority of the 21^st century. It's worth looking at the four men and women who will be running this cycle because their potential success could illustrate a path back to the electoral control for the Democrats at a national level.

In Iowa, as I've written before, Rob Sand is the Democratic nominee the current auditor of the state. He considered running against Reynolds in 2022 but opted to run for reelection and was the only Democrat elected to a statewide office in Iowa that year. In 2020 an audit conducted by Sand found that Reynolds misspent $21 million on COVID relief fund, leading them to return the money. Almost as a line of attack the legislature passed a law designed to limit the power of the Iowa state auditor which Sand claimed was done to target the only statewide Democrat left in office.

Sand is running on a policy of 'common sense reform' pointing to the declining economy of the state and the exodus of college educate students. His campaign has drawn the attention of the New York Times considering his appeal to more conservative voters by focusing on issues such as clean drinking water. And as of this writing the governorship seems to be his to lose: he is currently leading his Republican opponents Zach Lahn by an average of six points and the state is listed as Lean Democrat.

In Michigan Jocelyn Benson, the Democratic nominee for Governor, has served as Secretary of State of Michigan since 2019.  In that election she beat Republican Mary Treder Lang by nearly nine percent becoming the first Democrat to hold the office since 1995. During her tenure voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing Election Day voter registration and unrestricted absentee ballots which put her at odds with Trump's administration. She would establish and Election Security Commission and a Collegiate Student Advisory Task Force. During the 2020 election she mailed absentee voter applications to all 7.7 million registered voters in the state. That same year then President Trump particularly targeted her mailing efforts. Ever since she has been the recipient of  constant threats from election deniers.

Aside from that she has advocated for ethics reform and increased transparency in the state government. She has advocating for improvements in the election system and stricter penalties against those who harass election workers. Despite numerous threats she was reelected Secretary of State by 14 points the largest margin by any candidate in Michigan in 2022. Considered a potential contender to replace Debbie Stabenow in the Senate she announced in March of 2023 she would not enter the race. Instead in January of 2025 she announced she would run for governor and overwhelmingly won the nomination with 83 percent of the vote.

She is overwhelmingly the favorite to defeat the Republican nominee John James. In 2022. James has already twice lost as a Senate nominee in Michigan losing to Debbie Stabenow in 2018 and Gary Peters in 2020. Though both elections were closer polls show Benson with anywhere from a five to ten point lead and the state considered Safe Democrat in most polling sites. While the race for Senate in that state may be a tossup the governor's race is not.

One state where the fortunes of the Democrats were see-sawing at the gubernatorial level was Wisconsin. When socialist Francesca Hong was the front runner for the Democratic nomination within a week the state went from toss-up in most polls to Lean Republican. But the voters chose to see reason and by a narrow margin chose to make David Crowley their nominee for governor to run against Republican Tom Tiffany. Within a week of the primary the state swung back to Toss-Up.

It will be a challenging battle given the circumstance but an easier one for Crowley then for Hong. Crowley has been working in Wisconsin politics since he campaign for Russell Feingold's failed 2010 campaign for reelection. He first ran for elected office in 2016, running for a seat on the Milwaukee Common Council. He came in third in the nonpartisan primary that February. However later that month his employer Harris Dodd announced she wouldn't see reelection and in a chain of events he would run in the Democratic primary in the 17^th Assembly district, winning the primary and running unopposed in the election.

While in his second term he won run for Milwaukee County executive narrowly winning by 1026 votes in the April election. As executive he worked along Wisconsin organizations and was responsible for state funding agreement. The result was 2023 Wisconsin Act 12, which allowed the county to raise a sales tax from 0.5 percent to 0.9 percent. He signed legislation provided free legal representation to those facing eviction or foreclosure, distributing $11 million in opioid settlement funds and Milwaukee's County's Climate Action Plan.

Crowley actually began his campaign for governor the day after Tony Evers announced he wasn't seeking reelection. He very quickly raised money and was in a strong financial position. But despite that he couldn't gain support in opinion polls. On July 8^th he suspended his campaign and endorsed Lt. Governor Sara Rodriguez who won the poll. But days later Rodriguez suspended her campaign and Evers tried to get Crowley back in the race. When Mandela Barnes suspended his campaign.

Crowley is the first African-American of either party to be the nominee for governor in the state of Wisconsin. And while it was a mess he will be a great contrast to the Republican Tom Tiffany, one of the most conservative members of Wisconsin's delegation if not Congress as a whole. Early polls show Crowley with a four percent lead over Tiffany and the odds are shifting in his favor.

The candidate with the least chance of taking the governorship among these four is Amy Acton of Ohio. A physician and researcher her first position in politics was as Mike DeWine's director of the Department of Health. During 2020 Acton was an adviser to DeWine involving Covid, saying cases could peak in late April to Early May. DeWine would defer to her for questions on the virus and its spread. But because of the protestors who showed up at her home multiple state legislators and the Speaker introduced bills restricting the power of the governor and Acton. She would receive the Profile in Courage Award from Caroline Kennedy and Jack Schlossberg.

In January of 2025 she announced her candidacy for the governor's race and had raised over $5.3 million by the end of 2025. Her campaign stresses affordability and health care. Still many felt she would easily be defeated by Vivek Ramaswamy, a rising star in the Republican party who was their nominee for governor.

In large part Acton has been helped immensely by the fact that Ramaswamy, who has never run for statewide office, has very quickly become a far weaker candidate then the Republicans had thought given how much appeal he'd shown during his run for the Republican nomination three years earlier. Yet almost from the start the polls have showed the two of them practically running in a near tie with an average of less than one percent between them. Every single political site considers the race a toss-up and considering that Ohio hasn't elected a Democratic governor in 20 years that's almost a miracle. Of the four candidates her Acton faces the most uphill battle but with the President's approval numbers continuing to crater the road keeps getting more level by the day.

While there is little doubt that the RNC and the administration will label the charges of all candidates as part of 'the radical left', this will be a harder charge to land on any of them. In candidates such as Crowley it is nearly ludicrous while for Benson she will no doubt face the burden of who some of the politics of some of the candidates on the ballot with her. Some like Benson and Acton are linked to policies that have made them targets of contempt, if not hatred from the MAGA movement. But the fact is Trump's approval numbers have already hit the low thirties as of the end of August  and the parties attention will be necessity be more focused on the Senate then the governor's races.

In the case of Sand and Benson their popularity may have the affect of coattails lifting up Josh Turek and Abdul El-Sayid up in races that are currently considered toss-ups for the party in the Senate. It's possible the reverse may be true for Acton as Sherrod Brown is currently comfortably ahead of Jon Husted in the race for the Senate in Ohio. All four candidates are running in states each  with quite a few Congressional swing districts that will lead to control of the House something that will be helpful this November.

There is also the fact that in the 21^st century the Democratic Party has suffered from the fact of having qualify candidates at the governor's level. Most of the names have either been associated with the coast (Gavin Newsom, Kathy Hochul) or New England both of which bare the mark of being too liberal for much of America to take seriously. In order for the party to recover nationally in a post-Trump America it can only help to have Democrats who can win a governorship in swing or red states. There are gubernatorial candidates running elsewhere this cycle who may be able to achieve this such as Keisha Lance Bottoms in Georgia or David Jolly in Florida but having a bloc of them in the Midwest can only help our cause. Amy Klobuchar in Minnesota and JB Pritzker of Illinois are heavy favorites to win their states so any more winners that come from this region can only help make us recover nationally in 2028 and beyond.

The biggest weakness of the left-wing candidates in the last decade – whether they are progressive, DSA or pure socialist – is their inability to win elections at a statewide level. We saw this with how badly El-Sayid underperformed compared to Benson in Michigan and how Hong lost the primary to Crowley in Wisconsin and I have little doubt we'll have quite a few more examples by Election Day. The best path for the Democratic Party is going back to the center and that is just as true for these four candidates running for governor as any of those I've backed for Senate this cycle. We have to win back the center and there are few better places to do this -  quite literally – then in the Midwest with these gubernatorial races. For the sake of the party we should hope for their success.

 

 

Homicide Rewatch: Sins of the Father

 

Written by Daryl Lamont Wharton ; story by James Yoshimura & Julie Martin

Directed by Mary Harron

 

Rewatching Homicide nearly thirty years later is often fascinating in terms of the murders our detectives are called into investigate.  More than a few seem like harbingers of future events, some are ripped from the headlines of that period, some – though not many – almost seem anachronistic. Looking at Sins of the Father nearly three decades later  I'm inclined to wonder something different: Someday a murder like this is absolutely going to happen if it hasn't already.

It's fitting that for a drama that was always at the forefront of race in America that the writers choose to deal with America's original sin: slavery itself.  And honestly this could only work if the show had been set in Maryland. This was one of the border states where Confederate and Union sympathizers were side by side, where the bloodiest battle on American soil took place at Sharpsburg, where slavery was one of the states directly affected by the Emancipation Proclamation. None of this is mentioned in the series but it hangs over Sins of the Father like the darkest possible cloud, one that even after 135 years (the episode aired in 1998) can never fully be displaced or ever be truly resolved.

The circumstances of the murder of Martin Ridenour are enough to make both Falsone and Cox say: "Wow." Ridenour is found hanging from the rafters with his hands tied and bruising on him, which makes it clear that this is the most bizarre murder anyone has seen. His cash and all his valuables are still on his person, he's wearing an $800 suit and he's a business partner in a prominent advertising firm. This leads to the usual jokes: "What's he doing hanging around these parts?" "He's fit to be tied" but much of it comes from the two white people. Lewis, who's the secondary on this case, seems somewhat troubled even as he jokes. With good reason. Ridenour was found in one of the poorer black sections of Baltimore, a part of town he has no earthly reason to be in. There's a drug dealer nearby but Ridenour wasn't a customer.    When they reached the mansion the Ridenour called home both Falsone and Lewis are baffled – and when Meldrick sees the very prominent Confederate flag displayed he is understandably upset.

Pamela Ridenour is considerably baffled as to what her husband was doing in West Baltimore and can't come up with a motivation for the murder. When Lewis asked if her husband knew any black people the wife says very quickly he doesn't. Then we learned that Martin traced his family back to the 1790s as a hobby (there was neither Ancestry.com nor Henry Louis Gates in 1998). Falsone is the primary and keeps asking the questions about the present but Meldrick keeps looking at the photos of a woman on a  horse, Martin's great-great-great grandmother who fought for the South and his wife seems proud of it. "Not all southern belles sat on the porch sipping mint juleps." Lewis tries to find out if Martin was part of the Sons of the Confederacy (okay that part seems more foreshadowing) and his wife says she's sorry if the 'history is making you uncomfortable'. Falsone calls him out on this because to him this is a case at the far end of the 20^th century.  Lewis, who has always been less open about race then Pembleton or Giardello, makes it clear he's not used to going into a home in Baltimore and seeing Stonewall Jackson. Falsone actually wants to know if Lewis wants off this case. Falsone actually scores a point when Lewis asks what his great-great-great grandfather was doing during the War Between the States. "Stealing chickens in Palermo." That breaks the tension.

There are financial reasons for Ridenour's murder. He had stolen a couple of prominent accounts that would have netting the firm at least $20 million and given him a considerable commission. Ridenour was an up and comer and there were some junior partners who were pretty upset. They acknowledge it’s a cutthroat business but Ridenour's boss doesn't think they'd actually cut some throats after losing.

Then they go to Cox. After some jokes that aren't jokes "If we have a suspect in custody it's murder, and if the suspect is unknown it’s the worst case of suicide imaginable." Cox gives more details that make the death more troubling. Ridenour was whipped before he was killed. He had his shirt off and at some point he was allowed to put it back on. As Cox points out: "if you were black and this were 1948, we'd call that a lynching." With a white junior executive in 1998, Lewis calls it a mess.

Giardello tells Lewis and Falsone to go back to the crime scene and recanvas, even go up and down a few blocks. He points out for the first time that this murder wasn't random, it was planned.  "Your victim is hanging in a rowhouse for a reason. You just don't know what the reason is." Indeed that recanvas gives them two clues: one from the past, one from the present.

After another discussion with our local drug dealer he says he's going to go down the block and when he comes back he wants to know something he doesn't. After the canvas they find out that not far away is Orchard Street Church, a historic site that was part of the Underground Railroad. Lewis just wants to go in to wash off the stink of the Johnny Reb stuff from yesterday. Once again the episode reminds us of both sides of the Civil War: Abolitionist and Confederacy.

After they leave the church their drug dealer comes back and tells them that a white van was there the night of Ridenour's death. The van has records and notes on it and they trace it to a local business. One of the vans wasn't dropped off until today despite being off on a gig. The driver was Dennis Rigby. The man looked responsible but he was always talking craziness. When they go to the Rigby house they learn the son is a college graduate with honors. He's a virgin in Baltimore, never arrested, never in trouble, no sign he would be near the rowhouses with the drug dealers we just saw.  On an excuse to use the bathroom he checks out the Rigby home – and in Dennis' home finds a shrine to the black power movement with pictures of Malcolm X and Frederic Douglass very prominent. The moment they leave Lewis is certain Rigby is the killer.

In Giardello's office Lewis summarizes his suspicions of what the case is about and you can't blame him for the fact it sounds very much like one of the conspiracy theories his first partner used to go on about. Pembleton has been called in and he initially agrees with Gee: "Money, sex, drugs, that is the unholy trinity." It's fascinating that usually Al and Frank are the ones to talk about race and Meldrick is spinning about history.  Falsone wants to pursue the money angle and Pembleton agrees – until he learns the victims name was Ridenour. This causes Frank to think about an old song his gramma said:

"Hush your mouth, go to sleep. Old Patty Ridenour take you back deep."

In her house Patty Ridenour was one of the great boogeymen of all time – she was a lady bounty hunter, chasing down runaway slaves, shooting them beating them and engaged in horrible acts of cruelty.  And it is that last bit that connects it for Meldrick.

In one of the best montage segments (see on the soundtrack) Meldrick manages to figure out that Rigby knew about Patricia Ridenour, her connection to Martin and what he did. After multiple searches and no sign of Rigby despite having no money, no means of transportation Meldrick knows exactly where to find him. Meldrick starts banging on the wall with his experience from the Underground Railroad knowing what he's going to find –  in a hollowed out section Dennis Rigby is patiently waiting.

Rigby uses the speech of the proud black man, saying he's part of the other 50 percent, black man has been in chains. Rigby seems to believe he is superior to those who have been arrested for possession. Lewis makes it clear it didn't make a difference to Martin Ridenour.  Rigby wants a lawyer but Meldrick convinces him that this was a righteous killing…"it was history reaching out and biting Martin Ridenour in the ass." Giving the setting and nature of the killing Rigby uses a West African saying, "You must study the past."

Patricia Ridenour, in addition to everything else, didn't just hunt slaves but freed blacks. She kidnapped freed blacks, sold them back into slavery and stole their property. His great-great-great-grandfather was born free and education. He used $400 in sailor's wages to buy his own farm before being abducted and sold into slavery by Patty Ridenour. Rigby saw his Martin's name in the paper and did his homework. Dennis stalked him and killed him in  a way "to leave the circle unbroken." He waited in his office with his gun, and after he was in the van he began to beg thinking this was still a robbery. He tied him up and blindfolded him, bullwhipped him on his knees and then he made him get him on the chair, and pulled the blindfold off to make sure that Rigby was the last thing Ridenour saw.

Lewis's response is one of the coldest things Clark Johnson ever said: "You are a sick son of a bitch."  Falsone reminds him: "You killed an innocent man over something his long dead ancestor did to your long dead ancestor." To Rigby this was justifiable because his distant ancestor died in slavery a year before the Civil War ended, hanging himself. Lewis points out Ridenour's death does nothing to atone for what happened to him and Rigby. As Lewis points out all that Rigby has done has start a different vendetta rather then end the old one. And by doing so the Rigby name will end with him.

 

 

The secondary story starts with Frank and Tim meeting for breakfast. The two of them are discussing whether or not to charge an 84 year old woman with murder for a hit and run or send it back to traffic. While this is going on Ballard shows up for breakfast and then Frank, as much as the viewer, is reminded of how Tim has spent his nights. He already questioned him about his dinner with Chris Rawls and when Ballard shows up and the two of them start flirting, Pembleton's even more baffled so he decides to leave. He makes a reference to the case saying: "things are already too complicated."  After that Pembleton asks what's going on between him and Ballard and when Bayliss talks about Laura in terms of 'smoldering', and says he's attracted to her Frank says one of the first casually callous things we've heard: "Who aren't you attracted to?"

At that point we actually get a direct link to the past, way back to the classic episode 'A Many Splendored Thing' and that perfect speech Frank gave to Tim early in their partnership.  It takes Frank a moment to get there and then his first reaction is "So what? You're thinking Ballard in leather?" After taking a moment to say how attractive that fantasy is he reminds Frank of exactly what he told him about being a good murder police. "You Tim Bayliss have a darkness inside of you. You gotta know the uglier, darker side of Tim Bayliss… You gotta love them because they're part of you because they along with your virtues make you who you are." It's interesting that Frank separates this from who he was before his stroke and the writers don't make it clear if Frank genuinely doesn't remember what he said or if he does but doesn't particularly want to be held responsible for Tim's experimentation because it bothers him. Listening to him you think it’s the former.

But if actions define a man more then words we get a different version in a conversation with Gharty the next time we see Frank. Gharty says the old lady got the 'gas pedal confused with the brake – kind of like Bayliss." Then Gharty starts implying he hears things about Bayliss. Pembleton plays dumb and asks for Gharty to 'indulge him'. After being told Bayliss is a 'switch hitter' (arguably the nicest euphemism you could get away with in 1990s network TV) Pembleton smiles for a moment and then tells Gharty: "I hear he's interested in Ballard…What do you make of that?" The wide grin on Gharty's face freezes and suddenly he starts getting very scared. "So if Bayliss is swinging from both sides of the plate, where's your partner?" Gharty gets defensive and to his feet while Frank remains remarkably calm. "You look kind of pissed." Then he asks Gharty to come around the table. At that moment Giardello shows his face. Immediately after he leaves Pembleton knocks the water he was drinking over the table and Gharty's paper. The lines are drawn. Regardless of his own issues Frank has made it clear that his partner's off limits when it comes to these rumors. Since by this point viewers knew Andre Braugher was planning to leave the question was raised: how will this be handled when Frank is no longer there for his partner on this?

We get a sense of this when Gharty tracks down Ballard rather frantic and is alarmed by how quickly she seems to have fallen under Tim's charms. When she says strange the first word out of Gharty's mouth is 'queer' while Ballard says 'thoughtful'. Gharty isn't wrong when he says that it's not good to get involved with another detective. (Indeed he's actually foreshadowing a controversial storyline involving Ballard in the final season.) The problem is Gharty, while right about things becoming 'part of the permanent record', might be overcorrecting. Ballard assures him its professional and he moves on. Of course he doesn't know how the episode ends with Ballard and Bayliss at an art gallery, looking at 'contemporary primitive art'. We will later learn this is their first date.

Pembleton and Bayliss are trying to figure out if an old lady driving late at night who killed a man accidentally mistook for the accelerator for the brake. Miss Nichols comes in with a lawyer and cookies to the detectives. The woman practically implores Bayliss not to send him to jail and she does seem to get away with it. They decide to revoke her license because you can't charge an 84 year old lady with murder. This is the contrast to the alternating justice system: a white lady can get away with killing an innocent man but a black man can't.

At the end of the episode Falsone and Lewis are chewing over the murder. Meldrick, rarely philosophical, is upset that somehow America can't apologize for slavery. (I seriously doubt he'd consider the fact that Juneteenth is now a federal holiday good enough.) "We had slavery in this country for over 400 years. As long as we got a memory of it, black or white, we ain't never gonna get past it." And the sad truth is, he's absolutely right.  No matter what Falsone says – and we know it's true – Lewis just refuses to hear it.

And the thing watching the final images where Patty Ridenour beats a slave and Martin Ridenour is beaten to death I just know this will happen someday. An African-American is going to use 23 and Me or some other site to research his history. Then he's going to look at his white boss or the owner of a company in his neighborhood or hell, maybe his next door neighbor. And this scenario is absolutely going to play out.

And thirty years after this episode we still won't have an idea of how to move on.

 

NOTES FROM THE BOARD

'Detective Munch': His big moment comes when he and Kellerman are looking at the car driven by the old woman who was responsible for an auto fatality "Little old lady from Pasadena," he uses the old spiel of what was one used to sell used cars.

On The DVD: The montage where the search of the Rigby home takes place is scored to the classic 'Sinnerman' recorded by the Nina Simone Group.

Mary Harron, who directed this episode, was known in 1996 for directing the classic independent film I Shot Andy Warhol. She would eventually direct episodes of OZ, The L Word and Six Feet Under. She would later  write and  directed the underground classic American Psycho, the Notorious Bettie Page, The Moth Diaries Her most famous work in the age of streaming was Alias Grace for Netflix and the horror miniseries The Expecting for Quibi.

A scene that was cut from this episode took place in the gallery where Ballard and Bayliss are. While talking with Ballard Bayliss eyes stray to a gay couple. At this point in the series the producers were still ambivalent as to how they wanted to take this story so Bayliss would be pushed to the background for the next few episodes, focusing on other characters. The show would deal with it indirectly a few more times this season but it was clear NBC was uncomfortable with it. Perhaps after greenlighting Will & Grace that fall the network would have less trouble with the idea of Bayliss exploring his sexuality and they'd deal with it more directly in the final season.

Kellerman mentions Juliana to Bayliss at one point but Tim fobs him off. They'll deal with it directly later this season but Mike's going to have more pressing problems starting in the next episode.

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

OTHER PREDICTIONS

Guest Actress in  A Comedy

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

 

Guest Actor in A Comedy

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

BEST TV DRAMA: Heated Rivalry

BEST TV COMEDY: Hacks

BEST LGBTQ TV SHOW: Heated Rivalry

BEST TV MOVIE OR LIMITE SERIES: Half Man

BEST NON-ENGLISH LANGUAGE TV SHOW: Squid Game

BEST WRITTEN TV SHOW: Hacks

BEST TV PERFORMANCE – DRAMA: Rhea Seehorn, Pluribus

BEST SUPPORTING TV PERFORMANCE – DRAMA: Francois Arnaud –

Heated Rivalry

BEST TV PERFORMANCE COMEDY : Jean Smart, Hacks

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

BEST GENRE TV SHOW – Widow's Bay

BEST ANIMATED SHOW – South Park

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

CAMPIEST TV SHOW: The Hunting Wives

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

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

PROGRAM OF THE YEAR: Heated Rivalry

OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT IN COMEDY: Widow's Bay

OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT IN DRAMA: The Pitt

OUTSTANIND ACHIEVEMENT IN MOVIES, MINI SERIES OR SPECIALS:

Death by Lightning

INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT IN DRAMA: Rhea Seehorn, Pluribus

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

OUTSTANDING INTERNATIONAL SERIES: Squid Game

OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT IN ANIMATION: Long Story Short

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

So here are the nominees.

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

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

They also wanted to get rid of alcohol.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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