Decision 2026: Five Senate Races That Are Safe For the GOP - And Why You Should Pay Attention to Them On Election Night Anyway.

 

In every election cycle in the 21^st century there are certain states for either party where the organization is so overwhelmingly in favor of one party or the other that the official party apparatus has no doubt given up on years ago.  The GOP has made a fair amount of effort in the last decade to on their side to compete in states they couldn't before and certainly in this cycle the DNC is making an effort in a way it hasn't since Howard Dean was forced out of the chairmanship in 2008.

But it doesn't change the fact that for both parties there are many states that neither parties are making an effort in. The GOP is essentially abandoning states like New Jersey, Massachusetts and Delaware to Cory Booker, Ed Markey and Chris Coons respectively. Likewise the Democrats are essentially yielding Arkansas, Tennessee and West Virginia to Tom Cotton, Bill Hagerty and Shelly Moore Capito. This is understandable on both sides: there's only so much money to go around and both sides are trying to put their resources to where it will do good. The Republicans this cycle have to play defense and have few, if any real opportunities to make gains and while the Democrats have been expanding the map immensely this cycle as Trump's approval ratings have tanked there is only so far they are willing to go.  Much as they loathe Mitch McConnell, they have no intention of spending their time to get Charles Booker to become a new Democrat.

Now as I've mentioned a few times before the map for 2026 overwhelming favors the Democrats. The Republicans are defending 24 seats this cycle, the Democrats only ten. Despite their doubts at the end of 2025 the math was always in their favor going into this November and it is increasingly looking like they will take the Senate majority back, perhaps with an even bigger number then they expected. But to do so that meant that by necessity there were several states where the Democratic Party hasn't done well in decades, much less this century.

That being said there are still five states this cycle which are overwhelmingly and deservingly safe for the GOP that the observer will have to watch. I'm not saying that an upset will happen or even if it many cases the race will even be close. In all of the states I'm about to list the Democratic Party at a state level has atrophied to a point that in two of the states I'm about to list whatever chance they have won't have to do with a Democratic candidate at all. For the reason, with two exceptions, little attention will be paid by the media in the next couple of months and certainly not on election night.

All of the candidates face climbs so uphill that they might as well be mountains. Regardless of what polling information we might get all of the states are ranked as Safe Republican or Likely Republican – and in the two that aren't, I think the pollsters are being ridiculously generous. These states are not Iowa or Alaska; there's no history of Democrats doing well for me to hang my hand on. In all of them the challenger's have two chances: slim and none and honestly they barely even have slim.

But one of the hallmarks of a healthy democracy – and I'm under no illusions about how battered America's is right now – is that there has to be competitiveness across all of America. That includes states that one side has abandoned to the other years if not decades ago. (Because I actually am fair and balanced I intend to deal with an article that deals with where the GOP needs to do better going forward. The leftists on this site should consider themselves duly warned.)

So I'm going to deal with five states that are all almost certainly going to go Republican on election night and why we need to look at them anyway.  In a couple of cases the Democrats might have a chance to win but that is more due to circumstances then anything else. I'm going to go in order of likelihood of something surprising happening on election night – or from one-in-a-million to snowball's chance in hell, if you prefer.

 

South Carolina

If you've read my article this cycle you know that I had overwhelming doubts that Annie Andrews, the great white hope of progressives in South Carolina had a snowball's chance in hell of winning against Lindsay Graham this cycle. I'd been down this road six years ago with Jaime Harrison who the Party was picking to go after Graham in great detail as the man who would absolute do it – and he lost by 10 points. Why we then named Harrison the chair of the DNC is just another sign of how clueless we are.

The big difference now of course is that Andrews isn't running against Lindsay Graham.

It's been a long time since a candidate running for reelection passed away while running for reelection. The last time it happened was when Paul Wellstone died while running in Minnesota in 2002. Wellstone's name was still on the ballot but Walter Mondale agreed to serve if he was elected. It didn't work out and Norm Colman won instead.

The difference was Graham passed away in July and South Carolina had different election rules. Darline Graham, Lindsay's sister, was appointed to serve as an interim Senator and that Trump decided to endorse her to run in her own right. It has taken both a general primary and a run-off for Darline Graham to finally win the nomination on August 24^th.

Now the reasoning I thought this might give aide to Annie Andrews was built in the idea of chaos that we saw earlier this cycle when Graham Platner was forced to step down in June and was replaced by Troy Jackson. I assumed that this chaos could only help the incumbent Susan Collins and while the polls do show Jackson leading her the last few months having been through this with Sara Gideon six years ago I have a healthy skepticism. One could look at Andrews's chances as the mirror version of this, particularly as she facing a neophyte candidate who never held elected office prior to this – and has already made a serious gaffe.

In the Republican debate between her and Ralph Norman, who finished second to her in the run-off, Darline Graham was asked a question about Taiwan and China. Graham paused and then responded: "I'm not that informed on national security." The Republican audience gasped and booed. While this didn't stop her from winning the runoff, it took a cash infusion and Trump campaigning for her to lock up the runoff.  And Graham's arguing that she is a political outsider won't be a cudgel she can use as easily against Andrews, who has also never held elected office in her life and has the benefit of being more then twenty years younger than Graham.

While I believe Andrews will be able to use this as a cudgel to make the race against Graham more competitive then it would have been against her brother, I say any real chance Andrews has of winning shaky at best. No Democrat has won statewide office in South Carolina since Fritz Hollings did in 1998 and Hollings was from an entirely different era of politics than Andrews is. The Democrats will do better in the South this cycle then they have in nearly 20 years. Andrews is almost certainly not going to be lifted to victory.

 

Kansas

 

As I've written in an earlier article Kansas hasn't elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1932. The last time a race for the Senate was even close to competitive in Kansas was in 1974 when Bob Dole came within 13,500 votes of losing reelection for the first time in the aftermath of Nixon's resignation.

The last time Kansas was even competitive it was Pat Roberts ran against Independent Greg Orman, after the Democratic nominee withdrew. Even then Roberts won reelection by nearly ten percent. That year Roger Marshall ran for the first time against Barbara Bollier. Bollier made some progress, winning a few counties that hadn't gone Democrat in decades – or in the case of Johnson county, forever – but he still won by nearly 11 percent.

Despite that and the victory and reelection of Laura Kelly in the past decade few seriously considered Kansas would be in play. Indeed when Adam Hamilton first announced his intent to challenge Marshall's in his bid for reelection he actually considered running as an independent. Instead Hamilton chose to run as a Democrat a role which might not fit the Democratic model.

Hamilton is the founding pastor of the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection in Leawood, the largest UMC church in the entire country. Hamilton is an author of more than 30 books; he has preached at the National Prayer service during Obama's second inauguration festivities and was appointed to Obama's President Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnership.

Conservatives have been trying to use his religious leadership against him, with Marshall arguing he's too woke for Kansas. It's worth noting Kansas has a fairly sizable bloc of moderate voters and its constitution protection abortion rights. And he faces attacks from both the right and the left, who are wary of mixing government with religion. (This is, for the record, part of the reason Democrats keep losing elections they could win.) But for those who've argued about the hypocrisy of the religious right and the contradiction with scripture it is refreshing to see a minister who says: "When did it become woke to care for your neighbor?"

I truly believe Hamilton would have had an easier time winning had he ran as an independent. The few polls that we have in this state show the race close with either candidate within the margin of error in terms of the lead. I actually think this race will be closer than South Carolina in large part because Kansas has shown signs of Democratic strength at a statewide level in recent years that just aren't in South Carolina. But even that has its limits. In 2022 when Laura Kelly won reelection Jerry Moran won his third term in a landslide with over 60 percent of the vote. For Hamilton to beat those odds it would take, well, a miracle.

 

Mississippi

Last August I wrote how Joe Kennedy III was doing something that most Democrats and all Progressives would have considered a fool's errand.  He was spending a lot of time and energy in some of the reddest states in the Deep South making an effort to rebuild the Democratic Party. I made it clear that I didn't think whatever efforts he would do would be seen in this election cycle or for many to come.

Later this year we'll get a chance to see some of his work and I think the best possibility will be the Mississippi Senate race. As I wrote more than once a few years back Brandon Presley's challenge of the incumbent Republican governor Haley Barbour came within a few points of succeeding and might very well have had Mississippi progressives not sat out the election altogether.

This year Cindy Hyde-Smith, the state's junior senator is running for reelection. Running for her first full-term in 2020 against Democrat Mike Espy Hyde- Smith won by nearly ten points  but underperformed then President Trump in that state by nearly six percent.  Now she will be running against Democrat Scott Colom.

Colom has served as a District Attorney in Mississippi since 2016. Biden nominated him to be a federal district judge but the nomination stalled in the Senate when Republicans including Hyde-Smit blocked the appointment.

As with Espy six years ago Colom has been surprisingly competitive when it comes to fundraising in Mississippi. And he faces a decidedly uphill battle: even the most generous polls list him at 6 percent behind Hyde-Smith.

Despite the considerable signs of improvements the Democrats will be making in Dixie this cycle Colom has no realistic chance of winning. However I think it will be instructive to compare his run against Jamie Davis in Louisiana. Compared to Colom Davis has been very prominent about his progressive ties and the party, particularly the left-wing of it, has been pushing his candidacy far more than they have Colom's in terms of fundraising. Both Davis and Colom are given less then a five percent chance of winning their respective states. It will be instructive to see who comes closer to winning in these border states: the candidate backed by the left-wing or the one based by the centrist one.

 

Idaho

I referred to the last two candidates in a separate article about independents running for office and I think its worth going into detail on the two are the most interesting here.

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 as 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.

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.

Achilles's represent a chance to see how well a true independent performers in a western state where some have had success. I'd argue if Achilles comes within ten percent of Risch in the general election it will be a marker for future independent campaigns going forward.

 

 

Montana

In the Montana Senate Race incumbent Steve Daines chose to retire last earlier this year. U.S. Attorney Kurt Alme chose to run and  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.

Since at this juncture neither Bankhead nor Bodnar has chosen to withdraw it’s a given Alme will win.  The interest in this race is whether Bodnar manages to poll ahead of Bankhead in the general election. I'm not wild about any vindication whether a Democratic brand is 'poison' but if it means that the party learns from it, I think it’s medicine we have to take going forward.

 

Just to be clear like everyone else who's watching the returns on election night I will be focusing all my attention on the races I've highlighted in my previous articles. I'll be looking at these races in the days immediately afterwards – and I hope the Democrats do as well for their future.

 

I Think That HBO's Lanterns Is A Very Good Show

 

In the war over shows like Lanterns there are two sides and you have to decide which you are on.

On one side is, of course, the fanboy culture who have elected themselves the sole arbiters of what it is acceptable entertainment. They think that Hollywood has been taken over by a radical leftist elite who are somehow simultaneously covertly and overtly using their shows and their platforms to put a woke agenda that violates everything that they 'the fans' want and by definition all of America, if not humanity, wants from their entertainment. They believe that the masses are with them and they will defend their position to the death.

On the other side is Hollywood. They consider themselves purveyors of a noble craft whose purpose is to speak truth to power and shout to the rafters for equality, even though most of them are multi-millionaires and billionaires. They believe that they are handlers of a sacred calling and that their projects are weapons in the battle against an increasingly fascist society of which the fanboys themselves are the most critical part of it. They know they are on the right side of history and that they are a beacon in a world filled with darkness. They believe that the masses are with them and they will defend their position to the death.

So which side am I on, you ask? Easy. I'm part of the masses who doesn't care about these wars and just wants to be entertained after a long day.

My readers know that I can see both sides of the issues and know that both sides are completely clueless. Hollywood is a business and the films and TV shows it makes are products of that business. The actors and talent are employees, albeit much better made that the overwhelming majority of us. And at the end of the day the business side of Hollywood doesn't care why people watch a show like Lanterns. If you're watching it because you're on side or the other or if you're just watching to be entertained, the industry absolutely doesn't break its viewership down that way. Either way, you're helping them make a profit. I have no doubt the executives really wish both sides would just shut up about it and be entertained but they know that's not the world we live in and they've accepted it.

Now my readers know that I personally have little use for shows that are based on franchises such as Star Trek, Star Wars or comic books. In the 21^st century in particular shows like these are the most extreme version of the capitalist intent of Hollywood. They are safe properties designed to make money and they leave little, if any, room for creativity or imagination. This is true, to be clear, whether it is film or TV but for me as I rarely willingly go to any of these films it only applies to television.

The reason I tend to dislike most comic book adjacent shows is simple: they're not for viewers like me who don't look comic books. All I care about is seeing a good story well told, written and acted and to be clear I've never gotten that from shows like The Mandalorian or Star Trek: Discovery or Secret Invasion. These are shows that are there to do fanservice and I am not a fan. I don't begrudge the people who are fans of these shows, I need to be clear on that, but they are not my cup of tea.

It is almost unheard of for a show based on a franchise to be able to transcend the shackles that bind it and a formula that it can't escape. I think that's the reason Andor resonated with so many people (myself included). It was a Star Wars show for people who might never have liked Star Wars or more importantly might know very little about it.

Television has been shifting quite a bit in the last decade and every so often you can see a comic book show trying to break away from the shackles of the format to actually tell a different story. For the MCU that series was WandaVision, which used the mantle of television to tell a story about how grief can do much to destroy you. For DC, that show was The Penguin which used the origin story of Oz Cobb to tell a very much antihero based drama that seemed to have more Easter eggs to The Sopranos and Breaking Bad that the world of Gotham.

Lanterns is not quite at the level of either of these series. But having watched the first three episodes you get an idea that Chris Mundy and Damon Lindelof are trying their hardest to break against the shackles that hold a comic book in place and try to tell a different story. For Lindelof this is familiar territory: he was one of the creative forces behind Watchmen one of the greatest limited series of the 21^st century that deservedly won eight Emmys.

As someone who knows very little about comic books and almost nothing about the Green Lanterns I was drawn to it because the show seemed to be pitched very much closer in spirit to True Detective. That plus the presence of Kyle Chandler as Hal Jordan and Aaron Pierre as Jon Stewart. Chandler, of course, has been one of the great forces in 21^st century TV, most notably for playing Coach Taylor in Friday Night Lights and to certain viewers for his work as a cop in the underrated Netflix series Bloodline. Pierre has increasingly become something of a force in film and TV the last few years, most notably for his work in the Emmy nominated TV film Rebel Ridge.

The biggest complaint (that's a euphemism) has been in the first three episodes we've seen very little of the famous ring, the uniform, and even the lantern is almost considered a throwaway. The origins of Hal Jordan getting the ring have been very vague and the few times the ring has been used, it really seems like Hal isn't taking it seriously. (When he chants the famous pledge to charge the ring, he says so quickly and in a monotone that it almost seems to bore him.) What Lanterns really does seem like is a buddy cop drama where the two partners can barely tolerate each other and there's a decent chance they'll kill each other before greater forces can.

It has none of the tones of a comic book movie, none of the lightness of the MCU or of the most recent DC films and it barely seems interest in paying lip service for the fans. In short it barely seems interesting in telling a story about a comic book at all and its for that exact reason that I admire and find it fascinating, even if after three episodes it has yet to reach a level of brilliance.

Chandler plays Jordan with a mix of weariness and arrogance. The story is he got the ring because he knows no fear. Chadler plays him as if the rules shouldn't have to apply to him and it annoys the hell out of him when he goes to a small town in Nebraska and the local sheriff (Kelly MacDonald) shows him nothing but contempt when he openly breaks the law. Her husband (Jason Ritter, the comic relief in this series) actually does seem to have respect for Hal but its worth noting that may be because he's under the influence of the local billionaire landowner who seems to worship Hal but doesn't respect him. The fact that he is played by Garret Dillahunt makes you know he's up to no good.

Aaron Pierre plays Stewart as someone who is determined to follow the chain of command and show respect no matter what. In the third episode, by far the best to this point, we learn that Stewart's father was considered to be the Lantern and as a result of not being picked went into a spiral. His mother had a meeting with one of the Guardians (Laura Linney) who tried to apologize but said that one day her son might have that potential. We then see that the Jordans essentially raised their child so that he would know no fear and that led to them engaging in behavior which is clearly abusive but that Hal has compartmentalized so much that he doesn't want to think about it. He is laser focused on getting the ring and being able to follow Jordan.

This episode has been talked about because of the obvious racial undertones (which I found too blunt for my liking) and the very real sense of what it means to be a symbol to your people. I actually found a different level. Ever since Lost Lindelof has been an expert at telling story about destiny and free will and whether our actions are shaped by forces beyond our control. So I found myself wondering: Did Jon ever have any choices? I don't just mean by how his parents have decided to shape him but by the Guardians own remarks. We know that they never liked Hal being one of them so is it possible this Guardian planted the seeds in Mrs. Jordan so that her years of training would eventually make Hal the man the Guardians wanted him to be?

If you're a fan of Lost you will remember the sage of how Eloise Hawking chose to shape the life of her son Daniel based on events that happened before he was even born. She took away all of his choices because she said he had a gift that needed to be nurtured. We saw the cost of that gift on Dan throughout his life and we see something just as similar out here. Hal seems to have taken a life where he will respect the chain of command no matter what, so that means he's basically outsourced his free will to other people.

Hal, it's worth noting, has similar issues. We know about how his mentor Sinestro (Ulrich Thomson) abused his trust and tried to lead a coup against the Lanterns. Hal still has a very close relationship with him that clearly bothers the other guardians. 'Daddy Issues' are a big thing about Lindelof dramas as well and we can see that both Hal and Jon have those in spades.

And there are conflicting missions. The Guardians consider Hal reckless and they want Jon to replace him. However they've told Hal that he's a backup in case something goes wrong. Hal doesn't want a backup and he's very clear on that and we all know eventually he's going to find out the truth.

As someone whose always cared less about fidelity to source material and far more about just being entertained on a technical level Lanterns more than checks every box. The writing and directing are masterful, the performances from Chandler and Pierre on down are superb and technically its as well shot and filmed as any HBO project. In short it is a comic book series that can be loved if you never read a comic book in your life which is, of course, why the fanboy culture hated it even before it debuted.  Of course it has very quickly become a ratings success for the network which means the business of Hollywood could give a damn why people are watching it and even less what the fanboy culture thinks.

I acknowledge this has not been a typical review but Lanterns is not a typical show. I write this review for my readers who know what I think about the business. For those who will argue that this is just the woke personification of an industry that is trying to destroy the world – well, I have to be honest I think the writers knew this going in. All of the action in the main story takes place in 2016. You just know that this was a town that was going to be holding MAGA rallies in the near future.

My score: 4.25 stars.

Homicide Rewatch: Something Sacred, Part 1

 

Written by Anya Epstein

Directed by Uli Edel

 

This episode needs a bit more of an introduction before we get to the story.

Despite not having achieved its mandate from NBC to increase its ratings in January of 1998; outside factors, yet again, would lead to Homicide being renewed. During that period Jerry Seinfeld had made his historic decision to bring Seinfeld to an end that spring despite still being the number one show on television. While that was going on the network was in the midst of an extensive contract negotiation to keep ER now in its fourth consecutive season of being the highest rated drama on TV. Mad About You, which NBC had as a contender to replace Seinfeld on Must-See TV Thursday was threatening to jump ship to another network. And finally NBC would lose football as part of its primetime lineup to CBS and ABC (it would take over a decade before they got it back.)

With so much uncertainty NBC decided they needed to hold on to properties that were relatively inexpensive and safe. So Homicide got renewed for another season by the end of January of 1998.

During this period Andre Braugher made it official that he was going to leave at the end of this season. Nor would he be the only cast member. Michelle Forbes had become increasingly frustrated with her limited role on Homicide and had asked to be written out of the series. However for the first time in its entire run Homicide was aware of cast change before the season finale and had enough time to prepare an appropriate story arc. (This was not the only cast member who was planning to leave, as we'll see later on.)

You can see the origins of how Homicide is making its plan for the future when the episode begins. Stivers, who has been rotating from unit to unit all year, has now officially landed in Homicide. While the series won't officially make Toni Lewis a regular until Season Seven begins the fact that her name will be written on the board shows that she's now part of the show's future in a way we haven't seen.

The final factor is one of timing. Because Homicide had been interrupted the previous week because of figure skating coverage (the 1998 Olympics were just a month away) NBC decided to do something it had never done before and would never do again. It chose to air both parts of a two part episode in what amounted to a mini TV movie on January 30^th which is how all viewers saw it. However for the purposes of this guide I will review each episode on its own because, like all two-parters, there are smaller stories in the first episode that don't necessarily appear in the second.

Kellerman is concerned that Meldrick has disappeared without a trace since his suspension. No one in the squad has seen him, he hasn't been at the Waterfront, his wife hasn't heard from him. When Stivers show up as part of the rotation Mike is infuriated; no doubt because her presence reminds him of his actions. In his opinion her appearance in Homicide is not because of the rotation but because he believes her arrival is directly due to Meldrick's absence.  Their relationship has been frosty ever since Luther died, now that she's on his turf he will never regard her with anything but contempt. The number of allies he has in Homicide is getting smaller by the day.

There's no time Kellerman's attitude would be convivial to the squad. But he's still capable of not letting his personal feelings affect his work, which is good because the squad is about to get handed a red ball.

Father Michael Juneaux is found tied to a chair, beaten and stabbed to death and given a fatal blow with a can of chicken chow mein. His body is discovered by another member of the parish, Father Klasky. On the blackboard is a poem in Spanish that translates to 'Teach us how to truly  live. God of love, forgive, forgive." Gharty is clearly struck by both the poem and the scene itself. After reading the poem a second time, he looks at a crucifix and crosses himself. This sets the tenor that this case will be as much about Gharty's Catholicism as the murders itself.

Klasky runs the hospice next door and came home to find the door unlocked and Juneaux murdered. He usually locked the door, something his late colleague hated but that his colleague has accepted the reality. Ballard asks if its possible Juneaux invited his attackers in and Klasky admits its possible. He also tells Ballard that Juneaux was a member of the CFCA – Catholic Friends of Central America which helps refugees find jobs and places to live. Juneaux frequently let refugees stay at the rectory to live. Two Guatemalan teenagers Pedro and Luis – who we learn our also first cousins -  had been with them three weeks – and they are missing.

The case is a red ball in large part because Juneaux is a priest of immense stature within the state of Maryland itself. The Guatemalans are considered potential suspects and probable witnesses. Important is that $300 are missing from the rectory so it is conceivable this is a robbery that progressed into murder. This is the first red ball we've seen on the show in a long time and it’s the first one Gharty and Ballard are handling. Both acquit themselves admirably and Pembleton, who had little use for either at the start of the season, treats both detectives with respect.

Giardello is angry because he's already short one detective, Bayliss is on vacation and Falsone as we shall see is taking a deposition. Apparently there hasn't been a murder by a priest in Baltimore since 1966 and Giardello has already heard from the Mayor, who's heard from the cardinal. He wants this case closed before the pope weighs in.

And its worth noting the episode makes a direct reference to the elephant that is the scandal the Catholic Church was dealing with very publicly. (With that reference and the refugees, this episode has improved with age.) Ballard and Gharty are told by the late local news, which is planning to run a story about Juneaux, about a tape received by a 'Swami' of a church called 'Holy Serenity'  who says that Father Juneaux came to him a year ago greatly distressed over 'physical relations with some of the political refugees'. Gharty immediately rejects this as crap and seems offended that they would suspect a priest but the fact is he has named eight or nine refugees and numerous other colleagues who can verify it. In evidence that takes place in a fictional world the TV executive has called the detectives first before airing the story.

Ballard, Pembleton and Stivers all admit that when they saw Juneaux's body they all believed this had to do with teenagers who'd been molested. Gharty seems to be living in a world of denial when he says "once in a blue moon a priest misbehaves' and Pembleton, as much a Catholic as Gharty is, reminds him that in the summer of 1997 the Archdiocese of Dallas gave a payment to ten altar boys abused by one priest. He admits there's an exception but he's a detective first and a Catholic second (if that) Ballard and Pembleton are actually in lockstep this time on what has to be done and Gharty seems petulant. That said it's more about what the episode is planning.

If Law & Order had done this story this would have been about molestation. In fact as soon the detectives investigate closely they find that every single person the swami named was not molested and that the swami, is in fact, not a swami or even Indian.  Stivers and Pembleton joke about this and it turns out Stivers is correct: the swami is Walter Norton, who has a rap sheet including filing a false report. Norton is running a fake religion, immediately demurs about having no records, and refuses to take a polygraph because his religion expressly forbids it. Norton did attend the same seminary as Juneaux in the 1960 but was never ordained. In fact he was expelled for the seminary referred to as 'mental difficulties'. (You really wonder it takes to get expelled from a seminary by that role.)

Munch and Kellerman are busy checking the train stations. Kellerman is deeply cynical of the idea that if Pedro and Luis can be found if they managed to sneak across the border undetected.  Munch admits to Kellerman he would rather be looking for Meldrick himself. At the station Kellerman confides he is worried they'll fish Meldrick out of the river (see 'Detective Munch') but because he wouldn't put it past Georgia Rae to put a hit out on Lewis which is not something we can put past her now. At that point they actually spot Pedro and Luis on a bus out of town and the two detectives do the squad a solid by bringing them in for questioning right about the time Giardello is getting annoyed.

Ballard and Gharty are about to interrogate Pedro and Luis. At that moment Sister Diane shows up demanding they don't talk. We met her briefly as a colleague of Juneaux but now she proves to be a force of good herself.  I love how she tells her next part:

Notre Dame Law School class of '89. Don't look so alarmed detectives. Though few of my colleagues show it is possible to practice law and still have a soul.

Gharty goes after Luis hard but Luis is adamant that he would never touch him. The blood on his shoe is from where he tried to help him and that message on the board was in fact a poem that Father Juneaux wrote because he wanted to give part of his sermon in Spanish. (Again something that seems vital to the case has no importance.) Pedro doesn't speak English so Sister Diane has to translate the questions and answers. 

Though Luis is more familiar to viewers today (see Hey, Isn't That) it is Pedro's story that is more haunting. He makes it clear he doesn't want to be deported that he loves Baltimore, America and MTV. There's something truly haunting about how that part has to be spoken through Sister Diane. When Ballard says unless Pedro answers her questions they will send her back to Guatemala, Diane is infuriated by the threat but Ballard holds steady. Luis and Pedro were upstairs watching MTV with loud music. Luis went to grab a soda and they found his body. Asked why they ran he says they were afraid they'd be blamed. What cuts the most is when Diane has to translate: "Please don't send me back. If you send me back, I will kill myself."

The subject of illegal refugees was just as polarizing in 1998 as it is today; they're just wasn't a 24 hour news network using it and social media backing it.  Still when Diane advocates for their release there's something just bit a fanatical about it. She paints a very pretty picture but Sister Diane refuses to consider the very real possibility that they murder Juneaux. To be fair all the detectives have is speculation, there's no concrete evidence tying them to the murder. Danvers wants to hold Pedro and Luis as material witnesses, arguing justifiably they are a flight risk.  Despite the fact they did flee the scene before they were questioned and were in fact trying to cross into Canada, Diane makes it clear the diocese will not except this.

Gharty, clearly impressed, says: "Why do I think the women means what she says?" Cut to the media circus of nuns and priests protesting outside the precinct. Ballard actually runs into Gharty and its here we get to the core of the issue. Gharty tells her that he thought about becoming a priest and Ballard actually compliments him by saying she could see him pulling it off. He tells Ballard he came from a family of butchers and that he worked in the meat lockers as much as school. But Sunday church meant a big deal to his family and to him. He speaks with reverence of Monsignor Garvey and Gharty said he thought he'd go from high school to the seminary but then he met his wife. (Speaking of which, where is Flora?)

There's something about Diane's devotion that really does smack of hypocrisy: the way she talks about the refuges as part of the cause for which 'Father Juneaux gave his life for' – while ignoring the very real possibility her clients might have taken that life – does make us question whether she is playing the religious card or the PR card. She has established a fund to raise the bond for the refugees and by this point many of the religious figures in the city themselves are calling for the release of Pedro and Luis. It's impossible not to see Sister Diane not so much as an advocate but as other religious figures of the era such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Ballard and Gharty are tasked with the tip line and while they are tracking down false leads they run into a Father Thomas Walcott. After saying that they should let the Spanish boy go he tells them something pertinent. A week ago, someone knocked on his door. He answered with the chain on it and saw three young men. Two of them waited at the back while one of the door asked to use his phone. Walcott offer to dial the number. The one at the back objected saying "Forget it Rock Rock." He went to place the call, it was fake, and when he came back the boys were gone.  He knows the boys weren't Spanish but he doesn't know if he can ID Rock Rock. They find him – they know it’s a street name – and bring him to the church. However Walcott can't identify him definitively but its worth noting that Rock Rock is a little too adamant about not being the person who killed the priest.

 

Falsone is dealing with his deposition for his divorce case. He's astonished to learn that they will want his entire life story and it doesn't go well. We're not sure how seriously Falsone is taking this, questions about how much he shares with his son are called into dispute and he seems annoyed that his sense of humor is being taken literally. (Honestly I don't know if I buy he hasn't gotten laid in the past year as he claims.) It doesn't help matters that Janine's deposition goes better, mainly because she's broken up with the boyfriend that causes Falsone so much agita a few weeks ago. When Falsone shows up at the squad and tells Giardello why he was late (and critically Al didn't even know he had a son) he tells us Meldrick was going to be his character reference but that even if he could find Lewis, how much help would a detective charged with assault and prominent in a civil suit be? Al agrees to appear as his character witness but this part of it isn't followed up on (mainly because the story will be resolved by the episode following the two-parter.) It is worth noting that Giardello tells Falsone that after  he lost his wife he had to raise his three children himself and it was far from a picnic. He lays out the basic 'chicken pox, PTA meetings, broken hearts…and that's just the easy stuff." When Falsone says a kid needs his father it clearly strikes a cord with Al, who must be thinking of how badly his relationship with Charisse has gone. (And almost certainly without knowing it, the writers have foreshadowed one of the central storylines of the final season.)

By this point Pembleton has a conversation with Ballard who is expressing doubts about the case. Frank seems reassuring telling her to have faith and that triggers her. She says listening to Sister Diane half the time she thinks they're dead wrong about her clients and yet the other half thinks something's wrong with her.  She questions her own lack of faith. When Pembleton brings up how well she related to Rita Hale Ballard says: "Maybe its easier for me to see myself as a woman who is dying of AIDS then to believe in God."

Then Frank smiles and says: "So you're lucky. Let me and Gharty and the rest of us trust in God box with God because in this line of work whether it be a murdered priest or an overdosed drug addict, faith only gets in your way and twists you up. So if you don't have the all mighty to reckon with, you're fortunate…Ignore everybody else. Work this case the way you need to. And consider yourself blessed."

This is not something Frank has ever said to Bayliss and we can't imagine him saying it to anyone even a year ago. One wonders if he envies those who don't wrestle with the angels the way he does. It's another superb scene for Braugher and yet again demonstrates why Callie Thorne is very much becoming a force on this show.

Bonfather makes the decision on the second day to have Pedro and Luis released after another discussion with the cardinal. He has no use for the fact that Ballard has had a conversation with Klasky about the refugees making him feel uneasy, which is vague. He also points out that in 24 hours the CFCA has raised a substantial amount of the bail and by the end of the week they'll have the rest, so either way they'll be walking. Pedro and Luis have signed affidavits that they will be staying in the country. Giardello and the other detectives are very aware that these papers are meaningless  but for once Bonfather is closer to being on the right side of this. The evidence is circumstantial, the grounds to hold the Guatemalans is shaky and inevitably this release is happening.

Of course that doesn't make what happens next any less inevitable. Pembleton gets a call and he takes Stivers as a secondary. She's hoping the next case will be more her style. Franks says he doubts that and tells her to look up. Monsignor Bernard Jaeger has been stabbed the death. Gharty, Ballard, Pembleton and Stivers end up on Sister Diane's door. Diane assures them that Pedro and Luis are asleep upstairs and have been there all night.

But of course when they go into the bedroom, Pedro and Luis are gone.

(End of Part 1)

 

NOTES FROM THE BOARD

The spelling I'm using of Father Juneaux is how his name is written on the board during these two episodes. However in later episodes when the camera pans past it the name will be spelled JUNEAU. There's no explanation as to why.

The title of the episode refers to a show that was on ABC during the 1997-1998 season called Nothing Sacred. It aired on ABC and featured Kevin Anderson as Father Ray, a priest wrestling with his vocation. It was highly acclaimed at the time and featured such superb actors as Ann Dowd and Bruce Altman as regulars. Anderson was nominated for a Golden Globe and the show won many awards including a Peabody as well as a WGA prize. But not even the powers that be could convince viewers to watch it and it was cancelled at the end of its first season. Like so many one season shows it was never released on DVD and cannot be found on streaming.

'Detective Munch': In a nod to his sensitivity Munch remarks on Lewis's absence "Of course the last time a detective in this unit went missing we ended up fishing his body out of the harbor."

Understandably Mike is pissed when Munch says this.  But it's worth remembering that Munch saw that particular detective's body being fished out of the harbor and it shook him as badly as everyone else in the unit. Realizing he went too far he goes out of his way to assure Mike that Meldrick isn't the type. (No doubt he still has no idea about how sensitive his new partner on this subject.)

Hey, Isn't That…Michael Anthony Pena (as he was known then) was making just his third TV appearance when he played Luis on Homicide. Like far too many Hispanic actors (as was the term in the 1990s) he was receiving very few roles worthy of him at the time. He played Brian on the second season of Felicity and had small roles in such films as Gone in Sixty Seconds and The United Staes of Leland. It was not until 2004 that he began to get more notable roles working with Paul Haggis in Million Dollar Baby and Crash. He would play Armando Renta in the fourth season of The Shield but it wasn't until he played Agent Nick Memphis in Shooter that recognition began to trickle in.  By the 2010s he was associated with many brilliant films such as American Hustle and Fury  and by the time of 2015 he was a feature in blockbuster films most notably as Luis in Ant Man .

His work in television has been substantial. He played Mr. Cisneros on Eastbound in Down, Mark Solano on Gracepoint and Kiki Camarena on Narcos: Mexico. He would play Domingo Chavez on the final season of Jack Ryan. Earlier in 2025 he received a Critics Choice nomination for Best Supporting Actor in a Limited Series for his superb work as Detective Alcaras in the Emmy nominated limited series All Her Fault.

From the soundtrack: On the boombox Rock Rock is playing you can hear Public Enemy's  Lost at Birth. The montage at the end of the episode is scored (appropriately) to 'Wish I Was in Heaven Sittin' Down by John Mooney.

Jeopardy Masters 2026 Recap: Part 2 The Semi-Finals

 

 

After a thrilling finish in the last two days of quarterfinals the semi-finals of the 2026 Jeopardy Masters began with a perfect balance of the old and the new.

For the third straight year Yogesh Raut and Victoria Groce had advanced to the semi-finals. In 2024 Victoria had prevailed over Yogesh and James Holzhauer. In 2025 Yogesh had managed a come from behind victory to defeat Victoria and Juveria Zaheer.

Facing off against them was Andrew He, a semi-finalist in the inaugural Jeopardy Masters who had managed an incredible recovery in the last two games he'd played to leapfrog over last year's second place winner Juveria Zaheer to make it into the semis. And Paolo Pasco, this year's Tournament of Champions winner was in the semi-finals as well.

So two of the previous three Tournament of Champions winners were facing off against two of the last three winners of the Jeopardy Invitational Tournament. There were quite a few stories that could emerge in the four semi-final games that would determine the three players who would make it to this year's two-game total point affair for $500,000 and the title of this year's Jeopardy Masters.

As has been the case in every single Jeopardy Masters to this point all four semi-finalists would play each other in every single possible combination.

 

September 3^rd

Semi-final Game 1

Victoria vs. Yogesh vs. Paolo

Victoria got off to such a fast start in the Jeopardy round that by the time Paolo rung in Ken actually said: 'Not Victoria!' before acknowledging it was Paolo. She found the Daily Double in: WE'RE PUTTING YOU ON OBLAST when she already had 5800 points. She bet everything though she seemed unhappy:

She shouldn't have been:

The center of its oblast, this celestial port of Northwest Russia was founded in 1584 near the monastery of St. Michael.

She figured it out: What is Archangel?' By that point she was firing on all cylinders. She had 14,800 points to Paolo's 3000 and Yogesh's 2000 by the end of the Jeopardy round.

Victoria got off to just as fast a start in Double Jeopardy getting the first 3 clues correct before finding the first Daily Double in NONFICTION. She had 20,400 already. Then she faltered slightly:

This 2005 memoir is dedicated "This book is for John and for Quintana.'

She paused: "What is Time of Magical Thinking?" She had the right idea. But it was Joan Didion's The Year of Magical Thinking.

It dropped her down 6000 points to 14,400.

She found the other Daily Double on the next clue in SCIENTISTS. She was more cautious and bet just 1600 points.

Her a-maize-ing discovering of transposons or 'jumping genes' earned her a solo Nobel Prize in 1983.

This she responded to instantly: "Who is McLintock?" She went back up to 16,000 points.

Victoria was never seriously challenged for the lead during the rest of the game and she finished with 29,200 points. The battle was whether Yogesh could catch up to Paolo enough to make him have to earn second place which he did on the last clue of the game to finish with 3800 points to Paolo's 6600. That turned out to be critical with Final Jeopardy.

The category was very odd. THE NAME GAME. The clue completely baffled me but it didn't baffle two of the competitors.

First in the news in the 1970s her Amharic name is Dinkinesh, meaning 'You are marvelous'

Yogesh's response was revealed first: What is Lucy? That was correct. It referred to the famous hominid skeleton that was discovered in Ethiopia, named for the song Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. Yogesh bet everything to double his score to 7600 points.

Paolo had a bit of fun. He wrote down: Make it to Final, Get Final correct. (In his interview segment he mentioned each goal he had for each round of the Masters. As he pointed out he had yet to get a single Final Jeopardy response correct.) It cost him 1001 and dropped him to second place.

Victoria also knew the correct response: "Who is Lucy?" And after saying hi to Nora yet again she added 5367 points.

She got 3 match points, Yogesh got one, Paolo got zero.

 

Match 2

Victoria vs. Paolo vs. Andrew

Victoria found the Daily Double on the first pick of the Jeopardy round in PLAYS & PLAYWRIGHTS. She bet 1000 points.

In an absurdist play and allegory by Ionesco the citizens of a small town turn into these animals, until only one man remains.

She knew it. "What is Rhinoceros?"

This time all three players were on fire with them getting all thirty clues correct and much of it was a battle for the lead. Victoria finished with 7000 points to Andrew's 6600 while Yogesh was very much in it with 4800 points.

The streak ended on the first pick in Double Jeopardy (Yogesh mocked Ken for jinxing them) and Yogesh had moved into the lead for the first time with 11,400 points to Victoria's 8600 and Andrew's 8400. This time Victoria knew she had to bet everything when she found the first Daily Double in WHERE THE 'L' IS IT?

This French city on the Vienne river is known for its porcelain trinket boxes.

She figured it out: "What is Limoges?" And went back into the lead in a big way with 17,200 points.

Two clues later she found the other Daily Double in THAT WORD IS A MOUTHFUL!

With 20,400 points she wagered 400.

Ken: Not considering another true Daily Double?

Victoria: "Are you kidding?"

Writing about Napoleon is writing history, writing about writing about Napoleon is this.

Instantly Victoria responded: "What is historiography?"

That was correct. Immediately afterward:

Ken: Do you wish you'd bet more Victoria?

Victoria: I mean, you always wish that in hindsight but it was the right decision.

Masters are always honest.

The rest of the game was whether Andrew or Yogesh could stop Victoria from running away with it and while they couldn't it was much closer then the first game of the night. Victoria finished with 28,000 points, just running away with it over Yogesh's 12,800 points and Andrew's 11,600 points. Once again those match points for second were very important.

The Final Jeopardy category was NOVELS OF THE 1960s.

The title of this 1966 book refers to the shouts at an impending sale of a set of stamps at a mysterious auction.

All three players knew the correct response (as did I): What is The Crying of Lot 49? Thomas Pynchon's first novel. (Yogesh actually referenced a famous Simpson's reference before writing the correct response.)

Andrew wagered 4000 points, taking him to 15,600 points. Yogesh went big betting 10,401 point finishing with 23,201. Victora wagered just 282 points and won her second consecutive game.

LEADERBOARD AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER 4^TH

VICTORIA GROCE – 6 MATCH POINTS

YOGESH RAUT – 2 MATCH POINTS

ANDREW HE – 0 MATCH POINTS

PAOLO PASCO – 0 MATCH POINTS

 

After the first game Victoria had all but locked up her place in the third consecutive finals. But for the last two spots it was anybody's to win – and the next game would completely reverse the field.

 

September 5^th

Match 1

Victoria vs. Andrew vs. Paolo

In the Jeopardy round Victoria for the second consecutive game found the Daily Double early; this time on the second clue in PICK YOUR LITERARY POISON. She had 800 points so yet again she bet 1000:

In this Chaucer tale told by a seller of indulgences, 2 men stab a friend to death, then die after drinking wine he'd poisoned.

Victoria figured it out: What is The Pardoner's Tale? She went up to 1800 points. And for the second consecutive game it got competitive in large part due to quite a few errors on Victoria's part. When the round ended she had 5000 points to Andrew's 3600 and Paolo's 1200.

Double Jeopardy was a bloodbath due to a combination of incorrect responses and many clues unanswered. (This isn't on the Masters; I had just as much trouble at home as the three of them did. The writers were diabolical.) Paolo's best moment came when he found the first Daily Double early in FRENCH WORDS & PHRASES. In third he bet the 2400 points he had:

Artist Damien Hirst and Eloise of kids' books have both been described as this, more avant-garde and pretentious then badly behaved.

Paolo paused. "All right I apologize in advance for my pronunciation but What is enfant terrible?"

His pronunciation was fine and got him up to 4800 points.

The rest of the round was very much a war of attrition and by the time Andrew found the other Daily Double in KING OF THE CASTLE he was in the lead with 7200 points. He took a long time before deciding to wager 2000 points. He admitted to Ken he was thinking of going bigger but in this case it was good he didn't:

It was best not to be by any windows at this castle that was once the seat of the Kings of Bohemia.

There was a long pause. Before time ran out Andrew guessed: "What is Wencelas's?" Which was wrong. It was actually Prague Castle where the famous Defenestration took place in 1648. (I knew that was they were referring to but I didn't know the castle was named Prague.)

When it ended Victoria was in the lead with 8600 points to Andrew's 6000 and Paolo's 5600. Any outcome was possible for the first time in the semi-finals. The category for Final Jeopardy was one I'd never heard before: GEOGRAPHIC NAMED PEOPLE.

And if that wasn't weird enough the clue was even weirder, so much so it stumped all three players (and me too.)

Giuliano Romano was a famed Renaissance architect; this medieval builder is portrayed as a chump in Vasari's 'Lives of the artists.'

Paolo's response was revealed first: Who is Venetio? That was incorrect. But it only cost Paolo 404 points, leaving him with 5196.

Next came Andrew. Who is Vitruvius? That was also incorrect. He bet even less 316 points, putting him at 5684, still in second place.

It was all on Victoria. She wrote down: "Who is Palladio?" That was incorrect as well.

Vasari was an admirer of Romano, who was from Rome as his name indicated, but he was 'dunking on' the man who built the infamous Leaning Tower of Pisa. And I had no idea that the tower was built by a man named Pisano.

It all came down to wagers. Victoria bet 3401. She was clearly playing to win. It dropped her to 5199 points which dropped her into second place – and gave Andrew an unexpected come from behind win and 3 match points.

LEADERBOARD AFTER GAME 3

VICTORIA GROCE – 7 MATCH POINTS (CLINCHED)

ANDREW HE – 3 MATCH POINTS

YOGESH RAUT – 2 MATCH POINTS

PAOLO PASCO – 0 MATCH POINTS

 

So in the final game it was a possibility for any combination of the last two semi-finalists.

If Yogesh won he and Andrew would move on the to the finals regardless of who came in second.

If Andrew won, the same would happen.

If Paolo could win and Yogesh finished third he would make it automatically. If he won and Yogesh finished second he still had a chance based on the tiebreaker.

Anything was still possible and the final semi-final game more than delivered it.

Match 2

Andrew vs. Yogesh vs. Paolo

In the Jeopardy round despite the fact the pressure was the most on him Paolo was at the peak of his power. Already in the lead with 5400 points when he found the Daily Double in NEWS IN BRIEF he bet everything:

June 4, 1942: U.S. Navy delivers a K.O. Punch here.

It took him a moment but he got there: "What is Midway?"

He finished the Jeopardy round with 11,000 points to Andrew's 4800 and Yogesh's 3000 even.

Andrew got to the first Daily Double in Double Jeopardy at a critical point. He had 6400 points to Paolo's 11,000. The category was LITERARY OPENERS. You had to give the book of which the opening sentence would be quoted. However he decided to be cautious and bet just 2000 points.

Selden paused in surprise. In the afternoon rush…his eyes had been refreshed by the eyes of Miss Lily Bart.

He knew it was The House of Mirth and went up to 8400 points.

Later in the game Yogesh got a chance to make a move when he found the other Daily Double in GEOGRAPHY DOWN BELOW. At the time he had 9000 points to Andrew's 10,000 while Paolo was still at 11,000. He went bigger than Andrew had betting 6000 points:

The U.S International Trade Organization on this region discusses Kenya and Angola but not Libya.

Yogesh pondered this a long time. Before time was almost up he clearly guessed: What is The Great Rift Valley? It was actually sub-Saharan Africa. He dropped to 3000 points.

The rest of the game was a see-saw battle between Paolo and Andrew for the lead. Paolo would pull ahead but the question was could Yogesh get up to a high enough total to challenge Andrew and Paolo for the lead if he needed too. He did. Yogesh finished with 8600 to Andrew's 14,400 and Paolo's 17,000.

For the first time in Masters short history the final two spots in the finals came down to Final Jeopardy in the last semifinal match. The category was HISTORIC AMERICANS:

A creed once mentioned by the U.S. Special forces mentions him, born c. 1732 and calls him the father of guerilla warfare.

Yogesh's response was revealed first. He clearly thought his time was over because he wrote down (It was fun) under his correct response: "Who is Marion?" That was correct. Like me, he knew the clue referred to Frances Marion, the American revolutionary known as the Swamp Fox. He bet 5801 which mut him at 14,401, ahead of Andrew.

Andrew was next. He also had Marion and he added 3333 points, putting him at 17,733 points.

It was all on Paolo who had yet to get a Final Jeopardy correct throughout the Masters. And unfortunately for him that streak continued. He wrote down: "Who is Jones?", thinking of John Paul Jones and Naval warfare. He wagered 2500 points, which dropped him to 14,500. It was good enough for second place but Andrew had managed his second come from behind victory.

 

FINAL LEADERBOARD ON SEPTEMBER 5^TH

VICTORIA GROCE – 7 MATCH POINTS

ANDREW HE – 6 MATCH POINTS

YOGESH RAUT – 2 MATCH POINTS

PAOLO PASCO – 1 MATCH POINT (ELIMINATED)

 

For Andrew it was the greatest possible redemption after being eliminated in the semi-finals of the very first Masters. For Paolo he had been superb in every aspect of the game save for Final Jeopardy and that finally caught up with him at the worst possible moment. He goes home in fourth place with another $100,000 to his credit and a near certainty that we will be seeing him back sooner then we think.

The finals will take place Tuesday with Andrew, Victoria and Yogesh fighting it out in what is certain to be a thrilling battle. Can Yogesh win back-to-back? Will Victoria reclaim her title? Or for the fourth consecutive year will a new winner of Jeopardy Masters. The answer is… we'll find out Tuesday.

Stay tuned.

 

My Predictions for The 2026 Emmys Conclusion: Best Supporting Actress in a Limited Series Et. Al

 

All right we are officially at the last part of my predictions.  We haven't saved the best for last but we do have an impressive array of nominees in this category. Several of them are among the most impressive character actresses in TV and at least three are long deserving of some kind of Emmy recognition. They ran the gamut from comedy to tragedy, from imperialism to pain and pure horror. They all would be worthy winners but only one can prevail.

Here are the nominees.

 

Linda Cardellini, DTF St. Louis (EXPERTS PICK). For Playing: Carol Smernitch, the widow of Floyd who had an affair with his best friend and seems to be hiding more than she's telling. Pro: Somehow despite having been prominent in television since her work in the groundbreaking Freaks & Geeks Linda Cardellini has never won an Emmy. To say that her work as Carol is the best performance she's given in twenty-five years in TV is an exaggeration but it is by far that shows every aspect of her range as an actress. Here is the comic dynamo willing to go for physical comedy whether as a Little League Umpire or bizarre sex fantasies. Here is the loving parent, struggling under economic circumstances. Here is the femme fatale, seemingly trying to manipulate everyone around her. Here is the woman wanted to be loved. And they are all present in the same series and sometimes even in the same moments. Cardellini has been the favorite in this category since DTF St Louis debuted and she won the Astra in this category last month. It looks like the stars are aligned. Con: The Emmys has a difficult time recognizing comic performances in these categories and Cardellini is not Jennifer Coolidge, the last clear winner in this category for that kind of performance.

Dakota Fanning, All Her Fault. (MY PICK): For Playing: Jenny Kaminsky, who learns the nanny of her son is involved in a kidnapping plot that leads to the unfurling of her marriage. Pro: In just a few years' time Dakota Fanning has become one of the most dominant figures in peak TV. This is her second nomination in this category in three years and Jenny couldn't be more different then Margie Greenwood in Ripley. Here is the working mother who wants to have it all but can't, whose family dynamic is torpedoed when she learns her nanny was responsible for abducting Mari Irvine's young son, who tries to be a good friend despite everything and whose marriage comes completely undone when she learns how little her husband is willing to contribute. The speech that she gives in the sixth episode where she speaks for every single working mother, if not woman in society, is one of the most triumphant moments in the entire series and it is worth noting her character is one of the few who comes out the least traumatized from the experience. Throw in the fact that this one of the few times in Emmy history two siblings have been nominated in the same year and there's an argument that she should get this one. Con: I love Fanning's work and it deserves to win but there's another child actor in this category whose been around nearly as long as Fanning and honestly deserves recognition more.

Laurie Metcalf, Monster: The Ed Gein Story. For Playing: Augusta Gein, who becomes the most famous victim of her serial killer son. Pro: Like Jason Bateman, Matthew Rhys and Nick Offerman, Metcalf has shown her versatility with nominations both in this category and for her previous Emmy winning role in Hacks which she received a nomination for Best Guest Actress in a Comedy. Metcalf has been one of the most versatile actresses in television for a very long time and she has her share of Emmys. But few roles show her versatility then her portrayal perhaps the most famous mother in the history of pop culture who we only new the fictional version of and even then after she was dead. That Metcalf manages to find a basic humanity behind this figure is another tribute to how brilliant  a performer she is and why she hasn't lost a step since we first met her on Roseanne nearly forty years ago. Con: Given the incredible backlash over Season 3, it's highly unlikely anyone from this show will get anything.

Joy Sunday, DTF St. Louis. For Playing: Jodie Plumb, a porn-positive detective who thinks that there's something deeper beneath the apparent accidental death of Floyd Smernitch. Pro: As with Richard Jenkins, Sunday's nomination was a delightful surprise mainly because in all my years of watching TV, I've never met a character quite like the porn-positive detective who knows everything you ever wanted to know about penises, cowboy spreads and online world but were afraid to ask. (And Horner really was.) There was something earnest and deadpan about her delivery and the way she went through every aspect of this case that was hysterical, particularly as you watched her google certain pornography with the intensity that CSI did bugs and blood spatter. The way that no matter how weird the case got she seemed to take in stride, the way she had a patience with all of the strangeness that should have been off-putting but was always hysterical, the way this relative unknown could work with some of the greatest actors in television, made her work a triumph in every respect. Con: Could you speak louder? If there's a performer in this category who will win it’s the one who engages in the bizarre sexual activity, not the one who thinks it normal.

Youn Yuh-Jung, Beef (DARK HORSE). For Playing: Chairwoman Park, the Korean multi-billionaire who has just acquired a new country club and is about to use it to engage in truly unethical manipulations. Pro: I underestimated the possibility that Yuh-Jung's Chairwoman would be nominated over Callie Spaeny, who seemed the more obvious choice. But much like Maria Bello in Season 1 of Beef Yuh-Jung is the true and most obvious force of capitalism in this series, except she is even less burdened by affection. At first it seems she does what she does to protect her husband but as things continue to spiral its clear she's doing it to protect herself and in the final two episodes we see that she is unburdened evil and arguably one of the most frightening characters in the series history to this point. That Yuh-Jung does all of this without even raising her voice or even showing real emotion during the series – in contrast to every other character as the tension rising – is a masterpiece of subtlety that rarely, if ever, rates the kind of nominations the Emmys give. It's a superb performance from an actress with a five decade plus career that of course only recent America has discovered. Con: Understated and subtlety don't usually win awards and I don't think it's going to work for the Chairwoman. But Yuh-Jung has an Oscar. She won't be that upset. (Please don't come after me, Chairwoman.

Constance Zimmer, Love Story. For Playing: Ann Marie Messina, Carolyn's mother who fears her daughter's marriage to JFK will eat her alive and whose family becomes collateral damage to a national tragedy. Pro: Of all the incredible supporting performances in this series I didn't think Zimmer's relative small and less prominent role would earn a nomination against such talent as Grace Gummer and Naomi Watts. But it did in large part for that very reason. As Carolyn's mother she was sure from the beginning of the courtship that her mother would end up eating her daughter alive, a prediction that she made at the wedding itself and was sadly proven correct. And in the series finale when the Kennedy family treats her like the second class citizen they believe all non-Kennedys are the utter contempt and hatred that has been building for over a decade is magnificent. Just as impressive is the scene between her and Caroline Kennedy when the two of them unfold the tragedies that have brought them to this point and they manage to find a small moment of common ground.  Furthermore Zimmer has been one of the great unsung forces in television for more than two decades, attached to countless Emmy winning series as well as a nomination for herself for UnREAL yet she has never earned a prize. She's earned this one. Con: In truth few predicted Zimmer would even be nominated in this category and the Emmys was the first award show that did so. I don't think she has a real chance.

 

My Prediction: Linda Cardellini will become the second Freaks & Geeks alum in two years to win an Emmy. Jason Segel, your time is coming.

 

As for Directing and Writing I think Beef will win the former and DTF. St Louis will win the latter.

 

And that, as they say, is that. After the Creative Arts Emmys are broadcast next Saturday I'll have the results of them on Sunday and the Emmys themselves on Tuesday September 15^th.

Best of luck to all the nominees.