Suggestions for a Post-Trump America, Decision 2026: Part 8 - Iowa May Be Headed for A Political Realignment This Fall

 

Like many Democrats when I learned on the eve of the 2024 election the Des Moines Register poll that said Kamala Harris was going to win Iowa my faith in her victory, which had been flagging as her lead over Trump was dropping, found new life. The Register poll had been known for its accuracy for decades as something of a gold standard and despite all previous polls since post-2016 having notoriously undercounted support for Trump at a national and state level, the fact that the poll said Harris was going to win Iowa by 47 percent to Trump's 44 percent led me to believe the impossible.

And it should have been a sign that I'd taken leave of my senses that I thought so. To be sure Iowa had gone for Obama in 2012 and had elected a Democratic Senator as recently as 2006 (we'll get to that). But I knew my history. Iowa was one of the most conservative states in the Union one that, like its neighbor Ohio, had basically been counted in the Republican party column since the party was founded.  Even in Democratic landslides it had a history of being an outlier. In 1940 for example it had gone for Wendell Willkie even though FDR's newly minted Vice President Henry Wallace was a native son of that state. It remained just as Republican in 1944, went for Truman in 1948 and then back to in the Republican column in two FDR's landslides and all three of Nixon's runs for the Presidency.  In 1976 it went for Ford even as Carter won the White House, Reagan carried it in both his landslides and while Dukakis took in 1988 it didn't make much difference in George H.W. Bush's victory.

Even some of the times Democrats did carry it there were extenuating circumstances, usually a third party candidate. That was the case for Wilson in 1912 and Clinton in 1992 and 1996. We all seem to have missed (I know I did) that it went for Gore in 2000 and no one seemed to focus on it went W took it in 2004. The idea of Iowa being a swing state in my lifetime was something I seemed to have ignored despite Obama carrying it both of his runs for the Presidency and I certainly had set it aside in 2024.

I knew that Tom Harkin had been represented it in the Senate for five terms with distinction and that Tom Vilsack had been a superb governor during W's time in Office. (I had no idea he'd been the Secretary of Agriculture under both Obama and Biden.) But after Harkin chose not to run for reelection early in 2013 and Joni Ernst ended up winning election in 2014 I 'd all but given up on Iowa as a hope for Democrat prospects.

This was true, I should add, during the 2020 election when Ernst was running for reelection for the first time. The DNC did target her during that cycle , mainly because of Ernst's low approval ratings and the dropping of her own popularity. In one debate she went viral for not knowing the break-even price for soybeans, a big deal in that state. And yet like so many other seats in 2020 the Democrats absolutely were going to win Ernst won reelection by a fairly comfortable margin over Theresa Greenfield, well over 6 and half percent. Greenfield only carried eight of the state's counties. Trump carried it by a slightly larger margin, beating Biden by nearly nine points while Biden carried just six counties.

All of this should have made me look at the Des Moines Register poll with a veneer of skepticism. And indeed Iowa was one of the earlier states called for Trump by CNN.  He won the state by 13.2 percent by far the largest margin by any Republican since Reagan in 1980 and the largest margin since Nixon in 1972.

Trump famously tried to sue the Register and the poll after winning reelection. Compared to me he was being generous for once: I wanted the pollster to face a firing squad. And yet even in my desolate state in the aftermath of Trump's reelection I found myself (somewhat catatonically) surprised by how the Iowa house races were going. To be sure the Republicans carried all four seats – but I noticed for the first time just how close two of those races were and how long it took them to be called.

The idea of the path to the House going through Iowa in 2024 was not something that would have occurred to me that year. And yet in the first and third districts two incumbent Republicans were going through that.

The most fascinating race was that of Mariannette Miller-Meeks in the 1^st.  That year she was challenged by Christina Bohannan. I wasn't paying attention to House races the same way I did the Senate (its notoriously difficult to get accurate polling in Congressional districts) so I had no idea that so many political experts thought it was in play. And indeed the result was not clear on election night or indeed for weeks after because the race was so close a recount was called for.

Eventually Miller-Meeks won by 799 votes out of over 413,000 cast in that race.  There would be several other races that took days to be called (control of the House wouldn't be determined until the Sunday after election day) but by far this race was the closest and most unexpectedly so.

The third should have had by attention as Zach Nunn had flipped the district the previous cycle with just over 50 percent of the vote. Lannon Baccam, the candidate running to unseat him was endorsed by the Blue Dog Democrats. It took less time to figure out the winner in this race – I believe it was called by Thursday night – but it was still very close: Nunn only managed to beat Baccam by less than four percent.

Almost immediately Miller-Meeks and Nunn were considered targets in 2026. But it took me a long time to get out of my stupor and start caring about that. And even after Joni Ernst announced halfway through 2025 that she wasn't seeking reelection my reaction was still: so what?

And then in August   something happened that changed how I thought about the Democrats prospects in Iowa.

To be clear there had already been many signs throughout 2025 that the Democrats had managed to recover immensely after the 2024 election. They'd been overperforming in elections for congressional vacancies in heavily Republican districts, even as they lost. But at a statehouse level they'd done better then expected, flipping 25 state Senate and House seats that were held by the GOP out of the 119 that were resolved. (The Republicans, by contrast, had not flipped a single Democratic seat.)  They'd made gains in swing states such as Georgia and Pennsylvania and even managed three in Mississippi.

And they flipped two in Iowa which helped break the GOP supermajority in two significantly conservative districts. I'd paid little attention to Mike Zimmer who in January flipped a district by 4 points when Trump had won by 21 points just two months earlier. In August Kaitlin Drey flipped the second seat by ten points. That latter election was a seat that had not gone Republican in nearly forty years. That sent up such alarm bells that the head of the Iowa Republican party said that if this kept happening 'Iowa was going to go blue in 2028." Considering that Trump margin of victory less than a year ago, that was a sign of panic.

With that being said even after that I considered Iowa relatively low as a possibility for the Democrats to flip the open Senate seat. The House was a different story: both the first and the third were among the districts the Democrats had planned to target and that was the right call. But the Senate, as I knew better than most in regard to the Midwest, is always a different story.

So when I began this series of articles back in January I put far down the list of possibilities. Alaska and Ohio always seemed like far better options considering how recently Mary Peltola and Sherrod Brown respectively had held elected office.  Texas I played the wait and see approach – I knew that it was going to depend even more on the Republican nominee then the Democratic one. Hell I was probably going to look at Florida before I even considered Iowa. (Which, as I will write later, may not be as impossible as I  thought.)

I didn't consider the state even as a possibility until I started getting polls that showed the race far closer no matter who the nominee was against Ashley Hinson, the Republican running to replace Joni Ernst.  For the record Ashley Hinson had won election to represent Iowa in the second district the same year that Miller-Meeks had won in the first. The two had been the first Republican women to represent Iowa in the House. She managed to flip incumbent Democrat Abby Finkenauer's district by nearly two percent. The following year she would trade districts with Miller-Meeks in a redrawn map. In 2024 she won reelection by nearly sixteen points.

That September she announced her candidacy for Ernst's seat.  As a representative Hinson was no better or no worse than any House Republican during Biden's administration and when Trump won reelection she was a big supporter of the Big Beautiful Bill Act and voted against the War Powers act multiple times this year. Under the old rules of politics she would have been a good candidate for Senate and could easily win reelection in the fall, despite the President's sinking approval numbers. I had no reason to think otherwise…until this spring.

Then while searching various poll sites I first became aware of quite a few polls taken in Iowa showing three different Democratic candidates polling within the margin of error of defeating Ashley Hinson in the general. By May this had been reduced to two candidates: Zack Wahls and Josh Turek.

Wahls is a member of the Iowa Senate who is the son of two lesbians. In 2011 he addressed the Iowa House Judiciary committee in a public hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Wahls withdrew from the University of Iowa choosing to focus on writing a book My Two Moms and very quickly became an activist for LGBTQ+ rights. He targeted the Boy Scouts ban on gay and lesbians as scout leaders and launched Scouts for Equality. He would address the 2012 Democratic Convention and would be a delegate for Hilary Clinton at the 2016 Democratic. He would be elected to the Iowa State Senate district 37 in 2018 and by 2021 he would be named Senate minority lead. However less than two years later he would step down following disagreement with Democratic colleagues about firing two long-time Iowa senate Democratic members. He declared his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for the Senat in June of 2025.

Josh Turek is twelve years older that Wahls. Born with spina bifida he has used a wheelchair since childhood and began playing wheelchair basketball in seventh grade.  He would play the sport at Southwest Minnesota State University and became a four time all-American in that sport. He would play professionally in Europe, in clubs in Italy, France and Spain. In four Paralympic appearances starting in 2004 he would win a bronze and two golds.

In March of 2022 he announced he was running for Iowa's 20^th House of Representative district. After a recount by his opponent it was confirmed he'd won by six votes. He was reelected in 2024 in a district that has voted Republican in every election since 1968. The Iowa legislature's first permanently disabled member, he's advocated for disability related issues, and led efforts to advance bipartisan legislation that sought to remove Medicaid income levels for Iowans with disability. He would also work on agricultural legislation and would co-sponsor a bi-partisan right to repair bill, requiring manufacturers to make equipment for farmers and mechanics available at reasonable cost. That legislation passed the Iowa House earlier this year. He announced his candidacy in August.

Wahls was very much an activist while Turek called himself a 'common-sense moderate' and prairie populist. While he had commonalities with Wahls he was more moderate on Gaza, saying that Israel was a US Ally but there should be limits to it. The biggest difference going into the primary was that Warren was privately backing Wahls in large part because he said if elected to the Senate he would not vote for Chuck Schumer as Senate Leader while Turek said he would. Turek was backed by moderates such as Maggie Hassan and Catherine Cortez Masto. The COOK Political Report described this as which candidate would be more electable: Do you need to energize your base more to get them to turn them out or do you need to win over the middle?

The results were an overwhelming triumph for the latter: Turek would beat Wahls by nearly 25 percent of the vote. And almost immediately the polls have shown the two essentially tied. Hinson still has the advantage but most political sites rank it as a toss-up which is something I didn't believe possible even at the start of 2026.

Nor does is that the end of Democrats potential good news in the Hawkeye State. The last time a Democrat won the governorship in Iowa was in 2006 when Chet Culver did. Culver's father represented Iowa in the Senate for one term before losing to Chuck Grassley – who's still there before losing to Terry Branstad, a once and future governor of Iowa. Running as his Lieutenant Governor was Kim Reynolds who would go on to succeed Branstad when he stepped down to become ambassador to China under Trump.

Reynolds has been such an unpopular governor that even though she could in 2025 she didn't consider running for reelection this year. In the Republican primary Congressman Randy Feenstra was considered the frontrunner after Trump endorsed him late in the game. Even with his popularity at its nadir Trump's endorsement had proven throughout the midterms more than sufficient to prove as kingmaker across the Republican primaries.

But in the Iowa republican primary it proved not to be the case. Zach Lahn managed a narrow win over Feenstra, by less than one percent. Trump has since endorsed Lahn for governor but he faces many problems not the least of which that he has spent most of this time living in Kansas which has already labeled him a 'carpetbagger' by many Iowa publications – and in previous midterms this has proven to be the kiss of death for Republicans far more often than Democrats.

 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. And as of this writing he is a slight favorite to win the governorship with the polls showing him ahead by as an average of 4 points.

For that matter Hinson's decision to run for the Senate has led to a possibility for further Democratic growth. After leaving the second district Joe Mitchell was nominated to run to fill Hinson seats in the November election. Lindsay James became the Democratic nominee. Hinson won this district by 15.6 percent two years ago yet multiple election sites now rank it a tossup something that would have been unthinkable in 2024. So there is possibility – dim but still probable – that in November, Democrats will have won the Governorship, three of the four House Seats and one of the Senate Seats. Shifts of this kind of leadership, particularly in a leftward direction, have been rare in any state government in the 21^st. That it may happen just two years after Trump managed a double digit sweep of the state is something that not even the most die-hard Democrat would have considered possible.

That the media has paid comparatively little attention to the Democratic possibilities in Iowa is understandable. The race to defeat Susan Collins was always a perennial story even before all of the carnage that has befallen the Democrats there and considering the attention the Democrats have focused on Texas is the past decade in particular the battle between James Talarico and Ken Paxton was always going to get more coverage.  And given the sudden passing of Lindsey Graham earlier today attention will justifiably be focused on Annie Andrews in South Carolina, despite the far more remote chance of a Democratic triumph there.

In truth any attention to Iowa will almost certainly only happen after election day and depend on just how successful the Democrats are in that state overall. And even if the Democrats manage that trifecta it may not be clear whether this is part of a general trend or by how big a margin of victory Sand has as governor.  The idea of 'coattails', once prominent in national politics, has become increasingly hard to measure in this era of polarization and it was always trickier in midterm elections then Presidential ones. Combined with the massive unpopularity of the President as of this writing it will remain to be seen if what happens in Iowa is part of a trend for the Democratic Party going forward or an outlier that in a few years is repudiated by the end of the decade.

We shall have to wait and see how things play out. If the Democrats do manage the sweep in Iowa it will overwhelmingly be a triumph for moderation and will almost certainly lead to a path forward in the Midwest and in red states overall.  If they don't the progressive wing of the party will continue to reject it as a strategy and the party itself may yet again shift its tactics.

 And even if it is effective there is no guarantee it will last beyond the moment. As I've written in regards to Ohio the Democrats thought they had a strategy to take the state back for the party after the 2006 midterms and while Obama held it the state itself would reject the progressivism as a state level by the time of the Tea Party movement. The Midwest has always had an uneasy relationship with the Democratic party, tending to go with it when Republican leadership gets too inept or economic times are bad. Both of these factors are certainly in play in Iowa this cycle and while the state has been friendlier to the Democrats in the 21^st century in some ways, there are no guarantees.

Still there is clearly at least a possibility, even a probability, for an unprecedented political realignment in Iowa this cycle. Whether it means long term for success for the Democrats will not be seen long past November. But it might mean that going into 2028 if the Des Moines Register says the Democrats will carry Iowa I'll have more reason to think the pollster knows what they're talking about then I did when it came out four years ago.

 

 

Homicide Rewatch: The Subway

 

This episode requires a bit more of an introduction that is typical for this series and I think it should be more personal.

During the 2000s I was starting to consider whether television criticism was something that I do professionally. I'd been writing articles about it more and more frequently, usually for internet sites that don't exist in the same way they did twenty years ago. I was also reading almost to the point of studying those whose main job was to criticize TV. In those days much of it was still in professional publications such as newspapers and magazines, most notably TV Guide.

I believe it was in 2009 that TV Guide published a fairly in-depth articles about what they considered 'The 100 Greatest Episodes in TV History'. I'd seen articles like this in some magazines, including TV Guide but by this point I was actually looking to see how many of these episodes I'd actually seen in the last decade which by this point was in the middle of the new Golden Age of TV. For the purposes of this articles I'm going to focus on episodes of dramas that were from that first decade.

Many of them are familiar to those who are familiar with TV during this period and I've actually written about a few of them, such as the 'Two Cathedrals' episode of The West Wing. Number 1 in 2009 was the 'College' episode of The Sopranos in which Tony kills someone in what amounts to real time which in 1999 was a big deal. There was also the pilot episode of Lost and the series finale of Six Feet Under which rank as the best in TV history more than twenty years after the fact.

Most of the candidates for the great shows of that period were here, though quite a few of the choices might puzzle even the most devoted fans of the shows involved. In some case it had to do with it being 2009 and many of the great moments of those series were still ahead of them. 'Kennedy/Nixon' of Mad Men and 'ABQ' of Breaking Bad were extraordinary episode but both series had far greater moments ahead of them. Other choices were more eccentric. For Battlestar Galactica we saw 'Blood on The Scales': the final season episode where Gaeta leads an insurrection against the Fleet for embracing the Cylons. For The Wire the season four finale was chosen instead of 'Middle Ground' (which would make a later list) where Stringer Bell met his end. In some cases it was a matter of opinion: Buffy The Vampire Slayer chose the landmark musical episode 'Once More, With Feeling' where as I still believe 'The Body' is the better episode and will die on that ground.

I'm mentioning all of these incredible episodes because I believe by this time the average TV viewer has seen or heard of most of them and knows just how sweeping, dark and often brutal these episodes all were. I've seen all of them too – multiple times in many cases – and I will not argue how magnificent they are in terms of quality at every level.  But with that all said almost none of them had the brutal simplicity and power as what was the choice TV Guide made for Homicide. This episode.

I saw this episode when it first aired in December of 1997. (It was aired out of sequence by NBC but as you'll soon see that did nothing to really make a difference for the course of the episode.) I knew very quickly that this was a great episode, mainly because for once the Emmys was willing to acknowledge it. It would be nominated for Best Writing in a Drama at the 1997-1998 Emmys, the first time since 'Three Men and Adena' Homicide had been nominated in this category. Vincent D'Onofrio would be nominated for Best Guest Actor in A Drama and while I have no idea if Andre Braugher submitted it for consideration (he always had a lot of great episodes to choose from every season) it would shock me if he had. The episode would also be nominated for a WGA award for episodic drama, which I wasn't aware of at the time.

Furthermore this episode turned out to be the focus on PBS's  Frontline one year after it aired which demonstrated every step of its being created from the writing inspiration to the casting to how it actually aired. (The special was called 'Anatomy of a Homicide'.) I don't believe PBS had any idea what a masterpiece they were witnessing being made but they certainly covered just how rhapsodic the critics were when the episode aired. Entertainment Weekly gave it an A+ and Tom Shales of The Washington Post gave it four stars as did USA Today.  Back before the internet was a big deal this was how things went viral.

Whether this episode is the greatest episode of Homicide is a matter of debate: many of the best episodes of television, period are not always per se, the best episodes of the series there a part of. Part of that reason is because 'The Subway' is one of the most radically different episodes in a series that has already broken so many rules of television you barely notice when it breaks its own – and 'The Subway' absolutely does that.

For starters this is the first episode in the entire run that doesn't for a single moment go anywhere near the squad room or the unit. This isn't entirely unprecedented by Homicide's standards: 'Full Moon' basically spent the entire episode at a motel with about five minutes back at the unit. But for the first time we have nothing familiar, no board, no box…nothing to distract us.

Furthermore this episode only features four of the series regulars, which for a show that is basically ensemble is even rarer. Most of our attention is focused on Pembleton, we see some scenes with Bayliss and Falsone and Lewis show up for a handful of scenes. And for the overwhelming majority of the episode we're watching Frank talk to the 'victim'.

The episode also, for what is basically the only time in the show's history – and for that matter something unheard of in 1990s TV -  unfolds in real time. The opening shows us John Lange going into the subway, something happening that gets him stuck between the car and the platform and then the teaser ends. Frank and Tim are called to the unit because the medics have told them a simple story. Lange falls between the opening of two cars and gets pinned. The train is still moving but because of being pinned, his legs are under him dragging three, twisting everything below them 'like a rubber band'. His spinal cord has been severed.

 Lange is positioned in such a way that the moment he is removed from the tracks he will die. They are prepping Lange in order to give 'the poor bastard some hope.' If they don't do anything immediately in somewhere between thirty to forty minute. The second they move him he's dead. There is a paramedic there to give him the idea of a million to one shot.

Because here's the thing. Lange is still conscious and because of the fact that he's paralyzed below the waist because of his injuries, he's in discomfort but not pain. When Pembleton meets him he has no idea what's going to happen to him because the medics were trying to keep him calm. So the job falls to Frank.

All of these things were unprecedented for TV beyond even the scope of what Homicide had tried. We were still a few years away from 24 and the idea of events unfolding in real time but that show was an action thriller in which Jack Bauer could never pause long enough to mourn the people who kept dying around him. Technically you could call this a bottle episode – it almost entirely takes place on the platform -  but you can't comfort yourself with the idea that 'nothing significant is happening in the story'.  Yoshimura, Braugher and D'Onofrio never blink from the horror of it: we're watching in real time the last hour of a man who is the victim  of random violence. By contrast watching Tony Soprano tracking down a rat in New Hampshire then choking him to death in full view of an unprepared audience is a walk in the park.

As I've highlighted ever since 'Bop Gun' Homicide has at least once a season gone into great detail to show the trauma and ramifications of what happens to those who must live in the aftermath of the murders that are a day's work. 'The Subway' takes this to what would seem to be the natural progression: looking at a murder from the point of view of the victim themselves. Furthermore this episode, chronologically speaking, is a foreshadowing of a major theme of Season Six: where we will spend far more time with the 'living dead', whether it comes to seeing the murders take place more often then we ever have before or in fact witnesses many people for whom death is a reality whether it comes at the end of the episode or far sooner than the average citizen.

At the center of this is Vincent D'Onofrio's work as Lange, one of the four or five greatest single one-shot acting performances the series would ever do. D'Onofrio is just a presence in 21^st century TV (there's going to be a lot in Hey, Isn't That) that it will stun you by his work here. So much of his work is built on physical presence and emotional control and none of that is here as Lange. He spends the majority of the episode pinned between the car and the platform so by definition he seems incredibly weak and small. And the moment he finally realizes the horror of what is going to happen to him D'Onofrio gets to run the full gamut of emotion in a way that he almost never got to in the entire decade he spent playing Bobby Goren. I've always believed that this work is the single best performance on TV I ever saw him give and even after nearly three decades of watching him work, it's a hill I'll die on.

For Frank Pembleton this is a situation he is completely unprepared for, as indeed any detective would be.  One of the recurring phrases of this show is that detectives 'speak for the dead'. But when Lange says with all the sarcasm he can muster: "It's not every day you talk to a dead man?"  Frank for once can only shake his head.  Bayliss, for a change, has the easy job: talking through the witnesses and Larry Biedron, the man who ended up getting tangled up with Lange did so deliberately or if it was an accident.  That its quickly found out that Biedron was previously institutionalized for a similar incident doesn't offer the usual relief we get from these episodes, not even for Pembleton. For once figuring out who the killer is offers him no closure because the fact that this was a random act of violence – basically because Lange chose to take the subway today instead of driving – won't solve anything. We'll later see the name written on the board in black but that's not the point of this episode for once.

Much of the drama is about something Falsone and Lewis trying to find Lange's girlfriend who went out jogging at the start of the episode and who Pembleton's trying to get there for a last goodbye. This is futile from the start and Lewis and Falsone know it as much as Pembleton does. But it's the last request of a dying man and they do their best to solve it. The fact that they very nearly do is the great tragedy of this episode – and the way the episode makes it clear in the final seconds is the ultimate kick in the teeth.

Having seen the episode yet again, I've decided to do something unprecedented in these reviews of Homicide as well as with almost every landmark episode review to this point on my blog. I'm not going to tell you any of the specific details. It's not because I want to avoid spoilers because it has been nearly thirty years since the episode aired. And its not because there are any miracles – this is Homicide, after all. Its because the power of this episode can't be put into words. It has to be seen and experienced.

I can't do justice to how Braugher manages to find layers you don't think he's capable of and how in the final minutes when its all over he seems to go back to normal, out of necessity. I can't explain how Bruce MacVittie, who plays Biedron, is one of the most unsettling portrayals of detachment from reality I've seen on TV in all my years – and I've seen many. I can't put into how Gary Fleder directs this episode in such a way to like a story whose outcome we all know is preordained from the start and yet manages to milk every bit of suspense and agony out of it. And thirty years later I still haven't found the words to accurate describe all of the nuances and emotion D'Onofrio puts into Lange every second he's onscreen in a performance that you can never look away from, no matter how much it hurts.

Tod Hoffman writes "More than any other episode 'The Subway' slams home the sometimes forgotten fact that homicide means a person has died." I'd argue that by the time TV Guide listed this episode as one of the 100 greatest of all time in 2009 the average viewer was practically numb to character death and by this point in our viewing experience we expect it so much of a given that even when it’s a character we've been invested in for years like Stringer Bell or Hank Schrader or  Teri Bauer (I've picked just some of the shows that were on the original list) its more for shock and the impact goes away within days of our viewing.

'The Subway' stands apart on television even thirty years later like it did in 1997. I barely got to know John Lange save for the last hour of his life but I felt the loss as much as Frank Pembleton does when he walks out of the station. He puts his game face on because its how he gets through the day but we all know he's not going to easily forget it like so much else. I've seen more than my share of TV characters who died who I had more invested in and whose loss has left an impact on me beyond the run of the show they were part of.  And it says something that Yoshimura and Homicide had the ability to make me feel the same way about a character I only knew for an hour thirty years ago. Not enough television shows have done that as often or as well. And that's the trademark of one of the greatest episodes ever.

 

NOTES FROM THE BOARD

This episode was ranked in a survey by viewers from Court TV 4^th in the fifteen greatest episodes in Homicide's history. And while that may seem like an outlier compared to what I said above, the three above it were Crosetti, Three Men & Adena, and the Pilot.

As we see in Frontline, Yoshimura got the inspiration for the story from an episode of HBO Taxicab Confessions when a driver picks up a subway official in New York and described this exact event using the same dialogue the paramedic does. Frank saying growing up in New York and hearing about this happening from time to time is Yoshimura's subtle reference to this story.

On The Soundtrack: The band playing in the subway in the opening of the episode is Love Riot doing a superb version of 'Killing Time'. Lisa Matthews, the lead singer, is seen interviewed as a witness.

Gary Fleder, who directed this episode, had already directed Things to Do In Denver When Your Dead and the first Alex Cross movie Kiss the Girls in 1997. For film he would end up directing such movies as Runaway Jury and The Express. His record in TV is more impressive, directing episodes of The Shield, October Road, Turn Washington's Spies, The Bold Type and most recently Reacher. He has served as executive producer on many shows such as Beauty and The Beast and Tiny Pretty Things

Hey, Isn't That…Vincent D'Onofrio first came to the attention of the masses as the doomed Private Pyle in Full Metal Jacket. He'd follow that up with a turn in Mystic Pizza. He would work for directors such as Oliver Stone in JFK and played the writer Griffin Mill kills in The Player and played Orson Welles in Ed Wood. But it wasn't until he played Edgar, the farmer who a Bug uses as his human host in Men In Black combined with his Emmy nominated work in this film that Hollywood took notice for good. He did a mix of independent films that didn't break out (Abbie Hoffman in Steal This Movie, Carl Stargher in the Cell) before he was cast as Bobby Goren in the Criminal Intent spinoff of Law & Order, a role he would play for the next decade.

Less then four years after that he was cast in an even more iconic role Wilson Fisk in the Netflix version of Daredevil, a role he's played in Hawkeye and Echo as well as Born Again when the series was rebooted on Disney In between he would play Hoskins in Jurassic World, Jack Horne in the Magnificent 7 and The Wizard in the short-lived Emerald City. He's played Jerry Falwell in The Eyes of Tammy Faye. His most significant role other than that is Vincent 'The Chin' Gigante in MGM+ Godfather of Harlem series which he played until the fourth season finale when the character met his real life end. He is scheduled to play the lead role in A FALL From Grace, one of the last project David Lynch worked on before he died.

 

My Adventures With Superman Season 3 Review

 

Two years in what was a love letter to the second season of My Adventures With Superman I made it very clear that while I've mostly been unable to enjoy live-action versions of any comic book movie, DC, Marvel or what have you is because I've always believed that the only medium that comic books can work in is animation.

 I whole-heartedly acknowledge that bias may have come from coming of age in the 1990s when by far the greatest animated adaptations of any comic books were available in Saturday morning cartoons. But I'll also admit my bias may be that once you move the action from animation to live action the comfortable illusion of the comic is forced into a real world where the twain rarely ever meld effectively.  Comics are supposed to be things of joy and wonder. Nearly to a film, every comic book movie I've seen in the 21^st century either tries too hard to be gritty and 'realistic' or leans too far into the world of eccentricity where I don't think I can follow.  It doesn't help that, unless the film has a decent hand at the till – Christopher Nolan is pretty much the only person who can do it well  - there's no room from deviation from the formula and the films all become cookie-cutters of blockbusters with no room for even a spark of originality.

So as this decade has progressed it hasn't shocked me that the comic book movie, either DC or Marvel, is beginning to show increasingly diminishing returns in live action. Yet simultaneously when they follow comics in animated the result always comes up aces. Earlier this decade Into the Spiderverse won Best Animated Movie at the Oscars. X-Men '97, the glorious Disney Plus follow up to the classic 90s cartoon has very quickly become regarded as one of the best animated series of the decade and the just released second season is regarded nearly as highly at the first. (I will review it for my column trust me.) And when the much anticipated third season of My Adventures With Superman debuted last month on Adult Swim it yet again revealed just how flimsy and weak everything with the new version of Superman (which I admired even though it had it flaws) worked wonderfully when it was done in animation.

Full disclosure: I had no desire at any time to see Supergirl in the theaters and essentially ignored all of the controversy around it. That was because I believed – correctly as it turned out – that there was no way Milly Alcock could surpass just how well the show had handled Kara Zor-El's character in Season 2 and how masterfully the show handled her introduction to her cousin, how she had been used by her 'father' Brainiac, and the way she managed to find a way to help save Earth. Now as Season 3 has unfolded (I write this review after the first four episodes) Kara/Supergirl is now happily working with her cousin to defend Metropolis and also trying to find a way to date. In large part this is because Jimmy, who clearly has a crush on her that is definitely reciprocated, has been so empathetic to her needs that she wants her to see the world beyond Metropolis. This would be painful to watch were it not for the fact that Jimmy always seems to throw himself into the most hysterical places imaginable.

Indeed in the third episode he found himself applying for an app involving scientific matchmakes called WORMS (run by two lesbian metahuman scientists) which sets you up with your soulmate. Jimmy, in his first session. ended up being turned into a werewolf and had to be saved first by Clark and then the scientists. This involved the kind of hysterical work that can only be done credibly in a cartoon form, first because of the effects (Jimmy ended up becoming elastic for much of the third episode) and second and more importantly because it has been done for pure humorous purposes. This is very much the sweet spot of My Adventures which has always had an anime flavor to it when it comes to the expressions on the characters faces as well as the spirit of things. So while everything horrible was happening to Jimmy he chose to livestream all of it in real time and that led to hysterical animation and wonderful jokes involving captioning. "I'm a Werewolf Now' is just something you can only get away with in a cartoon.

And because Adventures never takes itself seriously even when the crisis of the week comes you're always laughing even as something thrilling is happening. This is particularly true with the relationship between Lois and Clark, which is now getting to the point where Clark wants to take things to the next level and that absolutely terrifies Lois to the point she will do anything to change the subject, even go to a mall with Kara. This leads to something that James Gunn would never do in any of his films, have Kara and Lois engage in a musical number in which they discuss how wonderful and terrible the future is at the exact same time.

And indeed the future is very much coming right at Clark and Lois. In the most recent episode Clark wanted to take Lois out to brunch where they could have a nice, relaxing pancake breakfast without any 'super-business'. And who should greet them at this brunch? Jon Kent, aka Superboy who has just been sent from the future. This is exactly what Lois has been trying to dodge for the entire season and getting a flesh and blood reminder that she's going to get married and have a super-son leads to wonderful expressions on that animated faces. It doesn't help that Clark is overjoyed to bond with his future son and Kara and Jimmy are overjoyed to hang out with their nephew and go back to the mall. This is a hysterical episode in large part because of Lois's denial. "How do you know he's our son?!" she screams as she and John engage in the exact same method of eating their noodles. She then frantically heads to the Daily Planet to work on her story. Cut to everybody looking over her shoulder as she writes, then as they go outside to have lunch and end up locked on the roof.

But Lois knows that there has to be  a reason Jon showed up and we know it too. John actually came from a dystopian future which is overrun by cyborgs and metahumans. And we've been getting a very big hint of what's going to happen in an underlying storyline. A young Lex Luthor has been working with Slade Wilson to come up with an alternative 'human' superman that he wants to use to combat the Kryptonians. At the start of the season he turns former veteran Hank Henshaw into 'Cyborg Superman'. While Hank was first seen as a hero, he's very quickly become far more bloodthirsty then that and Lex very quickly lost control of him. In the last moments of the fourth episode he freed himself from the programming of Lex and led an assault on Metropolis. As Jon told Kara in the final moments in the future Clark will be killed by Hank – and he came back to stop it.

The main reason I consider My Adventures a masterpiece is all the reasons I said but also something far more simple: its just fun with no agenda other than being entertaining. To be sure there are subtle nods at the modern world when it comes to the races and sexual preferences of many of the characters but its all done with such subtlety that unless you real focused on them you could completely ignore them. It's not trying to reinvent anything for a modern audience and because its animated you don't have to spend any time dealing with logic the way you do with live action. You don't have to turn your brain off to enjoy it – there's actually a lot of intelligence and cleverness in it – but if you  choose to you can and get the same entertainment. This is a show for both fans of the comic books and those of us (like myself) who might know the basics but don't need them in order to be entertained. This is rare for many Ip adaptations but for a comic book series its nearly impossible to find in a theater near you.

My Adventures With Superman makes me happy in the same way that all of those animated cartoons from the 1990s did and the way that so many of them from the animated adaptions do today. I never get the feeling of effort the way I did when I watched Quantum-Mania or The Suicide Squad and that makes it a small gem. I realize that comic book films and TV may be at a crossroads right now. I'm not necessarily saying that they should look to shows like this and X-Men '97 going forward but honestly it's hard to imagine Avengers Doomsday or Matt Reeves next Batman film being as rewarding or as simply fun as these shows are.

My score: 5 stars.

My Generally Pleased Reactions to the 2026 Emmy Nominations, Conclusion: Limited Series/TV Movie

 

 

I guess the only surprise – and it’s a slight one – is just how few nominations Half Man received from the Emmys. It's not that I'm not fine with their selection as its replacement but I did expect given how favorable the early critical response was as well as the number of nominations that it would manage to get in. Otherwise…

Well, we'll see. Here are my reactions.

 

OUTSTANDING LIMITED SERIES

I picked four of the five nominees and sure enough All Her Fault, Season 2 of Beef, The Beast in Me and Love Story are here. And since I did want DTF St. Louis to be among those considered as an alternative, I can't really complain about it being here instead of Half Man. I will confess to being surprised it did as well it did among the nominations but again that's actually a pleasant surprise for once. Not all of the nominations here are.

For example…

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR IN A LIMITED SERIES (TV MOVIE)

Here by far I have the most issues of any single category among the nominees. (That in itself is refreshing as my long time readers will know.)

I advocated for Oscar Isaac and Matthew Rhys being here. And I can accept, if not be thrilled by the fact that Charlie Hunnam is here for playing Ed Gein in Season 3 of Monster. He was nominated for multiple awards at the end of 2025 so that wasn't impossible.

But Jamie Bell for Hard Man and Paul Anthony Kelly for Love Story being overlooked for Riz Ahmed for Bait and Jason Bateman for Black Rabbit is a bridge too far. In Ahmed's case he's the only major nomination Bait got and its not like Bateman was lacking for recognition this cycle. Kelly and Bell's performances were among the best given in any limited series this year; that neither were even nominated is a travesty. Fortunately its one of very few travesties this cycle so I'll vent about it a little less.

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS IN A LIMITED SERIES (TV MOVIE)

Here I can't complain at all. Claire Danes, Carey Mulligan, Sarah Snook and Laura Pidgeon are all more than deservedly here. And I'll be honest: I expected Sally Field to be here for her work in Remarkably Bright Creatures. She had been nominated by the Astras and a few other groups so it was nearly inevitable she'd be picked above anyone from The Girlfriend or Alison Janney.  And considering how few nominations actors from TV movies are getting from the Emmys or really any awards show group these days I'm more than fine with it.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A LIMITED SERIES

I expected David Harbour and Jason Bateman to be here for DTF St. Louis and Charles Melton for Beef. I expected Richard Gadd to be here for Half Man, I didn't know he'd be the only nominee for the show.

As for the other two nominees I could have advocated for either one in my predictions with no real problems. Richard Jenkins work in DTF St. Louis was just as good at his co-stars but I honestly didn't think the Emmys would be that generous to the show. I'm glad I was proven wrong.

And Nick Offerman had received more than  a few nominations for his work in Death by Lightning for playing Chester Arthur. But I really did think that if the Emmys were going to nominate anyone as an actor from that series it would be Michael Shannon.  As it is I'm happy for this nomination for two reasons. First it shows that the Emmys are clearly making up for lost time with Offerman after years of ignoring his work on Parks & Rec. And second as a historian Chester Arthur need positive representation. (By the way Offerman could have made a living as a Chester Arthur impersonator if the acting thing hadn't worked out.)

I guess I'm irritated Jake Lacy was shut out yet again for his work but what else is new?

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A LIMITED SERIES

I was right about Dakota Fanning and Linda Cardellini. The other four are not what I expected – but that's not entirely a bad thing unlike with Best Actor.

First while I'm disappointed neither Grace Gummer nor Naomi Watts were nominated for Love Story I'm more than fine with Constance Zimmer being nominated. Zimmer's work was just as superb as theirs but it was comparatively a smaller role, the kind that the Emmys almost always overlook for showier ones. Zimmer's nomination is a triumph for that kind of performance and the acting itself.

Similarly Youn Yuh-Jeng being nominated for Beef instead of Callie Spaeny is only slightly surprising. Many people believed she deserved to be nominated as much as her co-star and while Spaeny deserved recognition she should have gotten it.

I found Joy Sunday's work as the porn-positive detective in DTF St. Louis one of the most quietly hysterical and endearing performance in the entire series. I overlooked her for the same reason I thought the Emmys would overlook Jenkins, I didn't think they give it this much recognition but they did and I'm grateful.

Honestly I'm not even that upset that Laurie Metcalf was nominated for Monster ahead of such actresses as Naomi Watts and Grace Gummer. Metcalf has been one of the great actors in TV during the last decade and I'm basically happier she double-dipped then I am Jason Bateman. This category just became a lot harder to predict a winner but that's fun.

I'm slightly surprised there are only four nominations for directing in this category and two of them seem to have gone to Beef. I'm glad to see All Her Fault, Beef and Beast in Me have individual Emmy nominations and Death By Lightning and DTF St. Louis both had their main writers nominated.

As for TV Movie it's about what you'd expect which is not much. I'm glad to see Jack Ryan was nominated for its wrap up and I'm fine with Miss You, Love You and Remarkably Bright Creatures. As an Emily Henry fan I'm glad to see People We Meet on Vacation nominated. Heads of State…sigh.

 

So the nominations are out and I'm good with anywhere from 80 to 85 percent of them. I won't be cursing the Academy for much of the next two months, which will leave me more time to catch up on the nominated series – most of which I already love.

I'll be back in the middle of August to get to my breakdown of the potential winners. In the meantime keeping watching this space as I look at how Phase Three plays out and how it might affect the winners in two months' time.

My Generally Pleased Reactions to the 2026 Emmy Nominations, Part 2: Comedy

 

Before we begin I want it noted for the record that I was right about six of my eight selections for outstanding Comedy series and I was also mostly right about the Emmys ignoring The Bear in the majority of its acting nominations. They did only give it one acting nomination out of four.

As for my apparent oversight with Widow's Bay I published my review of the show after I'd made my predictions. I knew after just two episodes it was worthy of all the recognition and praise fans and critics had given it but by the time I'd seen it I'd already started my work on predicting the Emmy nominations and I didn't want to flip-flop. It deserved all the praise it got.

So with that in mind let's look at the nominees.

 

OUTSTANDING COMEDY SERIES

Obviously I have no problem with Hacks the overwhelming and deserving frontrunner for its final season. Ditto no problem with Abbott Elementary, Margo's Got Money Trouble, Only Murders in the Building and Shrinking. Widow's Bay more then deserves to be there and I actually wish Nobody Wants This had gotten more nominations.

I'm not shocked the Emmys nominated Season 4 of The Bear. Old habits die hard. And I'm not particularly surprised The Comeback and Rooster both of which got a lot of high praise from critics drastically underperformed at the Emmys this fall. The former was always too high concept, the latter show while exceptional, just not typical HBO.

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR IN A COMEDY

Okay here I do have objections. I predicted Jason Segel and Martin Short. After my review of Widow's Bay I have no objection to Matthew Rhys being here. And Steve Carell getting nominated for Rooster seemed relatively certain. And I will take credit for predicting Jeremy Allan White would not be here.

But Yahya Abdul-Mateen II for Wonder Man? Seriously? Bad enough he's the only nominee for his show but they went for him over so many other deserving candidates. Over Steve Martin who keeps getting shafting by the Emmys? (Though to be fair this is kind of how awards show always treat him.) Over Adam Brody for Nobody Wants This? Over David Alan Grier for St. Denis Medical? This nomination to put it mildly is far from a wonder

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS IN A COMEDY

This is better. I predicted Quinta Brunson, Elle Fanning and Jean Smart and I won't deny I figured Lisa Kudrow had a better than even chance for The Comeback considering she has been nominated for the previous two seasons.

Am I annoyed that Ayo Edebiri is here ahead of Selena Gomez and Kristen Bell? Yes. But the latter two will get another chance. And we all know who's going to win in this category anyway.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A COMEDY

Well I managed five out of seven correctly which was better than I expected. Harrison Ford and Michael Urie are here for Shrinking as they deserve to be. Paul W. Downs is here for the final season of Hacks as an actor. They rectified a past wrong when they put Tyler James Williams here and Nick Offerman is here. (More than I expected). And having seen the first two episodes Stephen Root absolutely deserves his nomination for Widow's Bay.

I am somewhat annoyed Colman Domingo is here for The Four Seasons instead of Timothy Simons for Nobody Wants This but relatively speaking that's my problem. And am I upset Ebon-Moss Bachrach was ignored? Not really.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A COMEDY

Again five for seven. The one that give me the most pleasure is that the Emmys finally nominated Megan Stalter for Hacks. Yes she'll probably lose to Hannah Einbinder but I don't care as much about that.

I was right about Michelle Pfeiffer, Jessica Williams and Janelle James. I'm somewhat annoyed Sheryl Lee Ralph was ignored but she does already have one Emmy and a lot of other trophies for Abbott Elementary.  And to be clear Kate O'Flynn more than deserves her nomination for Widow's Bay. I'm not yet sure about Dale Dickey but as someone who's been a fan of her work for more than two decades I'm glad she was invited to the party.

 

GUEST ACTOR IN A COMEDY

I've less knowledge on this one but I'm thrilled to see Michael J. Fox and Brett Goldstein here for Shrinking, I'm glad Christopher McDonald got one last nod for his work in Hacks and I think Rob Reiner earned this. I'll assume Hamish Linklater deserved it.

If they had to nominate one host for SNL I'm glad it was Connor Storie considering how the Emmys have annoyed so many people by following the rules with Heated Rivalry.  And considering that there is no one from the regular cast taking up space that might have robbed a deserving nominee I'll let them have this one.

 

OUTSTANDING GUEST ACTRESS IN A COMEDY

They nominated everyone in Hacks and I'm more than fine with it. Kaitlin Olson is the favorite but it’s a tough field as she's up against Laurie Metcalf who won in this category. Loved that Leslie Bibb and Cherry Jones are here, I think we are all rooting for them to hook up in real life. I always loved Laura Weedman as Mayor Jo and it seems Weedman was in every comedy series in 2025 from Abbott Elementary to Nobody Wants This to Wonder Man!

As for the two other non-Hacks nominees I'm thrilled that the Emmys finally nominated Betty Gilpin for something after ten straight years of giving great performances across the board. If its Widow's Bay rather than Death By Lightning, I'm fine. And of course Jamie Lee Curtis had to be here for The Bear

 

DIRECTING

Fine with Hacks, Abbott Elementary and Widow's Bay and it wouldn't be the Emmys if they didn't nominated Christopher Storer for The Bear.

I really don't know what it is about the Ms. Pat Show that causes the Emmys to nominate it year after year. But I guess if The Chair Company had to be nominated for something I'm good with it here.

 

WRITING

Glad to see Brunson here for Abbott, wonderful to see Hacks and Widow's Bay here. It doesn't surprise me to see Jury Duty, The Comeback or The Chair Company represented here. I should add in both directing and writing I'm fine with any of the nominations over I Love LA which was completely shutout and The Bear, which owned this category two years ago, doesn't have a nomination here at all. Now if they could just get to recognizing Shrinking…

 

So I'm pretty good with this group. Tomorrow I wrap it up with Outstanding Limited Series where there were the most surprises by far and I do have some issues…although even here less than you might think.

My Generally Pleased Reactions to the 2026 Emmy Nominations Introduction and Part 1: Drama

 

After the 2024 Emmy nominations came out and I was by and large fine with most of them I wondered if I was starting to get soft. When last year's nominations came out and I was basically fine with them to, I started to wonder if the Emmys was finally beginning to get things mostly right.

Well now the 2026 nominations have come out and at this point I now have to conclude that after decades of frustration and rage by the mid-point of the 2020 the Emmys seems to have basically worked out eighty to ninety percent of the flaws in its system and is finally getting far more right than it does wrong.

Oh to be sure the usual flaws are overwhelmingly present. The Emmys has essentially determined that network drama is persona non grata and is mostly doing the same things for comedy. The usual suspects among cable and streaming are being nominated across the board. But at this point it's very hard for me to avoid the fact that the Emmys is by and large breaking out of the patterns I found so frustrating for much of my adult life: nominating the same shows and actors over and over regardless of how weak the quality of the series and performers were.

Take drama which has been the bane of my existence for most of my years. In previous years the habits of the club of nominating the same series year after year would have led the final seasons of Euphoria and Stranger Things to be nominated for Best Drama despite the drop in quality noted by fans and critics alike. And yet neither show was nominated for Best Drama and with the sole exception of Zendaya being nominated for Best Actress it had no real presence in the acting categories. The Emmys of even five years ago would have done that in a heartbeat and while there would have outrage. This time they did the right thing. To be sure there were the usual flaws which I'll get to but far fewer then recent years.

Just as present was in comedy in regard to The Bear. In addition to the controversy whether the show is a comedy or not the respect for the series overall has basically sunk like a stone among critics since Season 3. Last year despite that it was nominated for twelve Emmys though it won zero. This year the general consensus among every critical group was that the fourth season deserved no recognition at all but many expected that sense memory would prevail.

And it did but to a point of almost non-existence. It was nominated for seven Emmys by far the fewest since it debuted. And of the cast only Ayo Edebiri was nominated for an acting award. None of the previous nominees who've in many cases have won multiple awards – Liza Colon-Zayas, Jeremy Allan White and Ebon Moss-Bachrach were even nominated this year. The series that just two years ago set a record for most nominations and wins for a comedy finished its fourth season tied for fifth place in total nominations with Abbott Elementary.  And while can and will debate those were nominated in the place of The Bear (and other shows) this again is something that would have happened even a few years ago.

Now am I still annoyed that shows like Matlock, Will Trent and Dark Winds are being shutout in the dramas and St. Denis Medical and Elsbeth are ignored in the comedies? Of course I am. I would not be human if I wasn't. But after so many years of having to endure Game Of Thrones and Succession taking nominations from Better Call Saul and The Americans and Veep taking nominations from Parks & Rec, it's nice to finally see that the Emmys are showing a pattern of getting it far more right than they are wrong after living through the 2010s. So there will be notes but not as many as before.

Let's actually start with drama this time.

 

OUTSTANDING DRAMA SERIES

The Pitt and Plur1bus as expected will be fighting it out for the grand prize: The Pitt getting 24 nominations, Plur1bus with 18. That latter is the most that any Vince Gilligan drama has ever gotten in his career to this point.

Paradise, The Diplomat, The Gilded Age and Slow Horses all did pretty well, each series getting seven or eight nominations and as we'll see most of them in major categories. Knight of the Seven Kingdoms presence isn't much of a surprise as many expected it to contend for Best Drama, but it got no other nods.

The most bizarre outlier is Your Friends And Neighbors being nominated for Best Drama and basically nothing else while Task was nominated for eight awards, including writing and directing but not Best Drama.  Maybe the Emmys just didn't want nominate every series from HBO for Best Drama this year the way they did last year. And hell they nominated The Gilded Age over Euphoria. I can't complain.

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR IN A DRAMA

The four nominees everyone expected to be here are here: Sterling K. Brown, Gary Oldman, Mark Ruffalo and Noah Wyle. The fifth nominee is a surprise – but for a change it’s a pleasant one.

Rufus Sewell has been doing superb work on The Diplomat ever since the series premiered but the Emmys and indeed many awards show have not shown him the respect they have Keri Russell. Perhaps they were unsure he was a supporting actor or a lead. Now here he is nominated for the first time in this category. And for an actor who has spent of his career in both film and television never getting any real respect or nominations for his incredible work this is a job well done by the Emmys.

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS IN A DRAMA

Obviously I can't fault the Emmys for nominated Carrie Coon, Rhea Seehorn or Keri Russell. I'm not shocked they nominated Zendaya for the third season of Euphoria; old habits die hard.

I am very annoyed, to put it mildly, that the Emmys seem to have fallen into The Handmaid's Tale trap and nominated Chase Infiniti for The Testaments over Kathy Bates for Matlock. And for those of you who are happy about this that's the only nomination The Testaments got this year. This is a fail.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A DRAMA

I'm more than thrilled to see Patrick Ball and Shawn Hatosy here for The Pitt because I argued for them, I'm thrilled to see Tom Pelphrey present for Task and Jack Lowden for Slow Horses as I picked them both as well. Billy Crudup's presence for The Morning Show isn't a surprise – though he is the only major nominee.

As for Gerran Howell being nominated for playing Dennis Whitaker and Carlos Manuel-Vesga being picked for Pluribus...I would have advocated for both had I the chance and I really have no objections to their presence over some of my own picks. (James Marsden and Jason Ritter were pipe dreams.)

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A DRAMA

I advocated for Taylor Dearden and Katherine LaNasa for The Pitt as well as Julianne Nicholson, Alison Janney and Karolina Wydra. And the Emmys by far chose the right two female actress from The Pitt to fill out the ranks: Fiona Dourif for her superb Dr. McKay and Sepideh Moafi as Dr. Al-Hashimi, the new resident who we learn has a dark secret. Who I am to pick nits among details.

Now let's deal with some of the other major categories that I didn't cover in the Emmys.

 

Writing

Glad to see the pilot for Pluribus here as well as the season 1 finale of Task. Always glad to see Slow Horses present and I'm pretty good with the two choices for The Pitt.  Also glad seeing The Diplomat here rather than say, Euphoria.

Director

Pluribus earned it for the Pilot, another for Vince. Paradise earned it for the season 2 finale, ditto Salli-Richardson Whitfield for The Gilded Age – and Task for that matter. (Will she cancel herself out?") Slow Horses is here for the third straight year and I guess Noah Wyle is a good choice for The Pitt. Given the nature of that episode in particular I can see how he got it. Again nothing for Sam Levenson and Euphoria, so I'm good. (I intend to drive that knife in, so let me have this.)

 

Guest Actress in A Drama:

I'm thrilled to see Shailene Woodley here for Paradise and tickled Merritt Wever is for The Gilded Age. I'm glad to see Miriam Shor here for Pluribus and I'm more than fine with all three nominees for The Pitt included Tai Anderson.

Guest Actor in a Drama

More than fine with Jeff Kober being here and Ernest Harden Jr was magnificent as Louie in The Pitt. Bradley Whitford seems to be getting nominated every year, I'm glad its for playing Alison Janney's husband. Make up for lost time with Jeff Hiller and Jonathan Pryce should have won last year for Slow Horses. I knew Colman Domingo was going to be here for Euphoria; I'm just glad it's here rather than Supporting Actor.

 

So there is very little drama from me this year about the nominees for drama. Tomorrow I will deal with comedy where, if anything, I'm happier.

How Graham Platner's Self-Immolation May Be A Blessing In Disguise for the Democrats

 

 

I think it's fitting for me to begin this article with something I wrote three months ago about Graham Platner:

Platner is a problematic candidate for Senate the same way that Jeffrey Dahmer had a very specific dietary restrictions. He is the exact kind of candidate that I associate Republicans nominating in my lifetime well before the era of Trump and that they've never quite gotten away from. It has constantly cost them races that they absolutely should have won from nominating Christine O'Donnell for the Senate in Delaware, a woman whose biggest claim to fame was claiming she had once been a with, to Roy Moore's to fill Jeff Sessions' Senate seat in Alabama and losing to Doug Jones to the last midterms when Dr. Oz and Herschel Walker's candidacies in Pennsylvania and Georgia cost the GOP senate seats they most likely could have won with less eccentric (to use a euphemism) candidates.  But I've never seen a candidate for public office, much less a Democrat, who is running for a Senate seat whose essentially done the opposition research for his opponents before the primaries were even over.

Platner has no qualifications for public office. He may be combat veteran who has served his country with distinction but his most recent career is that of an oyster farmer. Perhaps I shouldn't be shocked that his main adviser worked for Mamdani – and considering we've just seen the limits of that in New York, I can't imagine how it'll play in Maine. He calls himself Maine's Mamdani because he has openly opposed Israel's war in Gaza.

In the lead up to last November several high level staffers included his political director, his campaign manager, and his campaign treasurer resigned. Several Reddit posts have made it clear that he is a 'communist, called cops bastards and said rural white Americans are stupid." The fact that he has a Nazi tattoo – and that somehow he wasn't aware of it until recently – is the least of his problems.

I wrote all of this to be very clear in May just after Janet Mills had dropped out of the race leaving an open field to Platner for the nomination. Those of you who read my columns and those that have followed on the subject know that by comparison I was being mild in this one about my feelings about what a horrendous mistake it was for Platner to be my party's candidate to try and unseat Susan Collins in Maine.

What I left out at the time and still troubles me now is how so many people I've respected as intelligent for a long time, along with so many publications, seemed to be willing to completely buy into the narrative that Platner was setting and basically disregard all of his negatives any one of which would have been a major disqualification had they been for a Republican. Why did all of these people, who have spent much of the past decade unable to understand why the vast majority of the Republican Party and the electorate at large, have blindly followed Donald Trump for so much similar bad behavior in his past, were willing to just buy into the myth of Platner upon talking to him attending his rallies? Why did they choose to take his word rather then so many of the people on his campaign who resigned after these problems became obvious?  Nothing in his campaign rhetoric or for that matter his platform was any different than anyone of the many left-wing candidates who have run in the Bernie Sanders type mold since 2016 for Senate and were rejected by the electorate? And why did they realistically believe that they would not be taken advantage of by a Republican establishment that has been able to do so much more when the candidate was and I quote myself "writing his own opposition research for them?"

Now I don't want to take a victory lap and I don't particularly think I deserve credit for not having to wait for an accusation of sexual assault to think that Platner was going to be a bad candidate. In fact I want to give credit where its due to mainstream media especially The New York Times who after months of favorable stories ended up running a week before the primary the article about three separate woman who claimed Platner had sexually assaulted them.

Much of the media behaved with honor, including Politico, The Atlantic and The Washington Post who ran an op-ed by Platner's former campaign manager making it very clear how bad a candidate the Democrats were embracing. Many within the Party did behave with honor in urging Platner to drop out, among them Josh Gottheimer and John Fetterman. Multiple organizations withdrew their endorsement and Cheyenne Hunt, who had led the charge for Eric Swalwell to resign from Congress after similar allegation emerged, publicly rescinded her endorsement of Platner.

I was disappointed but not truly surprised that almost to an elected official every single left-wing senator and Congressman who'd endorsed Platner chose to stand by him, whether it was Bernie Sanders or Ro Khanna. Ever since the 2020 election at the absolute latest the far left wing of the party has been more than willing to excuse the bad behavior of its members even when it mirrors that of the Republicans they've been arguing are perverting the values of America. In that sense the way that AOC and Warren were willing to go on TV and defend the accusations against Platner in the immediate aftermath of him becoming the official nominee was instructive for any impartial observer to make it clear of the utter hypocrisy of the Justice Democrats and the left-wing of the party in general.

What made it far more troubling was the obvious comparison between the accusations against Platner and the Access Hollywood tape being released in October of 2016. During that period many of the same people who were more than willing to argue that the GOP had a moral obligation to demand Trump resign from the ticket were absolutely willing to advocate that the party had to be unified behind Platner. Considering that Trump's election was the main impetus for MeToo and Time's Up, among countless other movements, the fact that so many people were choosing to argue that Platner was 'clearly being framed' by his accusers is the strongest example I've seen yet that the left is only giving lip service to anything regarding social justice. For ten years the slogan had been 'believe women' and now it was 'believe Graham Platner'.

And the fact that everyone was willing to bend over backwards to defend Platner for the sole purpose of defeating Susan Collins was the clearest demonstration of not just how skewed the priorities of the left were but their own hypocrisy there. That so many people were choosing to argue that Collins' vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh was a reason to elect Graham Platner is by far the clearest illustration as to how the left could no longer follow its own narrative thread.

And that it took a second story told by a second woman who'd been assaulted for Khanna, Sanders and all the remaining left-wing officials to finally do the right thing and withdraw their endorsements and argue for Platner to step down should be the biggest sign yet as to the left being as immoral and lacking any principles as we've seen to this point in the post-Trump era.  And it is for that reason that there is a clear lesson to be learned here about the Justice Democrats and everything that has followed since 2016 about the left-wing side of the Democrats.

By and large since the 2018 election of AOC and the Squad the Justice Democrats have managed to get a relative free ride from the media. The attacks of Fox News and the far right have been dismissed as racist and bigoted which is true but it has also given the Squad and its members almost complete immunity from any real attack both in the media and the Democratic Party. It has given them cover from the fact they have no real policy triumphs after a decade in existence, have not been able to help the Democrats increase their majorities in Congress in any real way and have failed to win at a statewide level since they were founded.  They have to this point been able to let their controversies and bad acting – which at times have been as chaotic and demagogic as anything MAGA has done – get a pass in large part because of everything that MAGA has done. The media has covered the failings of the Justice Democrats and various left-wing Senators to win elected office but never with the same fervor they've covered their successes as well.

This combination has given so much of the left-wing of the party a sense of power that is vastly disproportionate to their numbers. In the aftermath of the 2024 elections there have clearly been a struggle for power among the left wing of the party and the leadership led by Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer. And despite almost no real victories the media has been more than willing to take the decisions to either primary Hakeem Jeffries or challenge Schumer's leadership of the Senate Caucus by Chris Van Hollen or other members as if they must be considered legitimate. Indeed the decision of Schumer to back Janet Mills in the Maine primary instead of Platner was seen as a reason for him to step down as recently as a month ago.

The left to be clear has suffered quite a few defeats in this election cycle to their endorsement power. One of the clearest ones came in the Iowa primary where Elizabeth Warren backed Zach Wahls, a man who said he wouldn't vote for Schumer as majority leader if they won, versus Josh Turek who Schumer quietly backed. Turek won by nearly two to one and there is a decent chance the Democrats might flip that seat.  Jasmine Crockett suffered a similar defeat to James Talarico in the Texas Democratic primary last March and now Talarico has a better than 50-50 chance to defeat Ken Paxton this fall.

Graham Platner was by far the biggest standard bearer the Justice Democrats and Sanders had going into the midterms and they have been very public as to standing by him even after the initial reports of the assault were revealed. The DNC by and large had not sent nearly as many emails for fundraising for Platner even after Mills dropped out and they'd sent comparative few in relation to other major progressive Senate candidates such as Jamie Davis in Louisiana who have no really chance of victory.  Some traditional Democrats were willing to pay lip service to Platner after he won the primary but basically they were holding him at arms' length compared to AOC and others who were willing to go to the media and defend him.

This means that whatever happens in Maine this cycle now can only and entirely be left at the feet of the wing of the party. They chose to put a considerable amount of time and energy supporting a deeply flawed candidate even after allegations of sexual assault came to light for the sole reason that he endorsed their platform.  It will be extremely difficult for them not to shoulder the blame for whatever happens even if (as is increasingly likely) Platner chooses to step down.

By contrast this is clearly a victory for the establishment wing of the party such as Schumer.  The left has so clearly framed Platner as their candidate that no matter what happens in Maine it is a loss for them and a win for the establishment. If Collins wins reelection Platner will be hung around the left's neck like an albatross for the foreseeable future, certainly until at least 2028. If the Democrats manage to win back the majority with Collins winning reelection, it will be the clearest sign that America wants centrist Democrats not the left wing such as Platner or Davis or Annie Andrews in South Carolina.

And if by some miracle the Democrats can find a candidate to replace Platner and they manage to unseat Collins it will be the biggest middle finger to those such as Sanders and Warren in the last decade by the establishment of the party and to the Justice Democrats across the board.  This is the most unlikely scenario but if the million to one shot comes through it will be a signal that not even AOC and Mamdani will be able to ignore. They were handing a shit sandwich by the left and they managed to turn it around despite everything they were given.

And the thing is no matter how this plays out this is the most notable and public loss of the left in the last decade and one that is going to follow them however the Democrats choose their candidates in elections for the foreseeable future. As I've said in most of my articles the Democratic Party was looking to do very well in the midterms this cycle in swing districts and with centrist Democrats but the left had wanted to make it all about them and the media had been willing to give them cover to do so.  Platner's very public immolation is a story that everyone (maybe not MSNOW) is not going to be able to ignore and all of the sparks are going to fall entirely on the left-wing of the party. For a Democratic establishment who no doubt has wanted them to shut up but never had leverage to hold over them, this is going to be a gift that keeps on giving for this cycle and probably the next one as well.

As for myself I don't want applause. I don't take real pleasure in the misfortunes of others and I don't think I deserve credit for realizing what should have been obvious to anyone with a brain and access to Platner's social media thread. But as someone who has spent the last several years arguing that the left was leading the Democratic Party off a cliff and that it was absolutely going to come back to bite us down the road, I'm grateful for L'affaire Platner for demonstrating that there is value in taking the moderate path and behaving like a grownup.

I'll end this column by quoting myself again:

…as much as Platner and his supporters want to pretend otherwise it's impossible to argue that had they listened to Schumer and backed Mills their chances of taking the Senate back would be much easier.

Now the Democratic Party has proof of that statement. Even if the Justice Democrats choose to deny it (which they invariably will) the party has the receipts and they all know it. If this gives the grownups the upper hand, it's worth it if Susan Collins wins reelection this November. The left might want to ignore this. The Party won't and they deserve what they get.

That I'll admit to taking a certain pleasure in.