Jeopardy Masters 2026 Quarterfinal Recap Conclusion

 

Wednesday September 2^nd

Quarterfinals Conclusion

 

Match 1

Paolo Pasco vs. Juveria Zaheer vs. Andrew He

Paolo had nothing to fear in this match; regardless of the outcome he was headed to the semi-finals against Victoria and Yogesh.

But for Juveria and Andrew it was a very different story. Only if either one of them managed a victory did they have a chance of going on to the semi-finals. Even then things would have to fall a certain way.

If Andrew won, Juveria would be eliminated and he would have to wait and see how events played out in the second match. If Juveria prevailed, Andrew would be eliminated and if Long finished third outright she would return to the semifinals automatically. If Long finished in second, she would be in a similar position as Andrew would be.  Juveria had been in this exact position last year and she'd made it work for her against Matt Amodio and Roger Craig. Would her luck fall the same this year?

The Jeopardy round demonstrated upfront how much of a fight this would be. All three players were close throughout the round and Paolo managed to gain an edge when he found the Daily Double fairly late. By that point Andrew had a slight lead with 4200 points to Paolo's 3800. Paolo risked 2500 points in JOBS:

Cremona, Italy has a long history with this job of stringed instruments and not just the one its name is derived from.

Paolo's knowledge of crosswords might have helped here: "What is a luthier?" Which put him in the lead with 6300 points. He finished the Jeopardy round with a hair's lead over Andrew: 7100 points to Andrew's 6600. Juveria was in excellent shape with 3600.

Juveria came out swinging in Double Jeopardy as she had too. She found the Daily Doubles on back-to-back clues. Consider if she bet everything she would move into the lead that is what she did in I NEED SOME HEIR:

To thwart rival claims against the Ottoman throne, potential heirs were imprisoned, often for decades, inside this imperial palace.

Pause. "What is Topkapi?" And before we could get some air she found the next Daily Double in FROM THE LATIN. This time she was more cautious and bet 2200 points:

An air of haughtiness is part of the demeanor called this, from Latin for 'eyebrow'.

No pause this time. "What is supercilious?" She was now at 9400 points. But there was a lot of gain left and all three Masters were living up to their name. The lead kept going back and forth between all three players throughout Double Jeopardy and by the time it was over Paolo had a very narrow margin 15,100 points to Andrew's 13,800 and Juveria's 12,200.

With so much at stake for two of the three players both the category and wagering were all important. The Final Jeopardy category was WORLD TRANSPORTATION. The clue that decided the fate of one of the Masters was:

China's Big 3 airlines are Air China, based in Beijing, China Eastern, headquartered in Shanghai; and China Northern, based here.

Juveria's response was revealed first. What is Guangzhou?" The big industrial and commercial center of      Southern China was correct.  She wagered 301, putting her at 12,201 points.

Next was Andrew. He also had Guangzhou. He was cautious as well betting 1500 points but that put him into the lead with 15,300.

It was on Paolo who struggled with the clue and couldn't come up with it. He was also cautious, betting 1299 points, leaving him with 13,801 and Andrew He came up with his first victory in this year's Masters when he needed it the most. (I wrote down: "What is Nanking?"

 

Interviews: Andrew discussed how he was working on a new invention for his 3-year old son. He bought a bootlegged 'Game Boy-Esque thing' (his words) that while way worse then a first generation iPod but it does play Frog and Toad and A.A. Milne poems. Juveria discussed her third great love after Jeopardy and her family, the Toronto Blue Jays. She discussed 2025 (which she knew as Ken as a Mariners fan had to be suffering from) and how after every World Series game Juveria was sacrificing her Masters appearances to the finals, semis and eventually wondering if she would sacrifice friends and family. (Any sports fan completely gets this.) Paolo remarked how his mother and father keep sending him emails for things about Jeopardy Masters which he keeps reading because he knows he doesn't want to get a clue wrong that his mother highlighted.  To be clear a clue his father texted him on the World Cup had earned him a thousand points in this game so hard to argue it didn't pay off.

 

 

Andrew came through in the clutch and with his 3 match points he did what he had to do. But for Juveria the Masters came to an end here and she would leave with the sixth place prize and another $50,000. It was a defeat that had no disgrace attached to it given how hard fought this match was. Andrew would have to wait until the second game was over to see what his fate was.

 

Match 2

Victoria Groce vs Yogesh Raut vs Long Nguyen

Victoria and Yogesh were returning to the semi-finals for the third consecutive Masters no matter what the results of this game. But with Andrew's victory Long needed to either win or place to guarantee his spot in the semi-finals. If he were to lose he would be forced to face off with Andrew in a tie breaker.

Victoria got off to a lead early and found the Daily Double in the category WORDS THAT SHOULD RHYME. She was very wary of it and only bet 400 of her 5400 points.

Another name for the Wisent and Azkaban for one.

She figured it out: "What are bison and prison?"

All three players would give a correct response to all thirty clues. (There were some mistakes.) At the end of the round Victoria had 11,000 points to Yogesh's 4000 points and Long's 2000.

Long came out swinging in Double Jeopardy when he found the Daily Double in the category CITIES WITH THE SAME FIRST & LAST LETTER. He bet the 2000 points he had to:

South of Moscow, this city has name on the largest tank battle of World War II.

I have no idea how he came up with this. "What is Kursk?"

From then on Victoria was dominant practically for the rest of the round. She had 25,000 points and a huge lead when she found the other Daily Double in BATHROOM CULTURE. She seemed to like the category and bet 5000 points:

A bathroom mural in New York City's LGBT community was designed by this graffiti artist from Pennsylvania, who died of AIDS complications.

As a native of Pittsburgh she knew this one: "Who is Keith Haring?"

While Victoria had locked up the game second place was very relevant and the question was whether Yogesh, who struggled in this round, could get close enough to Long to keep him from locking it up. He did, finishing with 3600 points to Long's 4000. Victoria had it locked up with 29,600 points.

The last Final Jeopardy of the quarterfinals dealt with WORDS IN THE U.S CONSTITUTION.  The clue was: Coming immediately after 'nor', it's the first adjective in Section 1 of the 13^th Amendment.

Yogesh's response was revealed first. "What is involuntary?" Like he, he remembered that the amendment abolishing slavery begins. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude. He bet everything putting him at 7200 points.

Long, however, wrote down: "What is free?" He had the right idea of the amendment but the wrong adjective. He bet 398, which left him 3602. Either way Yogesh would have prevailed.

Victoria, interestingly, also thought it was free but it was irrelevant. It cost her 4967 but she had won her fifth game in Jeopardy Masters. Yogesh got one victory point and Long got none.

It did come down to the relevant tiebreaker for correct responses. And where it hadn't worked for Andrew in 2023, it paid off for him in 2026 as he managed a spectacularly recovery to move on fourth place.

For Long he had no more to be sorry for than Juveria did as he left in fifth place with $75,000 and like Juveria, more then proving himself worthy of the title Jeopardy Master.

 

Interviews: Long mentioned that he knew Yogesh from online trivia competitions as well and the first time they met, he was leading in one competition by triple digits and Yogesh ended up beating him 510 to 220. Yogesh was just as cordial to Long as Yogesh had related the parable of the bear. "You don't have to be faster than the bear, just faster then the slowest creature the bear is chasing.' Long then asked: "Yeah but what you do if two bears are after and you're by yourself?" (Which was kind of where Long was at that point.) Victoria then said that once while as a teacher she used Jeopardy think music to restore order for her classrooms. She wasn't sure it made them more orderly but it made them more alert. (Accurate.)

FINAL QUARTERFINAL LEADERBOARD

VICTORIA GROCE – 15 MATCH POINTS

YOGESH RAUT – 12 MATCH POINTS

PAOLO PASCO – 8 MATCH POINTS

ANDREW HE – 5 MATCH POINTS

LONG NGUYEN – 5 MATCH POINTS (ELIMINATED AFTER TIEBREAKER)

JUVERIA ZAHEER – 3 MATCH POINTS (ELIMINATED)

 

So for the third straight year Victoria and Yogesh are headed to the semi-finals. Facing them will be this year's Tournament of Champions winner and a former Jeopardy Master himself. And for what it's worth Andrew seems to have been turning on his A-Game in his last two matches having gotten four of the five match points he needed to go from last on the leaderboard to qualifying.

The semi-finals will be Thursday and Friday and I will be back this weekend with the official results.  The board is wiped clean and anything can and will happen in the semi-finals. Stay tuned.

My Predictions for the 2026 Emmys,Week 3, Part 3: Outstanding Lead Actress in a Limited Series/TV Movie

 

First of all for this category I will actually be considering TV Movie because one of the nominees is the star of one. With Remarkably Bright Creatures a near shoo-in to win in the category Best TV Movie Sally Field will be a formidable contender as the first actress to earn in a spot in this category in over a decade.

Second this is a formidable category and while it has a frontrunner I believe it is far more wide-open then the current odds allow. I've seen all four performances in the Limited Series categories and they represent some of the most stunning work done by any performers in the last year.

 

Claire Danes, The Beast in Me. For Playing: Aggie Wiggs, an author dealing with multiple traumas trying to find out if her new neighbor is everything the public believes he is. Pro: I've long since stopped thinking I could be astonished by Danes' capability as a performer after her iconic work as Carrie Matheson in Homeland But in her work in Limited Series she continues to push the boundaries of her profession, usually great even when the material rarely serves her (as was the case in her last Emmy nominated role in Fleishman is in Trouble.) Now she takes on the role of Aggie Wiggs a woman whose life has been a disaster since her son was killed in a hit and run and then has to deal with the presence of the literal next door neighbor from hell in Nile Jarvis. Despite her understandable repulsion to him she keeps being drawn into his orbit, first convince he's responsible for the death of someone she hated, then constantly being convinced against her will he's innocent. Danes work as Aggie is a contrast to so many of her previous characters: she is frail, broken and lets her instincts constantly lead her down the wrong path. Yet you can never tear your eyes from her every moment she's on the screen. She was nominated for every acting award since the end of last year and this is another treasure in a seemingly endless list of great performances. Con: Of all the actresses in this category Danes has by far gotten the most recognition from the Emmys with three to this point. As good as she is, it's more certain the Emmys will spread the wealth this year – and there are plenty of equally deserving nominees.

Sally Field, Remarkably Bright Creatures. For Playing: Tova Sullivan an elderly widow who learns of a life-changing discovery while at a night shift at a local aquarium. Pro: It has been a long time since an actress managed to get nominated for her work in a TV movie in this category; it's something Renee Zellweger and Jessica Lange couldn't accomplish last year. But Field's work in what has very quickly become one of the best TV movies in a very long time as a woman who finds her path forward by looking at the path of a giant squid is by far the most humane performance in a category filled with deeply cynical and dark actors. Field managed to prevail in the Astras last month over several more praised performances and it is a tribute to one of the greatest actresses of all time that she never once flinches from the work. Con: No actress has managed to win in this category since Julianne Moore did for Game Change back in 2012 which was an entirely different era for TV and TV movies alike. Overcoming this obstacle seems highly unlikely if not impossible for Field.

Carey Mulligan, Beef (EXPERTS PICK). For Playing: Lindsay, a woman trapped in a failing marriage after a fight brings everything to the surface. Like Oscar Isaac Mulligan is well past deserving some kind of big prize. She has been one of our most formidable performers since she made her debut in An Education back in 2009. Playing girls, then women, who appeared frail but who often had a steeliness you underestimated at your peril she played a woman who had come from money, spent all of her time and energy helping boost her husband and now had nothing to show for it but a failing marriage. The collapse she went through with the loss of her dog Burberry was the straw that broke the back of her marriage. She spent the next several months trying to take revenge on those she thought deserved all while ending up deeper and deeper into loss. That decision would eventually put her into a position that seemed like it would cost her everything. When her husband made the ultimate sacrifice it seemed a triumph – until the denouement revealed she was as fickle as before. It is a haunting, twisted and frequently hysterical performance that has deservedly put her at the frontrunner in this category. Con: When Sally Field prevailed in this category at the Astras it indicated that the support for Mulligan is much softer then some of the other actors and talent. I'm less convinced that she will prevail here then other winners in this category.

Sarah Pidgeon,  Love Story (DARK HORSE). For Playing: Carolyn Bessette, beginning a romance and then marrying the worlds most eligible bachelor – and who is unprepared for what comes with it. Pro: The complete unknown in this category Pidgeon had an even tougher job then Paul Anthony Kelly: to play the woman who married America's most famous bachelor and who comparatively was always a cipher. It is a credit to Pidgeon that she came out by far as the most dynamic member of the couple: the more dominant figure in the initial courtship, incredibly erotic in everything and able to give as well as she took. Watching her energy in the first half of the series was incredible; watching the paparazzi destroy her was heartbreaking, watching the penultima episode when we saw just how much it had broken her and John devastating, and knowing how it ended tragic. I couldn't take my eyes off Pidgeon the moment she first appeared onscreen. This is an actress with a bright future in the industry and I'm glad I saw her first. Con: The Emmys don't have a great history of picking relative unknowns in the lead actor or actress in limited series: I have no memory of it happening in my lifetime. Pidgeon might pull it off but winning is, well, slightly easier then winning the heart of People's Sexiest Man Alive.

Sarah Snook, All Her Fault (MY PICK) For Playing: Marissa Irvine, who after her son is abducted finds herself at the center of a media firestorm and the lie at the center of her marriage. Pro: Snook is one of the few performers in this category with a trophy to her name already, having deservingly prevailed in this category at the Critics Choice Awards last January. It's understandable why. Her work as Marissa, a mother who when she goes to pickup her son is launched into the worst nightmare possible, is one of the most mesmerizing portrayals of grief, betrayal and despair as it is only the start of learning that so much of what she believed her life to be was a complete and utter lie. There is a humanity to Snook's work here that she never really got to display in her Emmy winning work for Succession and as she learned that her husband was never what she thought he was and every aspect of her entire life had been a mythos it was terrifying her as even the recovery of him led to darker and more frightening turns, forcing to make a decision that was so horrific and yet completely understandable. All of the nominees gave incredible performances but I still believe Snook's is the most deserving of a trophy and I'd like to see her win. Con: Snook did win at the Emmys a little less then three years ago. I'd like to see her join Danes as one of the few actresses to win Best Lead Actress in both drama and limited series but I'm just not convinced it'll happen.

 

Prediction: While Mulligan is still the heavy favorite, don't rule out the possibility of one of the Sarah's – most likely Pidgeon – to pull out an upset.

 

Tomorrow I deal with Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Limited Series. And I'm going to give it the dignity that the Emmys itself seems unwilling to do so.

 

 

Jeopardy Masters 2026 Recap: September 1st

 

Match 1

Yogesh Raut vs Juveria Zaheer vs. Andrew He

For both Juveria and Andrew today's match was critical. If Andrew could manage to pull out a victory he would move into fifth place and still have a slim chance of making it into the semi-finals. For Juveria either a win or a second place could theoretically keep her in contention for making it to the semi-finals for the second consecutive year. For Yogesh even a second place finish would officially lock down his competing in the semi-finals for the third consecutive year.

The stakes couldn't have been higher for all three Masters.

Andrew came out swinging  getting an early lead in the Jeopardy round. He was helped immensely when he found the Daily Double in THE BUSINESS WORLD early. He bet the 2200 points he had:

Founded in 1974 and a towering industrial presence, this national oil company says it was 'established to unlock Malaysia's energy potential.'

Andrew responded almost instantly: What is Patronus? After getting to 4400 points he would never seriously be threatened for the lead the rest of the game. He  finished the Jeopardy round with a big lead with 9600 points to  Juveria's  3600 and Yogesh was in third with 1600 points.

Yogesh found the first Daily Double in CODE SWITCHING on his first pick and bet just the 1600 points he had. (He had no idea what the category was about which is understandable.)

Code talker used in World War I were from this Oklahoma-based 'First tribe over the trail of tears' – Navajo code talkers came later.

Yogesh guessed: "Who are the Cherokee?" That was my guess. It was actually the Choctaw. So he was back at zero.

It was a bit before Yogesh found the other Daily Double in URBAN TRADITIONS. Still in third with 2400 points again he bet everything. It worked out better this time:

New Orleans radio station WWOZ keeps track of these ordinal named parades put on by groups like the West Bank Steppers.

He figured it out: "What is second line?"

Despite the massive recovery by Yogesh he could not catch up to Andrew who finished the Jeopardy round with 18,000 points to Yogesh's 12,400 and Juveria's 11,400 in what was by far the most thrilling game in this year's Masters so far.

It came down to Final Jeopardy as it should. The category was COINS.

Coins minted by Constantine I in 327 had these 2 Greek letters, a monogram belonging to one other than the ruler.

All three of them knew the correct letters. (I didn't even have the right alphabet). What are chi and rho? Constantine had converted the Christianity and this was the monogram of Christ. So it came down to wagers.

Juveria went small betting 200 points, putting her at 11,600. Yogesh went big with 10001 putting him at 22,801. And Andrew was conservative betting just 300 points which left him at 18,300 and gave Yogesh a shocking come from behind win.

Yogesh received 3 match points to clinch his place in this year's Masters. Andrew received 1 match point. Juveria received zero.

 

 

Interviews: Andrew talked about the fact that Katie Nolan, who did very well on Celebrity Jeopardy not long ago, said she was a fan of his. Andrew has since gone on her podcast. Apparently before this game Nolan gave Andrew a pep talk which seemed to be working. Juveria talked about all of the numerous friends she's made from every single Jeopardy tournament she's been on in the last few years. She talked about going to a wedding with a corgi from one competitor (asked if the corgi was her date Juveria said "I wish!) and she showed a picture of her in an escape room with her fellow Canadian Jeopardy champions: Mattea Roach and Ray LaLonde were very prominent) where they apparently lost. Yogesh talked about how his UK trivia buddies have printed out images of him that they use as an icon and whoever gets the highest score gets to carry it around. (So Yogesh is a British trivia status symbol now.)

 

Victoria Groce vs. Paolo Pasco vs. Long Nguyen

A victory for either Paolo or Long would essentially guarantee a place in the semi-finals.  For Paolo even a second place finish would essentially achieve the same goal while for Long there was more complicated math involved. Victoria was sitting pretty having won three out of four games with a guaranteed lock on the semi-finals for the third straight year.

All three players were in the red early in the Jeopardy round. For Long it was the sign of how things were to come, he would never finish on the positive. For Paolo he recovered quickly and held the lead most of the way. Victoria got to the Daily Double in CIVICS. Victoria had turned it around and had 1400 points of which she wagered everything:

This type of Latin-named law which punishes people retroactively is prohibited in the Constitution. Victoria knew it instantly: "What is ex post facto?" She doubled her score. She wouldn't be able to catch up to Paolo in the Jeopardy round finishing with 3800 points to his 5200. Long was at -2000 which was actually better compared how much of Double Jeopardy would go for him.

Victoria found the first Daily Double in the category LATIN/ENGLISH OVERLAPS and had just gone into the lead with 5400 points. She decided since they had no idea what the category was about to risk just 200 points. Intelligent woman given what the clue was:

This half-man, half bull appears in the Northern Lights.

She guessed: "What is the Minotaur?" It was a Before and After type clue. The correct response: "What is Minotaur-ora Borealis?" She then immediately went away from that category which is understandable.

Victoria then retook the lead and was at 9600 points when she found the other Daily Double in PROFESSORS. Paolo was still at 5200 points so this time she wagered 4400. Despite knowing what she was getting into, it went no better then the previous Daily Double:

An English Prof at Cornell, he would grasp his own suspenders, lean forward and tell his class:' 'Rule 17: Omit needless words.

Victoria guessed: "Who is Nabokov?" It was one of the Elements of Style of William Strunk, Jr.  Victoria was honest: "I thought about that. Would have said White anyhow (the other co-author)

Victoria recovered and would move into the lead after running the category FOREIGN TV. However she couldn't completely shake Paolo. Long managed the moral victory, once as low as -4800 points he managed to  get the last three clues in DEATH IN VENICE correct to finish at zero. Paolo had 9600 points to Victoria's 18,000 points. Long would not be around for Final Jeopardy.

When he saw the Final Jeopardy category ITALIAN OPERA Paolo couldn't keep a poker face. It didn't go his way but he was in good shape regardless.

In the first scene of this opera the title character is mentioned as he 'whose song rises at night from the gardens.

Paolo wrote down: "Who is Don Giovanni?" That was incorrect he lost everything but a dollar.

Victoria wrote down nothing. (Not even saying hi to Nora) She lost just 401 finishing in first.

The correct response was Il Trovatore which translated to "The troubadour'. I am embarrassed that as someone who has grown up adjacent to opera of all types I wrote down Pagliacci. I take solace in the fact neither Master knew it.

 

 

Interviews: Long mentioned how big a fan his mother was of him and told a story about how she called and said: "I turned on the show. You weren't there." So then he had to explain how TV worked to her. Paolo told a story of a pre-game ritual involving a figure from the competitive eating circuit named Badlands Chugs. He and his girlfriend are fans and apparently she got him a Cameo of how Paolo is participating in a 'trivia competition that's coming up'' and Paolo always watches is before every tape day. (Well its been working out for him so far.) Victoria told a story about how when her daughter Nora was younger one of her classmates said she had a picture of Victoria with the President. Victoria was baffled and then she explained: "That's not the President. That's Alex Trebek." Which honestly given the history of America in the 21^st century is probably better than having a picture with most Presidents or political figures in general.

LEADERBOARD AFTER SEPTEMBER 1^ST

VICTORIA GROCE – 12 MATCH POINTS (CLINCHED)

YOGESH RAUT – 11 MATCH POINTS (CLINCHED)

PAOLO PASCO – 7 MATCH POINTS (CLINCHED)

LONG NGUYEN – 5 MATCH POINTS

JUVERIA ZAHEER – 3 MATCH POINTS

ANDREW HE – 2 MATCH POINTS

 

With one game left the race for that final spot in the quarterfinals is wide open with a chance for Long, Juveria and Andrew all to clinch it. A win for Long guarantees it. For Juveria she has to win and in whatever game he plays in Long must finish third. For Andrew it’s the toughest: he has to win, Juveria has to finish no higher then second in whichever match she plays in, Long has to finish last and he must still hope for the tiebreaker to work for him.

It will all come down to tomorrow's game where anything can and often does happen. I'll be back Thursday morning with the official results.

My Predictions for the 2026 Emmys, Week 3, Part 2: Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama

 

As I mentioned when the nominations came out this particular category is the only one of almost every major Emmy category that I have an issue with the majority of the nominees. And since that in itself is a rarity I think I'm entitled to editorialize slightly here.

With due respect for three of the nominees the Emmys have done a major disservice to at least three incredible lead performances by excluding them. I speak not just of Paul Anthony Kelly for Love Story and Jamie Bell for Half Man but also Michael Shannon for Death By Lightning or for that matter Jude Law for Black Rabbit.  The third season of Monster was considered a huge disappointment by most critics and viewers and to recognize so much of the talent there as opposed to Half Man and Death by Lightning represent a failure on the part of the Emmys in what was essentially one of their better jobs in what has always been a top-heavy category. They've been improving immensely over the last few years. This is a slight misstep.

With that in mind, here are my predictions.

 

Riz Ahmed, Bait. For Playing: Shah Latif, a struggling actor who might be the next James Bond – if he can survive the night. Pro: Ahmed has over a very short period of time become one of the most undervalued actors in film and TV. Here he questions the world of race, Hollywood, capitalism and the place we have to keep in our culture in a show that is both dead-on in all of them and grimly funny simultaneously. This is a passion project for Ahmed which he wrote and produced for Amazon in a series that brings about superb moments for our time. Con: Ahmed's nomination is the only one Bait received from the Emmys and we know what that means. Combined with the fact that he has already won in this category for The Night Of makes it certain he has no real chance.

 

Jason Bateman, Black Rabbit. For Playing: Vince Friedken, the brother of a New York restaurateur who brings chaos and gangsters into the world. Pro: Bateman is one of the most nominated presences at the Emmys this year, nominated for producing and a supporting role in DTF St. Louis and for directing and lead acting in Black Rabbit. He spent much of the end of last year touring the awards circuit for his role in the latter, he will likely do the same at the end of this year for the latter. And it speaks to the incredible versatility of Bateman, who before this was already one of the great forces in television no matter which genre he was part of that the criminal brother who can't be trusted is so different from the adulterous weatherman in character that you really can't believe the same actor is playing the same role. That's before you get to the fact that Bateman has a horrible track record with the Emmys. He has been nominated for acting, directing and producing 16 times – four this year alone – and yet has only once for directing. The Emmys really owes him at least one award in that category by now. Con:  If Bateman wins an Emmy this year – which he might – it will more likely be for DTF St. Louis. And even then it's an uphill climb.

 

Charlie Hunnam, Monster: The Ed Gein Story. For Playing: Ed Gein, one of the first and most notorious serial killers in American history. Pro: Somehow this is the first Emmy nomination, really the first major award nomination that Hunnam has ever gotten. He was completely ignored (as was the entire show) for his work as Jax Teller in a show that was one of the most critically acclaimed of all times Sons of Anarchy. He has been part of such classic films as Children of Men and countless cult classics in the world of film and somehow this is his first major acting nomination he's gotten for anything. And as with all the previous versions of this series Hunnam disappears entirely into one of the greatest monsters that even after decades we are still struggling to comprehend. One can question whether this story should have been told but with Hunnam to anchor it you couldn't look away. Con: The third season that has been by far suffering the greatest backlash even before it debuted. It didn't help matters that by far this was the most disorganized, chaotic and overly gruesome season of a series that has been struggling with the argument it has glamorized its subject matter for a long time. While Hunnam receive every Best Actor in a Limited Series nomination at the end of the year the third season was not and it played out that same way in the Emmys. Hunnam is by far the best thing about what has been considered a truly horrific season and that's not a compliment.

 

Oscar Isaac, Beef (Experts Pick, My Pick). For Playing: Joshua, the manager of a country club struggling both with his  unstable job and the falling apart of his marriage. Pro: Somehow Isaac, who is one of the greatest actors of the last twenty years has not won a single award for any of his brilliant film and television work. Here, reunited with his co-star from Inside Llewyn Davis, Isaac gets to play Josh a man who has reached his forties and has failed in almost everything, from his life's ambitions to his marriage. And it turns out when he is caught in a compromising position, he is just as horrible at being an extortionist or being extorted, someone who is being squeezed from above and below, someone who doesn't know what the right thing is anymore. As the season continues to unfold and he ends up being caught in a position where everything is going to be taken away from him he continues to overestimate his position in the food chain and keeps screwing up. Yet there's an argument by the end of the series, both in the climax and the denouement that he seems to have come out on the other side having won. It's a superb performance of every level and worthy of recognition. Having triumphed at the Astras last month, he seems to be set up for a victory. Con: It is possible that the fact that some people were underwhelmed by Season 2 of Beef will end up working against almost every nominee. Isaac will probably not suffer for it, but it's definitely possible.

 

Matthew Rhys, The Beast in Me. (Dark Horse) For Playing: Nile Jarvis, the real estate mogul who may have killed his wife years ago and is trying to reestablish his legacy with his next door neighbor. Pro: Before he stunned everybody with his work in Widow's Bay as a man unable to deal with supernatural monsters, Rhys was just as stunning as a man whose mere presence was utterly terrifying every time he was onscreen. Every time he and Aggie Wiggs shared a scene, your skin would crawl and you would be terrified for the potential for harm that seemed just below the surface and as the series progresses it was very clear he had that potential to do horrible things. For an actor whose spent his career playing conflicting Everyman to this point Rhys's work as Nile Jarvis was as much a revelation as his work as Tom Loftis would be this spring. Rhys made Emmy history by becoming the first actor in thirty years to be nominated as Best Actor in Comedy and Limited Series and there are few actors I think deserve the privilege more. Con: The Emmys have never given any performer an Emmy for acting in two categories during the same year. While Rhys absolutely deserves to become the first to do so, I truly think the Emmys will spread the love just a little considering he's a lock to win Best Actor in a Comedy.

 

My Prediction: While I admit it’s a somewhat underwhelming group Isaac will likely end up rising to the top for his first Emmy.

 

Tomorrow I deal with Outstanding Lead Actress in a Limited Series/TV Movie. And this year TV Movie is very central to who might win.

 

 

My Predictions for the 2026 Emmys, Week 3, Part 1: Outstanding Limited Series

 

In an article I published earlier this week I vented my virtual spleen at the unfairness in which I believed that NBC and the Emmys were regulating the lion's share of the categories into the award equivalent of second-class nominees. Having done my due diligence I will resume what is the pleasurable part of this job.

Having seen all five contenders and the overwhelming number of the remaining nominated actors and writers I must once again praise the Emmys for continuing to recognize the era of Peak Limited Series as it continues. We ran the gamut this year with the Emmys finally feeling fit to recognize Peacock as a purveyor of great television while continuing to acknowledge the holy trinity when it comes to this category over the past decade: HBO, Netflix and FX. Unlike drama and comedy there is no overwhelming favorite in this category and I'd argue all of the ones to come. And unlike the last couple of years where I've had issue with some of the major nominees I have zero with any of the five contenders. One was on my top ten list for 2025 and at least one among these, possibly two, will be among by list of the best of 2026.

So here is my prediction of the field.

 

All Her Fault (Peacock) MY PICK. Pro: Unlike past years there are no choices I can't support and anyone of the contenders would be a deserving winner. With that said in my heart of hearts, there's a part of me that really does think All Her Fault deserves the grand prize. It is the sole adaptation of a novel in this category and as with previous adaptations such  as Little Fires Everywhere it is in many ways has its own spin and even an improvement on the original. From the basic story of Andrea Mara's Irish novel the writers have told one of a media circus, how it forms its scapegoats and how two different women find themselves being held to the impossible standard society and the workplace set on us. It tells a story of a third woman, set up as a monster, but who turns out to be a victim of great villain of the piece. And by opening up the life of the detective with his own struggles, it puts up a counterpoint to what parents are willing do for their children that mirrors what Marissa Irvine is forced to do by the end of the story. Peacock should have been in the circle for Emmy contention years ago, but that the Emmys did so for one of their finest works to date is a personal triumph for what has become its most watched program to date. Con: It did debut back last fall and while this hasn't been as big a year for limited series as some, the Emmys does have a shorter memory.

 

The Beast in Me (Netflix) Pro: Matthew Rhys, as they say, is having a hell of a year. One of the most riveting shows to debut at the tail end of 2026 was the cat and mouse game between Nile Jarvis and Aggie Wiggs, the former a sociopathic real estate legend who very well may have killed his first wife, the latter an author whose life fell apart when her son died in a hit and run several years and has been dealing with an incredible case of writer's block. It was a privilege to watch two of television greatest actors engage in a psychological duel, both cast brilliantly against type: Rhys an egomaniacal sociopath who may have fooled everybody; Danes as someone who has basically fallen into the background of her own life and keeps getting sucked into the world of a man she despises. A brilliant original story, it would set the stage for a year of incredible limited series that pulled away from the literary adaptations that have dominated this category for more than a decade and showed an unsettling picture of wealth, trauma and so many losses we couldn't look away from. Con: Beast seems to have the fate of falling between two other Netflix series. The 2026 awards were dominated  by Adolescence and now it seems a second anthology will overshadow it this year.

Beef (Netflix) EXPERTS PICK. Pro: The long anticipated second season of Lee Sung Jin's incredible anthology about how rage can spiral into the kind of crises that affect every aspect of our lives took a different approach in Season 2. We saw how a fight between a husband and wife who run a posh country club was seen by a twenty-something couple who captured and then tried to use it for their own ends. Sung-Jin moved away from the Korean-American realm of Season 1 to tell a broader story about many of the same issues: struggling for your place in the world, physical health far more then mental health, how the wealthy and privilege seem to control everything and how race has a very specific view society. It's ending was more surreal and yet more cynical then Season 2 but had that same basic image. The writers and directors of Beef have made it clear they will not rest on their laurels and are creating one of the most fascinating versions of reality I've yet seen. It was the big winner at the Astras a few weeks ago which are setting it up for a likely triumph. Con: Perhaps because of the immense anticipation for it, the response was not as universally praised as the first season. More to the point it is very difficult for an anthology series to win in this category multiple times. Ryan Murphy is one of the few creative forces who has been able to pull of that trick. That could be a problem as much as…

 

DTF St Louis HBO (Dark Horse). Pro: Even if you don't believe that this is not a brilliant satire of Peak TV itself, particularly the kind of dramas HBO has done for decades (which I do) DTF. St. Louis deserves praise for standing out. In a world of relentless grim stories of wealthy bad people doing bad things, here's a story of working class Americans who are going through mid-life crises and there are own small struggles. Instead of ultra cynical detectives we have a porn-positive detective and an elder statesman who doesn't know the rules. Instead of a dark secret about a murder, the biggest secret of this show is how exactly Floyd broke his penis and even that's treated as a throwaway. We have a love triangle of a weatherman who rides a bizarre bike, a ASL interpreter who is just too nice for this world, and a woman who makes extra money as a Little League umpire. And even if the last minutes took a turn into darkness that didn't quite mesh with the entire series DTF deserves credit for being one of the most joyful experience of television during 2026. Small wonder its rising in the odds. Con: Unfortunately the Emmys have a very mixed track record when it comes to dealing with limited series that are fundamentally humorous in tone. They might nominate them as they did with last year's entry Dying For Sex but they rarely if ever win the big prize. I just don't think the Emmys will let the sun shine in for DTF.

 

Love Story: The Marriage of JFK Jr and Carolyn Bissette (FX). Pro: For years FX anthologies have looked at the seedy underbelly of society and the grim realities of America. So there's something refreshing about telling something simple about how two people met, danced around each other, fell in love and all the struggles that came with it. Led by the complete unknowns Paul Anthony Kelly and Sarah Pidgeon, the show looks below the world of the heir to Camelot and the woman who wanted more from life then just to be arm candy for the Sexiest Man Alive. It tells the story of the beginning of the world we are all to use, shows a picture of Camelot we rarely see, and shows how the real man and woman beneath one of the greatest tragedies of our time. We know from the opening minutes how this love story has to end but that doesn't mean you keep hoping against hope that somehow it doesn't have to. Con: Love Story is at its core, a simple story told well. Those aren't the ones that the Emmys recognize here.

 

MY PREDICTION: While I'm not convinced it’s the best limited series here, I think the second season of Beef ekes this out.

 

Tomorrow I deal with Outstanding Lead Actor in a Limited Series. Or the category Matthew Rhys will not win an Emmy this year. (Probably)

What The Emmys Are Doing This Year To Try And Appease The Critics Is The Dumbest Thing They Could Do (And Not Just Because It's Already Backfired)

 

I've said this at least a dozen times in the last few years but I'm going to say it again. Awards shows: stop trying to please reviewers of your ceremonies.

Never in my lifetime, never, ever, has any awards show involving films, TV, plays anything, gotten any response from any major critic more favorable then: "It was okay. I guess." At this point I'm convinced they've pre-written every awards show review they've done in advance like the critical equivalent of a mad-lib and just fill in the names and dates every year.

I don't know what a critic is expecting when they watch the Oscars or the Golden Globes or the Emmys. You'd think after all their years of watching them they would have realized an awards show for what it is and graded it on those merits rather than the kind of entertainment its honoring. An awards show is not a film or a TV show, nor is it a concert or a play. If you are grading it by those standards, which I assume these critics are, it will always be inferior.

But an awards show is not about providing entertainment to a live audience: it is there to give awards to performers for their body of work. The emcee or the presenters are working primarily to keep the mood light in the theater. They are there to celebrate the industry and honor the nominees and winners. The idea of entertaining those watching at home is a distant third on their priorities or at least it should be.

All of the flaws that the critics trot out over and over make me wonder if they understand this distinction. Of course awards show are self-congratulatory, they are congratulating themselves. If you expect them to be simultaneously entertaining while they do so, you're asking far too much of everybody involved. And if you're watching this awards show for entertainment purposes rather than because you have an interest in the shows and actors nominated, then I truly question whether you have a functioning brain.

I really don't know why anyone would watch an awards show if they didn't care about Hollywood or the industry in some degree. Indeed these days with every other channel on TV running alternate and occasionally new episodes of shows and streaming services allowing to watch films or TV shows while the awards show going on, there are probably thousands of better ways you could pass your time if you wanted to have fun. An awards show is about giving awards; it's not about entertaining those watching. It's going to run long no matter how much the producers will try to streamline it; it's going to be full of dull stretches and it's going to be self-congratulatory with famous people mentioning people you don't know and in many cases people you don't recognize thanking their wives and children. Perhaps the average viewer doesn't realize that, but the average critic has to by now.

In my lifetime no matter what the Oscars or the Golden Globes or any other awards show do to try and please the critics they have always failed for that reason. The critics don't know what their ideal awards show is, only that each year they never get it. And considering that in so many of their reviews of your films and TV shows they tend to malign and judge the people who watch the more popular ones, I really don't know why you're making such an effort anyway.

With all of that said, I have to tell you the decision that NBC has made regarding the Emmys this year ranks as one of the dumbest any awards show has made in history and one that has already received backlash. It's not as short-sighted as the Oscars deciding to seat the most prominent nominees closer to the front in 2021 – which almost certainly led to the circumstances of Will Smith slapping Chris Rock – but it's one of those decisions that makes no sense in terms of the broadcast and even less sense when you consider the logic – which even now I can't figure out.

I'm talking, of course, of the decision to have the glut of the awards for Outstanding Limited Series – including most damningly Supporting Actor and Actress – out of the primetime ceremony and giving in during the Creative Arts Ceremony next weekend.

This decision received so much backlash almost immediately across the board – from critics performers and every single guild in Hollywood – that when it was announced back in July I was certain it would become so overwhelming that the Academy would have taken it back by now. Yet here we are, less than two weeks from the Awards, and both NBC and the Emmys are standing by a decision that even by the standards of network television and the Academy has to rank as one of the most foolish they've ever made. And that's including the decision to have five of the nominees for Best Game Show Host act as a collective emcees in 2008. Because at least they were willing to have that award be part of the ceremony. This is dumber and a far bigger slap in the face to almost everybody involved.

Start with the obvious one. While there's very little suspense of who will win Best Drama and Best Comedy there's actually quite a bit who will win Best Limited Series. All five contenders have no clear frontrunner, although Season 2 of Beef is gaining ground. Still the overwhelming majority of the nominees in writing, directing and both Supporting acting awards would help influence – and the Emmys is shafting them.

Second, it leaves out the very real fact that in this decade alone – the 2020s – some of the most memorable moments of the Emmys have come wins in those categories. I'm talking about Jennifer Coolidge's hysterical acceptance speech for The White Lotus's first season in 2022, Niecy Nash-Betts call of defiance for her work in Monster in January of 2024, Jessica Gunning's incredible speech in Baby Reindeer that September. And who among can't forget Owen Cooper's incredible acceptance speech for Adolescence last year? I didn't even like that series that much but I knew it was a moment in Emmy history.

And how many great writing and directing talents have been recognized in this category the last three years alone. We saw it for Lee Sung Jin for Beef, Richard Gadd for Baby Reindeer and Stephen Graham for Adolescence. Are we now supposed to say their triumphs must be moved to Creative Arts for the reason of time crunch?

And it's not like this year isn't going to offer a similar chance for such moments. David Harbour and Jason Bateman have worked in TV for decades, often nominated, never winning. Now both are favorites to win Supporting Actor in DTF ST. Louis. Several actresses I admire immensely are competing in Best Supporting Actress in a Limited Series/TV movie: Constance Zimmer for Love Story, Dakota Fanning for All Her Fault and the current favorite Linda Cardellini for DTF. St. Louis. All of them deserve their moments in front of their peers on prime time. The Emmys is essentially decided to shunt their triumphs to a basic cable channel that I guarantee you no one bothers to watch unless they knew it existed in the first place.

And finally – and I really shouldn't have to say this – by doing this, the Emmys is setting a dangerous precedent. The Emmys has always had all of the winners for these categories in the prime time ceremony since forever. To do it just one will be sending a message that these prizes are expendable and irrelevant to what the audience comes to see.

Now I don't know what the Emmys is planning to do in the place of these awards for Limited Series. And honestly I don't give a damn. What possible tribute to television could be worth sacrificing four awards that have been prominent in Emmy voting for decades? Who could they possibly be celebrating in order to say to these actors and talent who worked on this project "I'm sorry, we're putting your moment in the cheap seats."

No disrespect to the Creative Arts Emmys here, I've been watching you guys every year for thirty years and will be doing so this year.  But everybody – including them – knows what your place in the pantheon of the Emmys. You’re the place where all of the 'other awards' are giving, the ones that 'viewers don't care about, really." I get it, I do, if they had to give awards to all of the technical people on the same night the Emmys would be eight hours long. You need two nights to get through it all and you have to condense it to one two and a half hour showing. Your editors, cinematographers, makeup artists, scorers, and visual effects teams (among many, many others) have a generosity of spirit I'm not sure I would be able to have if I was among the best in my field, recognized my peers over and over in Hollywood, and nobody knew who I was even when I was acknowledged.

Personally I think the Emmys should devote some screentime each year for some of you wins, if only to just acknowledge that TV's biggest night isn't just about the onscreen talent. And that's again where I keep coming up against a brick wall because limited series is very much about the onscreen talent as well as writing and directing – and the Emmys is saying very clearly: "No, you're not really."

This goes against so much of what we've seen long before this, whether it is Angels in America, Big Little Lies, American Crime, American Horror Story, Sherlock and all the other shows on Masterpiece Theater that have won in the 21^st century alone. This is a knife in the heart to those of us who loves these shows (I am one of their biggest boosters) and a slap in the face to those and make them.

And why? Trust me when I tell you: the critics are going to have the knives out because the Emmys chose to do this. I guarantee you every single critics from The Hollywood Reporter to Variety and everyone in between has a paragraph in their review already criticizing you for leaving these people out. I guarantee you TV Guide has already set up a Jeer for you in advance in the next issue that comes after the Emmys. What possible tribute can you give to other actors or a legacy show that will compare to this? How can you justify celebrating TV's past at the expense of its present?

I know the talent in Hollywood always has work done but trust me when I tell you cutting your nose off to spite your face is never a good look for the industry. Considering the many, many other problems you're facing right now you're going to lose a lot and I don't see what you can possibly gain.

There's a reason I know you'll regret this. After the Critics Choice Awards decided to merge TV and film into one ceremony in 2016, they had some growing pains of their own. In their 2018 award shows they didn't bother giving any of the Supporting Actor or Actress awards in any categories in television as part of their one ceremony to try and condense it for two hours.

Immediately after that they realized that they'd made a huge mistake and they began to pull away from it and by the end of the decade they decided to give all the acting awards for TV as part of their ceremony. If that meant the show was going to run over three hours long, so be it.

These awards, I should mention, are given by critics so perhaps they had an understanding that so many other awards show don't. We know we can't be pleased when it comes to the length or makeup of these shows, so let's make this night about the industry and not about us.

You still have a week to do the right thing. And if you must insist on carrying forward with this monstrosity, all other networks who do this going forward for the love of God learn from your mistakes. This night is about you, not trying to please the critics. For one night be as self-centered and egotistical as you want. Stop trying to please those highbrow, narrow-minded, ill-tempered who can barely say polite things about anything. I can say that about them because I'm one of them – and you can say it about them too.

 

Here endeth the sermon. This week I'll be covering every  single one of these awards as if they were going to be given in prime time because they should be and because I appreciate what these people are doing even if the Emmys doesn't this year.

A Tale of Three Senators, The People and Special interests

 

I'm a student of American politics and it has always sparked a great pleasure in me it probably doesn't for the vast majority of people. Perhaps it's because I have such a wide view of it, I have a basic understanding that at its core, all the struggles that both sides  put forth as the most important issues of our time are just the latest version of a conflict that will never go away and in a free society, shouldn't.

Many might become cynical over that. I find it  comforting. When you take a very long view and see that we're still fighting some of the same issues we were in 1926 that we are in 2026, it makes you realize this too shall pass and it makes the urgency and stress will  ease just a bit.

One of the issues that is always going to be at the forefront of elections is that corporations, billionaires, the wealthy, or what we'll call the special interests have taken away the rights from the voters. All politicians of both parties have been corrupted by this and it is our necessity to get them out of office post haste. Such is the case in this election cycle and everyone in the 21^st century, particularly when it comes to the left but really both parties are guilty of it.

So I'm now going to relate two anecdotes given by two different Senators. One of them is a Republican who served in the Senate during the first two decades of the 20^th century and who I'm certain nobody has heard of. The other involves a Democratic senator who was at his time one of the most well-known examples of liberalism and will be familiar to some of you. And at their core both anecdotes tell the same story. Once I've done that I'm going to tie it to a third who clearly didn't hold with either one's teaching and paid the price.

First the Republican. Boies Penrose was what was considered a Political boss in the state of Pennsylvania back when corruption was far more out in the open then it is today.  He was elected to the Senate in 1896 and was reelected four more times, serving until he died on New Year's Eve 1921. He would be the longest serving Senator of that state until Arlen Specter surpassed his record in 2005. (So some things in politics do change.)

He was openly  conservative in a America where both parties were more conservative then liberal, being against reform of railroads, coal and most importantly oil companies. He backed conservative Republicans such as Taft and Harding for President. And in an era of cynicism he was forthright in his flaws. He actually boasted of his love of prostitutes because he didn't believe in the hypocrisy of his married counterparts who claimed not to frequent them

Indeed his forthrightness about his corruption almost makes him admirable. And it's that I want to talk about. Once asked about his political positions he would say:

I am often asked who I work for. The people or the special interests. To this I will always say: the special interests. They remember. The people forget.

That's the kind of straight talk that we always ask from our elected officials but almost never get. And I have to say it impresses me that Penrose was willing to say in print what so many elected officials must have wanted to but never did. I suspect Penrose said these words decades before Churchill would say that the biggest argument against democracy is five minutes with the average voter and both men were arguing that if elected officials had to rely on the voters to keep them in power they'd never be able to hold on to it for long.

Now the liberal Democrat: Hubert Humphrey. If you're a long-time reader of this column or know anything about American history you know that Humphrey was for twenty years was considered the gold standard for the liberal cause in America, for better and for worse. I'd like to tell you a story that a friend of his told the first time he won reelection to the Senate.

Humphrey ran for reelection in 1954 during Eisenhower's first term.  At this point in American politics there were fewer wave elections in Congress or the Senate and it was true in 1954. Humphrey had manage to get elected to the Senate in 1948 but at the time Minnesota was still a relatively conservative state and no Democrat had ever won reelection. So Humphrey had to do a lot of work in order to manage what was effectively a landslide over the Republican winning by fourteen points.

Now a friend went to see him within a month of his election. Humphrey chatted with him for less then two minutes before an aide came in and told him he needed to take an urgent meeting with someone back home. His friend was somewhat irked. Hubert said: "I have to do this to make sure I'm reelected." "But you just won reelection," his friend wailed. "I know," Hubert said "and I'm off and running again."

Penrose in his cynical way and Humphrey in a more charming way were both saying the same thing about the voters: you have to keep them on your side because they have an incredibly short memory. This was just as true in an era before cable news and the internet – hell before most Americans had a television in their homes – as it was in an era before air travel and air-conditioning, two factors that Howard Baker would later argue were critical for changing the way Congress acted forever.

And I need to be very clear it has always been trickier to do this if you were a liberal then a conservative because just as 80 years ago as today, the special interests had no more respect for them then they do now.  That was true for Humphrey. Six years later he was facing a tough reelection battle in the Senate and he spent much of 1959 decided if he was going to run for President. That campaign collapsed to JFK in May and he then had to spend the next six months trying to save his seat. He managed to do it, by the way – this time by a bigger margin over the Republican – but it was a harder battle then the margin looks and he had to spend a lot of time making sure the people of Minnesota knew that Humphrey had their interests at heart.

This was true of many liberals of Humphrey's era particularly in many Midwest states and western states. It was certainly true of Frank Church in Idaho, Birch Bayh in Indiana, George McGovern of South Dakota and Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin. As the conservative revolution began in the 1960s and into the 1970s it was increasingly hard for these very liberal Senators to keep winning reelection. They were doing immense good for America but as time went on the voters of their states increasingly forgot what they did and they would end up going to right, perhaps as much because of their own short memories as well as the help of the special interests.

Now those of you who want to blame their eventual defeats on corporations will have a difficult time doing so: during the 1970s and early 1980s when most of these Democrats lost reelection Buckley v. Valeo was in full force and campaign finance laws were at their height for both parties. And that actually brings me to that third Senator who some of you might remember with fondness.

Russ Feingold was elected to the Senate in 1992 from Wisconsin. Feingold may have been the most liberal Senator in Congress during his tenure, frequently going to the left of his own party. He was a major opponent of NAFTA and free trade agreements and was one of only nine Senators to vote against creating the Department of Homeland Security. He voted against his own President multiple times, most notably voting against Timothy Geitner to be Secretary of the Treasury. And he was also one of two Democrats to vote against the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill, saying it didn't go far enough.

He is best known for his work with John McCain for passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known as McCain Feingold. It took seven years to pass because of immense opposition from both parties.

(I should mention that despite being in favor of imposing spending caps in the past, he refrained from doing so on himself during his 2004 run for reelection. He would frequently assert during that run that he was being outspent by his opponents in every election which would eventually be ranked as 'pants on fire' by Politifact.com.)

The 2010 election witness the birth of the Tea Party and while the results in the Senate weren't quite as devastating as in the House the Republicans did win six Senate seats. In 2008 Obama had carried Wisconsin by more than 10 points.

Feingold would run on his record. He ran on his independence, on his belief in campaign finance (by this point the Citizen United decision had come into effect) and where as most Democrats were running away from their votes for Obamacare, Feingold was proud of it.

His opponent was Ron Johnson, a Tea Party movement favorite who was also a millionaire manufacturer who couldn't have more been endorsed by the special interests. And in November Johnson won by nearly five percent over Feingold.

Feingold had done everything he could for the people of America and the special interests remembered that. And the people of Wisconsin sent a message. To drive the message home in 2015 Feingold ran against Johnson to try and regain his Senate seat. He was backed by every liberal organization in the country and by May of 2016 Bernie Sanders  - who was by this point the heir to the positions Feingold had battled for – endorsed him and fundraised for him. Most polls in fact showed Feingold leading in that state and considering Johnson's problems in the senate, most Republicans thought he was vulnerable.

It didn't matter. Johnson won by roughly the same margin he had in 2010 and actually ran nearly 75,000 votes ahead of Trump in his landmark upset victory. Feingold actually got 2000 votes less then Hilary did in that state. Regardless of what might have happened in the Presidential election the voters couldn't have made it more clear. The people of Wisconsin had completely forgotten of all the good things Feingold had done for them and they were fine with Ron Johnson.

Feingold, very much like Bernie Sanders, spent his career railing against the evils of the special interest that had corrupted America. And while he had that right to do so he forgot that specific lesson that Boies Penrose had said a nearly in a century before. The special interests remember and the people forget.

What lessons do I as a historian take from this?

First of all the special interests will never disappear from America. Whether they own plantations in the antebellum south, control big steel or big oil during the Gilded Age, control car companies or Hollywood, all the way to the tech billionaires that the left currently gnashes its teeth over, you will never be able to rid America of the special interests. Penrose was aware of that fact at the start of the twentieth century; I'm uncertain whether AOC and Bernie are aware of it today.

They can be restrained – slightly – with legislation or executive action but that will at best hamper them only temporarily. That's the feature of being wealthy, not a bug.  In a democracy you can never destroy one part of the American experiment completely, it only shifts to another position. That is naturally with the forward movement of this country.

Those who try to do so are noble and should be approved of for their efforts. I admire the work of Humphrey and his fellow liberals in the 1950s and 1960s for the fights they did today. But throughout their careers they also knew that their ability to do so was only dependent on the voters of their states. The special interests could raise opponents to beat them, so they had to constantly go back to the people and fight for power to keep doing it. They understood this was a battle that never ended but just shifted. The special interests do have an advantage but if you can mobilize the people you have the power to stop them.

And as Russ Feingold found out the hard way there is always a cost to going against the special interests at the expense of the system and your own party. Fighting the system is noble but you have the system on your side to hold power. And the special interests have a long memory while the people forget very quickly and are far less liberal then men like he and Bernie tend to believe they are.  Feingold misjudged the mood of the voters of Wisconsin both in 2010 and 2016 and both the Senate – and arguably America – are weaker for it.

You can't beat the special interests forever and while I'm not saying you necessarily have to join them, you have to accept they are always going to be there and they will never forget their enemies. Which means you better be doing everything in your power to keep the people on your side. They are quick to forget so those who hold office have to keep reminding them, not just for their own good and the good of the country but because that's how the system has worked and always will.

Try not to forget that.