This is Jeopardy - Failures of The Superchampions, Part 4: Why It Took Until 2017 To Have The Next Tournament of Champions And The Rise of Two 12-Game Winners

 

Even a long time fan of Jeopardy like myself can forget its recent history such as that there was no Tournament of Champions in 2016.

There was an obvious reason for that: Jeopardy requires champions in order to have a Tournament. And between November of 2015 and April of 2016, there were none.

That is only a slight exaggeration and yet understates it. One almost wonders if Matt Jackson had placed some kind of whammy on Jeopardy when he didn’t win the Tournament of Champions. Because after Matt’s defeat the show went one of its longest stretches in its history without a single player qualifying for the Tournament. Sort of.

There were quite a few three game winners during that period and indeed three players during this period won four games. Fred Vaughn, who won $65,700 in late January; Tim Kutz, who won an impressive $107,000 dollars in late February and Todd Giese who won four games in the last week of March and just over $82,403. But for whatever reason, none of them nor anyone else could manage to make it as far as five games. During this same period Sam Deutsch managed to win the College Championship.

That said for the majority of the 2015-2016 season, no one seemed capable of winning five games on Jeopardy.

And then all of sudden everybody seemed capable of doing it. Two weeks after Todd Giese lost after winning four games Andrew Pau first appeared on Jeopardy and had the best run of any player since Matt Jackson. He won 6 games in a row and $170,202 during them. His place in Jeopardy lore has been forgotten because of the player who defeated him when he was trying for win number seven.

For reasons that are inexplicable to me, there is a group of Jeopardy fans who consider Buzzy Cohen ‘polarizing’. Perhaps it was because in his later games he didn’t take Final Jeopardy seriously and seemed to be taunting Alex Trebek doing so. Just as with those who loathed Arthur Chu during his original run I found this inexplicable. All I cared about was how well he played the game and Buzzy played it very well. He doesn’t quite fit the level of super-champion as he won ‘just’ nine games but as someone who had to come from behind as often as he ran away with victories that doesn’t make him any less impressive.

Like Arthur there was a considerable gap between appearances: after his fifth victory he had to wait three weeks for his next appearance as first the 2016 Teachers Tournament took place (it was eventually won by Jason Sterlacci, a sixth grade English Teacher) and what would be the mercifully last Power Players Week a celebrity tournament fundamentally featuring political figures whose play made every single player in SNL’s Jeopardy parodies all look like Ken Jennings by comparison. (By this point I had stopped watching these kinds of tournaments altogether.) When play resumed at the final week in May Buzzy kept on going until that Friday when he lost to Erin Delaney. He finished with $164,603 and nine wins all of which would have been the best for many Jeopardy tournaments – but would quickly be outshone.

Before the season came to an end two more players had won six games: Hunter Appier, who his run began three weeks after Buzzy’s ended and netted him $145,603 by its end and Pranjal Vachaspati, who brought to the season to a fitting conclusion winning $137,088 before his run ended the final week of the season. Still it was pretty obvious that there could be no Tournament of Champions in 2016 and perhaps not until the end of the following season.

We had to wait a full two weeks into the 2015-2016 season to get our first super-champion. We had to wait exactly one week into the 2016-2017 season for one to arrive.

Seth Wilson was a Ph.D. candidate from Chicago when he first appeared on Jeopardy to challenge Siddharth Harihan, who’d already won two games and $28,135. While he got off to a fast start in the Jeopardy round – he had $10,400 at the end of it, in Double Jeopardy it was the other challenger Dorcas Alexander who dominated and at the end of round was leading $16,800 to Seth’s $14,900 and Siddharth’s $7000.

Then came Final Jeopardy. The category was AUTHORS. “In 1948 he wrote he had an idea for a novel in which 2 guys hitchhike to California ‘in search of something they don’t really find.” Siddharth and Seth each knew the correct answer: “Who is Kerouac?” Seth wagered everything. Dorcas, however, thought it was Steinbeck. Seth Wilson had won his first game. He would win a lot more.

Seth was not as dominant a player as Matt Jackson or Arthur Chu had been in their runs: he had to earn the lion’s share of his victories: only four of his twelve wins were runaway victories and a lot of his wins were based on the fact that his opponents found the Daily Doubles ahead of him but by and large they didn’t work out.

That didn’t change the fact that Seth was very, very good when it counted. And as a result he quietly managed to win a lot. Before his fifth game he’d crossed the $100,000 threshold and on his ninth game he’d crossed the $200,000 threshold. When he won his tenth game – only the sixth player in Jeopardy history to win that may – he’d won $231,801 which at that point was the sixth highest total in earnings any player had managed in their regular run. Two days later he passed Arthur Chu for fifth place in games won with 12 and he’d managed to win $265,002. He did so with a big grin on his face and a cheerful manner throughout. He was actually leading going into his thirteenth game and responded correctly on Final Jeopardy – but a rare conservative wager worked against him and he was unseated by Margie Eulner Ott. (As is often the case, Margie lost the following day.)

It was one of the most impressive runs in Jeopardy history – and yet Seth became something that happens very rarely to super champions. By the time of his 2017 Tournament of Champions appearance he had been completely eclipsed in the imagination of the public, and perhaps even Jeopardy fans.

There were outside factors, none really having anything to do with the election that year. The biggest one was the fact that the show realized it was going to have to wait until the following November (by and large the starting period for most TOC’s) to begin play. A lot could happen in a year and indeed quite a bit did.

For one thing in December of 2016 Jeopardy back-to-back multi-champions. On December 2^nd Tim Aten began a run of seven wins and $107,499. He would be defeated by Cindy Stowell who would win six games and $103,803. Cindy’s appearance was overshadowed by tragedy. She had suffered from Stage IV cancer and had been giving only months to live. In fact she never lived to see her championship run, dying on December 5^th, a full eight days before her episodes aired. (I will write on her run in a later series.)

After Cindy’s defeat on December 22^nd there followed the remainder of the 2016-2017 season was one of the oddest in Jeopardy history: many three game winners and only a handful of players who won exactly five games: both of them coming in the final month of the season: Jon Eisenman and Justin Vossler, each of won around $100,000 apiece. There were also two six game winners: Lisa Schlitt and Alan Lin as well as the 2017 College and Teachers Tournament Winners.

When the 2016-17 season was over Jeopardy had fourteen players who were eligible for the tournament by the standard of either the five game guarantee and the winners of the special Tournaments. Had Cindy Stowell been alive they would have had enough eligible players. The question was who got that last spot. There were five players who’d won four games since the previous Tournament of Champions in November 2015. This was unprecedented territory for the show: how did they determine who was eligible based on those standards?

I have no idea the kind of thinking that was going on with the producers behind the scenes during the off-season between Seasons 33 and 34. How they would handle it will remain a mystery – because two weeks into the new season, a new player arose that would become yet another super-champion who rose above Jeopardy itself.

Matt Jackson had become a media favorite in his original run as much because of his expressiveness in winning as his dominance as a champion. Austin Rogers managed to one-up Matt in that respect because of his similar behavior: the rapid gesticulations and gestures he did behind the podium when Johnny was introducing him. That behavior, which led him to being named one of the great viral sensations of 2017, at times overshadowed his superlative nature as a Jeopardy player.

And from the start of his run to the end he was one of the most dominant super-champions of all time. He won $36,000 in his first runaway victory which would turn out to be a light game going forward. By his fourth appearance he’d won $123,100, well ahead of any other player save Ken Jennings – and not that far behind him. On the day he officially clinched his spot in the Tournament of Champions he won $65,600 – and the very next day won $69,000.

To that point in Jeopardy history no one – not even Ken Jennings – had won that much money in back-to-back appearances. After six wins he had won more money than anyone in Jeopardy history – even Ken Jennings – had won in their first six games with $257,700. No one other that James Holzhauer has won more than that much money in their first six games since; not even Amy Schneider or Matt Amodio were anywhere near that amount.

One could call his performance behind the lectern somewhat downhill afterwards considering he ‘merely’ averaged about $25,000 a win for his next six games. Four of those games, it should be mentioned were runaways and two of them were much closer than the majority of his games. And it’s not like he – or the audience – wasn’t having a lot of fun watching him dazzle us with his superb play and gestures even though the former was letting us enjoy the latter.

But eventually Austin’s luck ran out in the form of Scarlett Simms. Scarlett got off to a faster start then him in the Jeopardy round and eventually built a lead that two correct responses on Daily Doubles could not overcome. In this case he made five mistakes along with 21 correct responses where as Scarlett only made one mistake and gave 25 correct responses. She finished with $21,200 at the end of Double Jeopardy to his $16,600. But super-champs to that point he made Scarlett work for her win.

The Final Jeopardy category was MOVIE HISTORY. “A 1947 FBI chided this holiday film’s ‘attempt to discredit bankers…a common trick used by Communists.” Austin knew the correct response: “What is It’s a Wonderful Life?” He wagered almost everything, putting him in the lead with $33,150. Scarlett however also knew the correct response and her wager of $12,001, gave her $33,001 and unseated Austin after 12 wins and $411,000.

He was now tied for fifth in most games won and money won. The difference was that in 12 games Austin had won nearly as much as Matt Jackson had won in thirteen and was very close to Julia Collins and David Madden had in 20 and 19. He’d averaged just over $34,000 a win in each of his victories, which at that point was more dominant then any super-champion in the show’s history. He didn’t have to look like he was having fun; this ‘humble New York bartender’ was clearly having fun. The fact that he had more than enough money to quit his day job and chose to keep at it made viewers like myself love him all the more.

It was less than a month before the Tournament of Champions took place but while Austin was clearly a heavy favorite (fan as much as anything) it was difficult to look at the line-up and say he had a clear advantage. Considering that there were far more six game winners competing in this tournament then five game winners and that every single competitor in this tournament had already won at least $100,000 to argue that players like Austin or Seth had an advantage because they’d won so many games would seem to be hubris. This was, if anything, a stronger field than the 2014 Tournament of Champions which had two super-champions in it. Austin was the first to learn this.

In his quarterfinal match he faced off against David Clemmons, the winner of the 2017 Teachers Tournament and Alan Lin, who’d won six games. Almost from the start of the match Alan was the dominant player and Austin was struggling throughout. At the end of the Jeopardy round Alan had a huge lead with $8800 while Austin was in a distant second with $600.

Austin got a chance to make his move early in Double Jeopardy when he found the first Daily Double in BOATS & SHIPS. Still in a distant second he wagered the $3400 he had. It didn’t go well:

“A pirogue is one type of this, a canoe made from one log.” Austin fumbled before guessing: “What is a kayak?” It was actually a dugout canoe. He did his best to regroup but the damage was done: Alan ran away with the game and had $19,605. Austin had just $8000. Austin’s only hope for getting to the semi-final was through the wild card.

The category was 19^th CENTURY POETS: “In 1824 he was refused burial in Westminster Abbey for ‘questionable morality’, in 1969 he got a memorial stone there.” Austin knew the correct response: “Who was Lord Byron?” He wagered everything, giving him $16,000. Now all he could do was wait.

Seth Wilson’s turn came the next day. He was up against Lisa Schlitt, who’d also won 6 games and Sam Deutsch, the winner of the 2016 College Championship. This match was far closer then Austin’s. Lisa moved out to a big lead thanks to responding correctly in the Daily Double in the Jeopardy round and finished it with $9200. But Seth was not out of the tunning with $5600 and Sam was not far off with $4400.

Lisa managed to add to her lead when she got to the first Daily Double but Austin was close with $8000 when he found the other Daily Double in WHERE & WHEN? “The Constitution gets its first state ratification: State, year.” He got the state right – Delaware – but thought the year was 1788 instead of 1787. It cost him $2500 and dropped him into third. He was still there at the end of Double Jeopardy but it was far from a distant third: He had $9900 to Sam’s $12,400 and Lisa’s $14,400.

The Final Jeopardy category was THE GREAT DEPRESSION: “A street-corner occupation that saved many in the Depression was aided by a 1930 tops-in-the-U.S. crop in this state.” Only Lisa knew the correct state: “What is Washington?” (As Alex said: “They had a bumper crop of apples that year.” Seth thought of a farm state but it was Iowa and he lost $4501 to dropped him to $5399. Viewers at home (but not Seth) knew that whatever hope he had of a wild-card spot was gone. Austin’s, however, would be more than high enough to qualify for the semi-finals.

Austin’s semi-final opponents were 2017 College Champion (and self-proclaimed spiciest meme-lord) Lilly Chin and Andrew Pau, who’d won more money in his six games then Buzzy Cohen had in 9.  Austin had his hands full.

Both he and Andrew fought it out the entire Jeopardy round for the lead with Lilly making some major gains in the second half.  Austin had a narrow lead when the end of round buzzer rang with $6800 to Andrew’s $6000 and Lilly’s $4600.

Andrew got off to a rocket like start in Double Jeopardy getting the first five clues correct and finding the first Daily Double in WORLD PLACE NAMES on the sixth clue of the round. At that point he already had $13,600, twice Austin’s total. Perhaps wanting to try and put the game away early he bet $8000 and it backfired. He dropped to $5600.

Double Jeopardy became a war of attrition, coming down to who made the fewest mistakes. In that sense Austin did the best, only giving one incorrect response to 18 correct answers. Andrew gave 16 and gave two incorrect ones and Lilly gave thirteen correct responses but gave four incorrect ones. In both cases it was the incorrect Daily Doubles that decided the game. Austin finished Double Jeopardy with $9200 to Andrew’s $7200 and Lilly’s $6800.

The Final Jeopardy category in this wafer-thin close match was VICE PRESIDENTS. “A biography of this 19^th century VP traces his family to a German town made famous in a folk tale about children.” Austn knew the correct response: “Who is Hannibal Hamlin?” (Lincoln’s first vice President, whose name was descended from Hamelin, the town of the Pied Piper.) This response would be decisive in his qualifying for the finals.

The 2017 Tournament of Champions Finals is known for the inveterate clowning of Austin, Alan Lin and Buzzy Cohen which Alex noted: “I’m dealing with three monkeys here.”  Lost under the antics was the brilliance of the three champions who had already combined to win 27 games and just under $700,000. The fact that Alan had already faced Austin and soundly thrashed him added a competitiveness to these finals that one rarely sees. And it also continued the tradition of having two of the hardest Final Jeopardys possible which stumped all three champions, myself and no doubt countless viewers at home.

In the Jeopardy round of Game 1 Austin took an early lead and managed to hold it throughout. He finished with $4800 to Buzzy’s $3000 and Alan’s $2400.

Austin held his lead for awhile in Double Jeopardy and then went to the category TRIPLE RHYME TIME. After no one got the $400 clue, he said: “This is going to be terrible.” Naturally the first Daily Double was in the very next clue in that category. Nevertheless he wagered $2800:

“A happy 10K for women in habits.”

Austin: Okay, I’m gonna put it in the right…What is a nun fun run, ooh, a fun run…oh, God. What is a nun fun run?

Alex ended his suffering. “All three were acceptable.” Austin went up to $9600. He maintained his lead for awhile but then he found the other Daily Double in PLACE ‘MAT’S. At the time he had $12,800 and wagered $4800.

“Olive you should know that this capital of the Greek department of Messenia is a major fruit market.”

Austin said: Marco Polo, I have no idea.

After Alex revealed it was Kalamata he added: “Olive’ at the beginning of the clue was a very important part.

Austin was honest. “I understand it. I just didn’t get it.

After that Alan went on a tear to take the lead and finished Double Jeopardy with $14,400 to Austin’s $10,000. Buzzy had struggled throughout the game and had only $4200.

The Final Jeopardy category was INVENTIONS. “When Time Magazine named it Invention of the Year in 2007, it was described as too slow, too big, pretty & touchy feely.”

No one gave the correct answer though Austin came the closest – and then backed away from it. He wrote down: “What is the iPhone?” crossed it out and wrote down “iPad” instead.” As Alex pointed out, he should’ve stuck with his first choice because it was the iPhone. Alan wrote down the iPad as well and Buzzy wrote down the Tesla model S. I’m note sure what I thought it was: I think I was torn between both of Austin’s guesses.

Austin ended up wagering the least of all three players. He lost $3500. Buzzy bet the $4200 he had and Alan lost $5600. At the end of Day  Alan was in the lead with $8800 to Austin’s $6500 and while Buzzy had nothing, if he played well in Game 2 he had more than a fighting chance.

In the Jeopardy round of Game 2 Austin got off to a fast start when he found the Daily Double in the MUSIC GROUPS DEFINED. He bet the $1800 he had: “On a standard piano, there are 36 of these, sharps & flats.” Austin knew they were the Black Keys and doubled his score. Alan narrowed the gap however and he and Austin spent the rest of the round fighting for the lead. When the end of round buzzer rang Austin still had it $6200 to Alan’s $5600 while Buzzy had $2800.

Austin held his lead for a little while in Double Jeopardy but then Buzzy and Alan began to take command. When Buzzy found one of the Daily Doubles early in the round, he had $10,800. Knowing the ground he needed to make up he bet everything and it worked out for him. Alan got to the other Daily Double later in the round, bet the $10,400 he had – and it didn’t go his way.

When the end of round buzzer range, Buzzy had $25,600 in front of him. Alan had only $1200 and had no chance of anything other than second place. However Austin had $10,200 and was still alive. If he got Final Jeopardy right and wagered enough and Buzzy was incorrect, he would win the Tournament of Champions.

The Final Jeopardy category sounded deceptively easy: STATE CAPITALS. It may have been the most difficult deciding Final Jeopardy in a TOC for a very long time.

“A state capital since 1805, its name begins with the last four letters of the state’s name.” No one could come close to a guess, though Austin made an effort when he wrote down: “What is Indianapolis?” That cost him $10,000. The correct response was Montpelier, the capital of Vermont. Buzzy didn’t take it seriously and lost $1301. As a result he won the Tournament of Champions and a quarter of a million dollars. By risking everything Austin had a combined total of $6700, which ended with him in third place and $50,000.

The next article will be a brief interlude in which I state my personal reflections on the super-champions just prior to the rise of James Holzhauer.

 

My Predictions for the 2025 Golden Globe TV Awards

 

 

I need to be clear that I will be watching Sunday night’s Golden Globes for the same reason I’ve been watching every awards show related to TV in my adult life. I’ve seen the nominated series, I have my favorites about the nominated actors, and I will be graded it based on my reactions to who wins and the nature of the speeches. If Nikki Glaser happens to be a scintillating host and the show is entertaining, that’s an unanticipated bonus. My expectations for this ceremony are essentially the ones that I’ve come to expect from every awards show. And that is, to paraphrase Johnny Carson “two hours of sparkling entertainment spread out over a four hour show.”

I remain baffled by anyone in the world – including and especially my fellow TV critics – who watch these kinds of ceremonies expecting anything else. I’m incongruous when it comes to those who decide to watch these shows even though they’ve seen none of the nominated films or movies. If you’re that starved for entertainment, there are now hundreds of options.  There will be at least one Law & Order marathon somewhere. AMC and Showtime at least will be showing original programming. There will probably be at least one football game going on somewhere. Any of these are more guaranteed to be entertaining than the Golden Globes will probably be.

And to my fellow critics who for some reason keep reviewing all of these awards shows as if they are supposed to be as delightful and streamlined as the series nominated – why? It’s an awards show. Even the best of them have stilted dialogue, routines that don’t land and are self-congratulatory from beginning to end. You’d be more likely to have fun watching or competing in Squid Game then to have it flow smoothly. At this point in my life I’m astounding anyway watching any awards show expecting anything but that. This isn’t a concert or live theater; it’s not even The Brutalist. It’s a bunch of rich and famous people getting awards and pretending to be surprised and humble when they get them. I love the work they do but I don’t expect more than that and I’m still stunned that so many intelligent people do.

I care who wins these awards. That’s why I’m watching. If you don’t, don’t watch. If you do watch, don’t expect it to be anything but an awards show. Simple as that.

And now with the lecture being over, let me get to the fun part and if I’ve sounded a bit stodgy I need to be clear that when it comes to television I have always found the Golden Globes rewarding even despite all of the behind the scenes chaos that has been going on the last few years. This has always been true of television during the 21^st century and it is just as true with the nominated series and actors this past year.

Here are my predictions for every category divided between what should win and what will win.

 

BEST DRAMA

This is an easy one as I suspect most of the awards in Drama will be because no one is questioning which one of these series will dominate. Shogun managed to win eighteen Emmys last fall and I fully expect it to have a similar level of domination that is keeping with the pattern of Succession last year. Much as I admire the quality of the other nominees in this category, Shogun will reign supreme.

Should Win/Will Win: Shogun

 

BEST PERFORMANCE BY A MALE ACTOR IN A DRAMA

I will admit this is tougher competition. I’ve seen the work of Eddie Redmayne in The Day of The Jackal as well as Jake Gyllenhaal in Presumed Innocent. Gary Oldman remains superb in the fourth season of Slow Horses. All of them will be formidable contenders and if I had my way, I’d like to see Redmayne win for his work here.

But I suspect this will be an easy win to predict as much as TV Drama. Hiroyuki Sanada’s work in Shogun was a masterclass from beginning to end and without him this incredible vision could be not realized. Sanada will win easily.

Should Win: Redmayne.

Will Win: Sanada.

 

BEST PERFORMANCE BY A FEMALE ACTOR IN A DRAMA

Keri Russell can’t catch a break, at least not yet. I suspect under normal circumstances she would be the front-runner in this category for Season 2 of The Diplomat. And even in a strong field including Kathy Bates and Emma D’Arcy, she’d normally win.

But Anna Sawai has given one of the great performances in all of 2024 and everyone who watched her work as Mariko is in awe of it. I wonder if she’ll recite a haiku when she wins.

Should Win/Will Win: Sawai.

 

OUTSTANDING COMEDY SERIES

The easy answer would be The Bear, which is the most nominated series here. But there has been backlash against the show both at the Emmys and at Season 3 in particular. For that reason I’m inclined to think that the Golden Globes will go out of their way to honor a series that no one questions in a comedy.

And in this case this means giving it to the same series that the Emmys did, which is Hacks. The series is overdue to win here; it won awards in 2022 when it wasn’t televised and went home empty handed, albeit to the brilliant Abbott Elementary. As formidable as the competition is, I expect Hacks to eke it out.

Should Win/Will Win: Hacks (but they’re all good choices.)

 

OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY A MALE ACTOR IN A COMEDY

Jeremy Allan White has won back to back Golden Globes -actually back to back everything for the last two seasons. He might very well pull it out for a third straight year but since the last actor in any series, drama or comedy; to do so was Sarah Jessica Parker back in the late 1990s, I actually think the Globes will share the wealth.

But to who? Ted Danson is being given the Carol Burnett Award for a lifetime in television and it’s been awhile since he won anything in competition. Steve Martin and Martin Short still have yet to win anything for Only Murders in the Building. Jason Segel hasn’t won anything at all from an awards show and Adam Brody has been revolutionary in Nobody Wants This.

For the moment my personal preference (if I had one) would be Brody for his work as the hot rabbi. But I actually think it is more likely to go to Jason Segel for Shrinking. There are no bad choices here, even White, though.

Should Win: Brody.

Will Win: Segel (?)

 

OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY A FEMALE ACTOR IN A COMEDY

This is a formidable lineup no question. One could make a convincing argument – and I certainly can – for any of the six nominees. But in truth this one is no contest.

Jean Smart is both the sentimental and critical favorite for her brilliant work in Hacks. She has won every single award for this role save The Golden Globes at this point. Like the character she has played brilliantly for three seasons, it’s her time.

Should Win/Will Win: Smart.

 

OUTSTANDING LIMITED SERIES

This is a formidable group of nominated series with a valid argument for all six. That said, I think it will come down to one of two. Last year’s sensation Baby Reindeer and this year’s crossover critical darling The Penguin.

Both have much to recommend them and it isn’t clear which way the Golden Globes will go: will they honor a series of the previous season (which they did last year with Beef) or of the one to come which has been their pattern more often this decade in 2023 with The White Lotus (they were the only awards show that got it right on that score, for the record). It’s a tough call but I do think given the phenomena that The Penguin is will be just enough to push it over the top.

Should Win: Baby Reindeer/The Penguin

Will Win: The Penguin.

 

OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY A MALE ACTOR IN A LIMITED SERIES

This is tougher for me by far. Much as I’d love to see either Ewan McGregor or Andrew Scott prevail, I think again this will come down to either of the leads of the major contenders: Colin Farrell for The Penguin or Richard Gadd for Baby Reindeer.

This is a very tough call as both of these series were in my top five and I can make a convincing argument for either actor. I’m going to give the barest of edges to Gadd however, mainly because he can’t be honored  for writing as he was at the Emmys. Throw in that Farrell has won twice at the Golden Globes for his work in movies and I suspect the Globes will honor new blood.

Should Win: McGregor/Scott.

Will Win: Gadd.

 

OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY A FEMALE ACTOR IN A LIMITED SERIES

Even given the immense caliber of the talent by the nominees (save for Kate Winslet) there is no question in my mind who deserves to win and who almost certainly will. As extraordinary as Jodie Foster was in Night Country, this one belongs to Kristin Milioti for her star-making work as Sofia Falcone in The Penguin. When you give a performance that steals the extraordinary work of Colin Farrell right out from under him to give one of the greatest performances of the year – right up there with Anna Sawai – then awards are in your future. I suspect Milioti will be giving many speeches in the weeks and months to come. I think it’s going to start here – though to be clear if Naomi Watts or Jodie Foster win, I won’t be that unhappy.

Should Win/Will Win: Milioti.

 

OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY  A MALE ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE ON TELEVISION

I could see Ebon Moss-Bachrach winning and I would be fine with Jack Lowden prevailing for Slow Horses. But my heart and I suspect the Golden Globes will be with Harrison Ford for his incredible work as Paul on Shrinking. I’ll admit it’s a bit of a stretch but it is a masterclass and he deserves it.

Should Win: Lowden.

Will Win: Ford.

 

OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY A FEMALE ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE ON TELEVISION

This is by far the toughest category of the entire night. Jessica Gunning and Maria Colon-Zayas both won Emmys and Gunning’s performance is the more revelatory. I have my preferences for Dakota Fanning and I think its beyond time Alison Janney won something here again.

My overwhelming preference is for Hannah Einbinder, mainly because she is beyond overdue and absolutely should have won at the Emmys not because The Bear isn’t a comedy but because she deserved it. I think it will come down to Gunning or Einbinder and I will give the barest of edges to Gunning.

Should Win: Gunning/Einbinder.

Will Win: Einbinder.

 

(Speaking of which Golden Globes, we’ve talked about this before. Start separating supporting awards into different categories. Start with one group for comedy and drama and another for limited series and anthologies. Considering you’ve gone back to giving the Carol  Burnett Award, I suspect you can see the wisdom of the old regime. That was one of the better rule changes they made and next year follow up.)

 

I’ll be back on Monday to give my reactions to the awards and the speeches. Again that’s what I care about. That said, Nikki Glaser, I have faith in you. Try not to burn the place down.

 

 

Did The 26th Amendment Fail, Part 3: The Myths of 1968 and The Role The Student Left Played in Nixon's Election

 A large part of the reason for McGovern’s political motivations to run in 1972 very well may have been based in guilt. In the middle of 1967 Allard Lowenstein had come to run in the New Hampshire primary  with the intention of influencing the federal government – then controlled by the Democrats – to curtail its involvement in the Vietnam War. Lowenstein’s movement was titled Vietnam War Dump Johnson movement which shows just how civilly they considered the government.

McGovern already had a reputation of being against the war and demonstrating the leftist values the students would appreciate, making his first major address against the war in January of 1964. But the problem was he was running for reelection that year in a heavily Republican state. Indeed he’d only managed to win election the first time by a margin of 597 votes. And he knew that what was presumed to be a quixotic campaign for the Democratic nomination could only hurt his chances for reelection in his state and hurt his chance to lead the movement in the Senate. So for one of the few times in his political life McGovern chose pragmatism over idealism. Lowenstein then chose Eugene McCarthy who wasn’t running for reelection that year.

McCarthy was, in hindsight, absolutely the perfect choice not because he was known for his strong anti-war position but because he was and always would be a gadfly known far more for his contempt for politics, government and indeed even the electorate. The only person he seemed to hold in high esteem in his political life was Eugene McCarthy and he did everything possible his entire life to make sure that person was happy. In that sense he was absolutely everything the student movement could have hoped for.

McCarthy, unlike George McGovern or so many other anti-war opponents, didn’t have a major part in leadership in the Senate, never had ambition for higher office (or much respect for the one he held) and basically held the liberal establishment he was a member of in contempt. McCarthy had been elected to the House the same year that Humphrey was elected to the Senate – 1948 – and was part of the wave of Minnesota Democrats that had a major influence in so much of the Civil Rights legislation and indeed liberal legislation of the 1950s and 1960s. Unlike his eventual superior in the Senate Humphrey (McCarthy would be elected to the Senate in 1958) or his future colleague Walter Mondale (who was named as Humphrey’s replacement when his mento ascended to the Vice Presidency) and indeed so many of his liberal colleagues McCarthy was just part of many great liberal senators but never pushing anything forward. The one major act of legislation he sponsored – the Immigration Act of 1965 – he later regretted and would later become a member of a board for immigration reform.

What McCarthy was famous for by 1968 was lofty rhetoric and his nasty humor towards his colleagues and basically being something of a flake. As Mondale would relate in his memoir: “(McCarthy) had great confidence in his talent…but also had a way of fading when it came to the heavy lifting.”

And his sense of humor was both condescending and went against the realities of the time. During a nationally televised debate with Wisconsin’s Joe McCarthy he famously parodied the Senator’s arguments to ‘prove’ Douglas MacArthur had been a Communist pawn. Eisenhower swept to a landslide in 1952 and Minnesota went Republican even as Eugene McCarthy won reelection. In 1960 when not even Adlai Stevenson was willing to agree to it, he spent much of the campaign advocating a draft for him at the convention, giving one of the most famous nominating speeches in history right around the same time Stevenson was deciding that he would not run. Even at the time he was convinced who he ideal Democratic nominee was – himself. “I’m twice as liberal as Hubert Humphrey, twice as intelligent as Stuart Symington and twice as Catholic as Jack Kennedy.” This did not endear him to his colleagues in the Senate and it didn’t make him popular when Kennedy won the election that fall.

Indeed part of the reason he even agreed to run was because of Wayne Morse opposition to the war when he had been one of only two Senators to vote against the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution. (Tellingly both Morse and Ernest Gruening, the other Senator, would lose reelection in 1968 in large part because of those votes.) Perhaps because Kennedy had been asked first and turned it down McCarthy got in fundamentally to have a dig at a man he basically despised.

McCarthy’s success in New Hampshire had more to do with outside events than his campaign. Had it not been for the Tet Offensive, which caused many Democrats to become dissatisfied with the war, McCarthy would not have done nearly as well as he did. Indeed his 42 percent showing opposed to LBJ’s 49 had little to do with many New Hampshire voters thinking the war was wrong rather than it was being badly fought. (Many voters surveyed later said that they favored escalation.)

There is no indication if the students even considered the consequences of their actions when they were getting clean for Gene. The thinking was that Lyndon Johnson was President; therefore he was responsible for Vietnam, therefore he had to be dropped. What happened after he agreed to step down – as he shockingly did on March 31^st  -  not just to the Democratic Party but how this would affect the Republicans or in fact the war, never seems to have been a consideration. That is particularly true considering that so many of the students were angry when Bobby Kennedy made the decision to run after McCarthy’s strong finish.

McCarthy himself should have been thinking that far ahead but there is no indication he did. Perhaps he was enjoying the attention of having Paul Newman explain why he campaigned for him, having Peter, Paul, and Mary write a record endorsing him. McCarthy’s actions throughout his campaign, both before and after Kennedy entered the race, demonstrates that his attitude was exactly the kind that the students would have appreciated: he berated his opponents and made sure that the people who voted for Kennedy were in fact dumber than him. When George Romney said he’d been ‘brainwashed’ about the Vietnam War McCarthy said, “a light rinse would have been sufficient in his case.” In Oregon he called Kennedy supporters less intelligent and belittled Indiana (which by then had gone for Kennedy) as being unworthy for having a touch of the poet ‘but not Shakespeare  but James Whitcomb Riley.”

And there’s an argument that so much of the Democratic troubles in 1968 were based on McCarthy’s ego more than anything else. Many of his early supporters had been loyalists to Kennedy and after Kennedy entered the race many joined his campaign. They urged McCarthy to drop out and endorse him, therefore giving the anti-war forces a candidate that they could unify behind in Chicago. But McCarthy thought Kennedy had let him do the dirty work and only entered when Johnson was vulnerable. That he was causing a fissure in the party that would likely cause the Republican nominee (likely Richard Nixon) to win in November was not McCarthy’s concern; he had taken the attitude “it is not enough for me to win, my opponent must also lose.” This kind of ‘all or nothing’  thinking was very much the argument of the student movement who could not vote in November of 1968. And it showed a spectacular level of ingratitude on the part of McCarthy when it came to Humphrey who had been as responsible for him winning elected office in the first place. This was an attitude of betrayal that we constantly find among so many leftists and it was true of McCarthy whose only interest was himself more than anything.

One of the myths of the Robert Kennedy campaign to the generation of the students was that he was their voice who they lost with his tragic assassination. That was not a universal feeling, certainly considering the reaction of one student who had campaigned for McCarthy who sends that “after New Hampshire it was Christmas morning. And then when Bobby got in, it was like someone had stolen all are presents.” Indeed while Kennedy was sensitive to the mood of the students, on more than one occasion on the campaign trail he chose to call them on their bullshit, arguing to their own selfishness.

Indeed as Theodore White reported Kennedy, unlike McCarthy, did have a platform and it was far more conservative then the students wanted. He wanted negotiation in Vietnam, but not surrender. He was for equality among all minorities – but not for them to have more authority then the working class voter. He wanted no exemptions in the draft laws rather than selective service – and he was as much for law-and-order as Nixon himself. Kennedy had a read on the reality of the nation something that irritated him when he was charged by being more conservative. He hadn’t changed, the country had and he was giving what his major constituencies wanted. Kennedy believed in listening to the voice of the people and he was concentrating on the present; the students who wanted Johnson gone believed only in an indistinct future.

There’s a belief that when Kennedy was assassinated, McCarthy lost the heart for the battle and basically abandoned the cause going forward. This belies the fact that while McCarthy suspended campaigning his aides said he spent much of the time essentially berating the recently departed, going so far as to argue that because of his views on Israel, Kennedy had all but been asking for a man like Sirhan Sirhan to shoot him.

The truth may be closer to Mondale’s interpretation: McCarthy had no desire for the heavy lifting. This is backed up by the fact that McCarthy made no effort in the lead-up to Chicago to do anything to unite the remainder of the Kennedy delegation into a unified force at Chicago. That is in large part why McGovern agreed to take up the mantle in the first place; the Kennedy delegates were tired of waiting for McCarthy to come to them. He met with Humphrey and admitted he should endorse him, knowing that he was the only person who could be Nixon. But he didn’t, not at the convention or indeed until very late in the campaign, and even then so tepidly that Mondale thought it may have done more harm then good. He certainly made no effort to make this clear to the demonstrators outside the convention at Chicago who thought McCarthy had been cheated of the nomination. He wouldn’t come up on the stage with Humphrey after he clinched the nomination there, Mondale would say later on that the left ‘knew they should support Humphrey over Nixon might well have been swayed by him. But he didn’t.” Indeed his biggest job during the fall was covering the World Series between Detroit and St. Louis for Sports Illustrated. And as a result, millions of people on the left chose to argue that when it came to  Humphrey – who had been fighting for liberal causes before many of his loudest opponents were born – ‘there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference’ between him and Nixon.

The reference to George Wallace’s famous 1968 campaign slogan is deliberate, not only because it illustrates the maddening commonalities between the left and the right-wingers they abhor but because it fundamentally ignores a major flaw in those who argue the election was stolen from Humphrey because of the Nixon campaign dirty tricks involving the Paris negotiations. That belies something the left have chosen to ignore: even if Humphrey could have turned the tide that year, the Democratic Party would still have faced what was a complete repudiation of the previous election.

In 1964 LBJ had won one of the biggest landslides in electoral history: carrying 61 percent of the popular vote and 44 of the 50 states plus DC for 486 electoral votes compared to Goldwater’s 52. Just four years later, Hubert Humphrey received less than 43 percent of the popular vote while his two opponents combined carried 57 percent of the popular vote. Combined Nixon and George Wallace carried 347 electoral votes to Humphrey’s 191. As White accurately reported this was the greatest repudiation of a political party since FDR’s landslide victory over Herbert Hoover in 1932 in which the greatest electoral victory in the history of the Democratic Party came as a complete reversal of Hoover’s landslide victory four years earlier which had been the greatest electoral victory in the history of the Republican Party. The Great Depression had caused the repudiation of the Republicans in 1932; the Vietnam War had caused the repudiation of LBJ in 1968.

The main reason the election was as close as it was had far less to do with the fractures on the left than those on the right. One can and should accuse Richard Nixon of many things  but the one thing he definitely had in the leadup to the 1968 was the common sense that the student movement dumping LBJ didn’t have. He was aware of the dissatisfaction of the war in Vietnam was growing but he was just as aware that many white working-class voters – already having issues with the Democrats after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – were just as upset by the activism these students were causing in protest. Those students mostly could not vote in 1968; the people who were opposed to it could and did – and overwhelmingly in 1968, they made it very clear they were just as upset by the dissent as the war causing it.

Richard Nixon will never be mistaken for a unifier and certainly no one in 1968 thought he was, but it was very clear that there was no one at the head of the Democratic Party willing to take up that role. Had Kennedy survived it is conceivable he could have done so but in his absence there was no grand unifying force,  certainly not one the students were willing to hear. And the leftist movement was in no mood to understand or care about the position Humphrey was in and he spent too much time trying to find a way forward.

For all the arguments the left has made in the years following about Nixon’s ‘Southern strategy’, basically one gets the feeling that even the most pragmatic of them have the attitude of “we’re better without them’. The fact that those people had been until 1964 among the most loyal Democrat voters for nearly a century is something revisionist historians choose to argue is inconsequential; the fact that there are still minorities in these states who even they admit need help is basically irrelevant to the left’s own politics of exclusion.

The fact that the Constitution grants suffrage to all Americans – especially people that the left disagrees with – is something they can’t seem to come to terms with. In their minds there was something beneath the dignity of Richard Nixon to court these voters by appealing to their worst instincts – which the left loves to point out are not those of the kinds of people the Democrats should never have had in the party in the first place. This goes to the lack of common sense we see among the left: as they seem to think it is fine for the Democratic Party to go without the combined 113 electoral votes from the southern states Wallace and Nixon combined carried. The fact that they make up nearly half the necessary votes to elect a President – and that without them the Democrats would start every election in a big hole – is absent from the discussion.

Similarly it could be argued that the rather than failing the antiestablishment campaign waged by the left succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. In 1964, more than 43 million people voted for Lyndon Johnson. In 1968, roughly 31.2 million people voted for Hubert Humphrey. How many of those twelve million votes were subsequently cast for Nixon and Wallace will never be known but considering that both men were campaigning on ‘law and order’ – which dealt as much with the student movement as the race riots -   there is  a strong argument as to the effect the demonstrations on campuses had on the electorate.

Despite this Humphrey nearly did beat Nixon in 1968 and there is a very good chance that it was the fact that far more people associated the riots with the Democrats than the Republicans. Statistical evidence suggests that around two percent of the electorate were driven to vote for Nixon rather than Humphrey for that very reason. When one adds to this fact held by many so called liberal people truly believed that it didn’t matter one way or the other if Humphrey or Nixon would make a difference and chose to sit the election out – many of them members of the liberal coalition themselves – Nixon owes his victory as much to that movement as anything else.

Because Nixon’s margin of the popular vote was 43.4 percent, by far the smallest percentage a winning candidate had received for the Presidency since Woodrow Wilson had in 1912. And he entered the White House as the first President since Zachary Taylor in 1848 to have neither house of Congress controlled by his party. The Republicans gained a grand total of five seats in the House and five in the Senate but the Democrats still maintained overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress.

It is also clear that while the electorate had little use for Humphrey as President, they were basically still fine with the liberal order. Ernest Gruening and Wayne Morse did lose reelection but many Democrats associated with the anti-war movement held their seats. These included not just McGovern, but Frank Church of Idaho who had also been approached by Lowenstein but turned him down and Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut, who had nominated McGovern in Chicago. Other members of the liberal order such as Birch Bayh held their seats and new members of the anti-Vietnam voices such as Thomas Eagleton of Missouri and Harold Hughes of Iowa were elected to the Senate. If the Democratic Party had unified behind Humphrey there is a strong argument he would have won. But the left saw him not as the upholder of the liberal order but LBJ’s vice president and never accepted him.

McGovern’s run four years later was flawed in many ways, not the least of which is that he had always felt the war in Vietnam was a moral wrong more than anything else. Four years the mood was about bringing the war to an end but what McGovern – as well as the students who had their faith in them – was that many of them were just as upset that its end was going to signify an American defeat. Even those who were not convinced of ‘the domino theory’  still believed that the cause was justifiable and that the North Vietnamese had managed to keep fighting because it was a matter of time before America lost ‘the will’ to keep up the battle. Some also pointed out that the students morality only involved American lives lost and didn’t care what would happen to the North Vietnamese the minute America left. Those voters looked at McGovern’s decision to withdraw the troops as soon as he took office as an act of surrender, something McGovern never bothered to deny.

When Nixon chose to campaign on the idea of ‘Peace With Honor’, once again he hit on something that the left has fundamentally had a lot more trouble grasping than the right has. From the abolitionist movement to the civil rights movement, there was always a fringe element who believed that America was essentially a failed state because of the sins of white supremacy and was unworthy of respect. The anti-war movement basically made that fringe element mainstream among the left and its never really gone away. The student movement in particular, when it chose to burn flags, throw blood on draft cards, scream names at police and occupy campuses, made it very clear that they had no use for any part of ‘the system’ and thought that anyone who believed in such concepts as honor and patriotism were basically suckers. The fact that they chose to spit on soldiers who came back from Vietnam shows that they seemed to care about those who died in Vietnam rather than those who survived it.

And during this period one of the pillars of the conservative movement was formed about patriotism. The left has never accepted that old slogan of “My country, right or wrong” and there is no indication that changed in the half-century since the end of Vietnam. This has been another large part of the politics of exclusion that the left has always been guilty of and since then has only calcified. The left has more or less spent the last half-century focusing on the flaws of America and that whatever strengths it has are not real strengths, what freedoms they have are not really freedoms. And they have become increasingly unwilling to accept anyone who does not believe in their vision and seem proud about who they drive away. In the aftermath of his stunning electoral loss George McGovern joked that he had opened the doors wide during his campaign "and twenty million Democrats walked out.” There are no doubt members of the left who at the time didn’t think this was a bad thing; the fact that many of them have never chosen to return is something they still don’t seem to mind.

In the next article I will deal with how the left reacted to Watergate and Richard Nixon’s resignation – and how it may have well played a role in the conservative revolution that began not long after

Constant Reader January 2025 YA: Running Mates by Emily Locker

 

Author’s Note: For reasons which will quickly become clear this article will require a more personal – and possibly polarizing – introduction than usual. Try to read all the way to the end.

Not long after last year’s election I read an article on Daily Kos (the leading progressive website that I have spent the last few weeks unsubscribing from for reasons that might become clear) in which a woman said that she had broken off relationships with her daughter when she learned she’d voted for Trump. She admitted she had no remaining living family and that the holidays would be difficult but she made it clear she felt no regret for doing so. I’ve lost count of how many similar articles I’ve read ever since 2016 (including this website) telling similar stories of how people who say because they are inclusive in their politics they feel an obligation to start excluding people they’ve known for decades – friends, family, even their parents – because of their political views.

I need to be clear on this even I though I’m sure it won’t matter to the loudest voices. I have voted in every single election since I was eligible to vote in 1998. All of them, not just presidential or federal but state and local. I take my responsibility as a voter very seriously. And a vast majority of the time  I have voted Democratic. I have done my homework on every candidate to try and know where they stand on most issues. And like the overwhelming majority of Americans I have been alarmed about the rise of Trumpism over the past decade.

I consider myself, by and large, a centrist though I am almost entirely in sympathy with progressives when it comes to social values. I spent much of Trump’s first term in a state of perpetual worry and while I’m not quite as panicked about his second I won’t pretend the results of November’s election didn’t concern me as well. But that doesn’t make me blind to the increasingly unpleasant and often bigoted tone that the left has taken during that same period and which I see no sign of abating any time soon.

I have no use for the idea of bigotry in any form. I believe that if someone you care for – even if they are your parents – chooses to disown you because of who you choose to love that there is something fundamentally wrong with them. But  make no mistake: if you are willing to disown someone because of who they voted for in an election or where they get their information, there is something fundamentally wrong with you as well. I have always rejected the idea that any parts of a person identity should trump (and yes I chose that word on purpose) whether or not you can have any kind of relationship with them. And if you’re the kind of person who can openly do that and look themselves in the mirror the next day, there’s a piece of you missing.

Consequently I believe much of today’s politics is not so much divided among political parties or tribes but something close to two cults. One may live in rural areas, wear red hats and dance to YMCA, and one may be in the cities, have a more diverse membership and conclude its meetings to Lady Gaga. But don’t kid yourself that one is any less of a cult than the other because one has gone to better schools and can get you into better parties: they are two sides of the same horrible coin that differ only in degree. Both of them agree that America as it has completely failed. One side thinks the only way to save it is to bring it, kicking and screaming into the future. The other believes that the only way to do so is to have it resemble the past. Both sides only believe in the vision for its own members and think that the other side is responsible for that vision being realized. Both sides believe the only way to realize is to commit, completely and fully, to thee dystopian vision that they both believe in their hearts are utopian ones, even though neither side has a concrete plan what that vision will look like, only who they intend to keep out once they’ve built it. In both sides the loudest voices overcome all dissent and will reject the ones who offer even the most tepid disagreement as ‘the enemy’. Whether or not this view is one the majority of the country the shares is irrelevant to either vision; both are convinced that once it is realized everyone else will realize that it is the right one.

It is in the middle of this chaos that last year I ended up finding and essentially devouring Emily Locker’s novel Running Mates, one of the sweetest rom-coms and most subversive political satires I’ve read in recent years. According to the book jacket Locker was raised in Washington DC, is trained in psychotherapy and spent most of fourth grade persuading her friends to reenact scenes from Sweet Valley High. I can only imagine how much trouble she had getting this book purchased by any publisher given that it has perhaps most controversial love story at its center – a Democratic girl falling in love with a Republican. And not just any Republican, the son of a Republican Senator in North Carolina. At this point it may be easier for an LGBTQ+ love story to get published in Young Adult than Running Mates; I honestly think there are many parents who would prefer to find their children watching porn on their phones than Sean Hannity.

Indeed Annabelle Morningstar, the heroine of Locker’s book, is in fact a big fan of romance novels and given the subject matter she probably is far more open to the idea of sex than Republicanism. She’s attending high school in Edgartown, North Carolina (deliberately this book is set in a swing state), the child of two lesbians. One mother, Lily, is a TV pundit who is the darling of the liberal left and loud about how she supports the progressive cause and hates conservatives. Her other parent, Mimi, is a surgeon who is quieter about her causes. Annabelle is a member her high schools Liberal Liaisons and is so busy demonstrating that at the start of the book she can’t even remember what liberal cause she and her friends are protesting this week. “No, I do not find it all problematic that I can’t remember what we’re protesting” she says as she struggles to remember in the first of so many quietly hysterical lines that I know will turn off so many aspiring liberals right from the start.

But Annabelle is worried about other, less important things like getting into college. She can’t seem to understand that despite all of her social causes are at this point just not enough to get her into an Ivy League school. When she’s told her best chance might be to try and get it on a student athlete scholarship because of her track running skills but that she might have to cut back on her social justice tactics, she seriously considers this ‘Sophie’s Choice’. She is less thrilled to know that the person who must help her is Gabe Delgado.

In a plot device which I truly hope neither liberals or conservatives actually consider a strategy for future urban development Edgartown is divided between Easttown and Northtown: Eastown is where all of the liberals live and Northtown where the conservatives live. In yet another subtle digs these people are all clearly wealthy and exclusive but both sides clearly think they are superior because of their ideologies. You get the feeling that every house and store in the neighborhood essentially costs the same exorbitant prices to their respective clientele and probably personally get along bitching about the ridiculous nature of their feuds. That will change when Annabelle faces an issue.

Annabelle’s favorite store is The BookCourt which has been catering to her romance novel needs for years and whose owner Mrs. Adler is one of Annabelle’s favorite people. However when her mother makes it clear that she’s booked three employees fighting to unionize The BookCourt she is upset because Mrs. Adler has been a family friend for years. Tellingly her mother sees no problem with turning on Lilly even when her daughter reminds her that she might not be able to afford it. Mimi is upset by her wife’s vision but lets it go. Annabelle can’t as easily.

It's already difficult enough that Zoe, the head of the Liberal Liaisons who is clearly the most active, has demanded that all of their members boycott it. And when Annabelle tries to explain to Zoe and her friends that she needs to prioritize college over activism Zoe has no patience for it and tells her she has to prioritize membership on the executive committee over her own future. Zoe is framed as ‘the next AOC’ and like almost everyone else of Annabelle’s circle is no doubt rich enough not to have to worry about such things as getting into the Ivy League colleague of her choice.

Annabelle’s also dealing with the fact that she now has to regularly hang out with Gabe and his friend Sam who are – gag  - Republicans. Annabelle acknowledges that Gabe is physically attractive – he’s after all both a runner and captain of the lacrosse team – but when they invite her out for coffee after a training session and her friends show up unexpectedly, obviously she has to run away from both of them. I mean, being seen? With a Republican?

Gabe because he is a good guy comes to check on Annabelle later on. He admits to Annabelle that he’s been in the same place Annabelle is with the BookCourt. He’s proud of what his father’s accomplished and he agrees with him on most things, but sometimes its difficult. And we learn that he’s not a fan of going to Young Republican meeting because any time he deviates either to the left or the right of his father’s positions, everyone makes a huge deal out of it.

As you’d expect the more time Annabelle and Gabe spend training together, the more attracted to each other they become. But Annabelle is constantly being challenged by her friends to get Gabe to move on his position in a way to use him to get his father. This leads to incredibly heated debate between the two of them in which things constantly get loud and perhaps, inevitably, sparks start flying.

There are complications, this is high school after all. Gabe has been in an on-again, off-again relationship with a fellow Northsider named Caroline, who clearly is clingy but Gabe is too nice to break things off. When Caroline learns about the friendship (which is all it is at one point) she goes out of her way to start attacking Annabelle on social media and eventually vandalizing her house. Annabelle is also dealing with the difficult relationship with her best friend Mason, who is Zoe’s boyfriend but honestly seems far too invested in Annabelle’s relationship with Gabe beyond mere politics. As the novel progresses you get the feeling he’s agreeing with Zoe more and more less because he’s on her side and more out of guilt for what is clearly a lingering attraction to his best friend.

Running Mates is, it should be mentioned, fair and balanced when it comes to treating the members of each friend group. Zoe can be just as intense when it comes to her causes that she frequently can be overbearing and engage in actions that do cross the line: at one point she decides to lead a campaign to throw garbage at the houses of the Northsiders. One of Gabe’s closest friends is Scottie, who has been using microaggression that become increasingly racist and homophobic throughout the novel. Gabe is clearly aware of it but Scottie happens to be the son of one of his father’s biggest donors and he doesn’t want to rock that applecart either.

And the novel’s clearest message is how so much in our polarized society basically becomes straw battles for both sides to make points while disregarding everyone else. We eventually learn the battle to unionize the Bookcourt is led by a college student who was writing his dissertation on unions and essentially was using the Bookcourt as his final project. When the battle begins one of Senator Delgado’s biggest donors has him hire a conservative law firm to defend the store in large part as a campaign strategy to use for higher office. By the time its all over, there are protestors of every kind descending on both the Bookcourt and the Delgado home and eventually the Bookcourt suffers immense financial losses and the nature of its atmosphere has been tainted  by the controversy.

But Running Mates actually does something that you wouldn’t expect in any YA novel and indeed most fiction I read today. It argues very clearly that the only way for us to move forward in society is to listen to the other side and take it seriously. It is through the many arguments Gabe and Annabelle have during the novel that both of them end up doing something they wouldn’t do: question how they’ve been living their lives.

This is perhaps clearest in an argument between Gabe and Annabelle that occurs on their first date. Annabelle opens up to him about her problems about college and Gabe points out something that may be clear to an outsider  but not the bubble that Zoe’s been in: that she gets it into her head that theirs only one way to do things.

This leads to an argument which for some reason Annabelle starts even though she knows Gabe has a point about privilege. She calls Gabe entitled and he counters that she’s elitist. Annabelle says: “But at least I’m aware of my privilege and I fight to make things equal for people like me:

Gabe looks at me like I’m from outer space. “Yeah, if you ask me, you fight in kind of a lofty way. If the Liaisons spent less time on shit like demanding we say our preferred pronouns at the start of every class and more time helping actual people, Edgartown would be better off.”

I fold my arms. “Helping people feel comfortable in their identity is extremely important!”

“I’m not saying it’s not. People should be able to use whatever pronoun they want! But what is stating every single class by going around the room, accomplishing?”

“It’s accomplishing acceptance!”

“What about…I don’t know, volunteering to feed the homeless like the Young Republicans do every Sunday? Or finding out which janitors at our school don’t have enough to eat for Christmas, dinner, instead of protesting Starbucks that say ‘Merry Christmas’ like you did last year?”

“Those janitors wouldn’t be struggling if we had a higher minimum wage! The Liaisons organized a protest for that last May.”

“Yeah, sure, picketing around town while chanting dumb slogans is a lot more helpful than putting an actual hot meal in front of someone. Great logic.”

At that moment a waiter comes up Gabe and Annabelle to tell them about how loud the two of them are getting. That causes both of them to wonder if they actually are compatible after all. But tellingly the last line of the chapter has Annabelle questioning whether she has been an elitist. And when the date ends both of them are trying to figure out whether this is a weakness or a strength and both hope it is. If this conversation and their reaction (which naturally ends in a hot make-out session) isn’t a teachable moment I don’t know what you’d call one.

Now while I won’t reveal how exactly, I should mention that Gabe is equally changed by his experience with Annabelle. Because the novel is being told solely from her perspective we don’t know how he is changing. But in the final third of it we do see that Gabe in ways both subtle and overt has been pushing back his ideology as much as Annabelle has and it is entirely because of their growing bond.

Locker is not foolish enough to argue that there is some kind of greater story behind the relationship between Gabe and Annabelle that will solve all the world’s problems – though the fact that by the end of the novel the Delgado’s and the Morningstar’s are not only talking to each other but having a joint dinner is one of the most wonderful things I’ve seen. But the epilogue suggests something that may lead to the happiest ending I’ve seen of any love story possible when members of the Young Republicans and the Liberal Liaisons decide to work together on a project they can find common ground on. One of the last exchanges involves Gabe and Annabelle looking at two of their friends and saying: “Do you think we’ve started a trend?” And in an increasingly polarized America just that possibility is one of the most hopeful endings I can thing of particularly after this year’s election.

Now I should tell you up front Running Mates doesn’t bring up MAGA or the recent election in anyway but that doesn’t mean it’s a fantasy world at all as everyone in is more than aware of the polarized nature of the world even beyond their high school and small tone. Indeed one of the best jokes in the novel comes when Annabelle gets in a race with Gabe and Sam with the winner having to donate a hundred dollars to the organization of their choice – and Gabe picks the Heritage Foundation. This leads to circumstances that nearly lead to Annabelle being eaten by a bear and you get the feeling she would prefer to losing the bet.

That’s the other reason I loved this novel: it’s the subtlest political satire possible when it comes to how both sides view the world, including the fact that the school newspaper is called the Red and the Blue and the fact that there was an organized protest by the Liaison to change the names of all the high school’s team to the least offensive option: the Blueberries. It makes it clear the leftists on this site can be ridiculously headstrong on principles and the conservatives are just as big on racism.

But the fact that so much of this book is about young people trying to find a way to bridge their divides on something that has become so fundamentally a dealbreaker that there are people breaking off decades long relationship as a result – and finding a way to do so -  well, I’ll be honest that’s the kind of vision that gives me more hope than a dozen Betty Albertalli novels put together. It may be as much a pipe dream of the happy endings of the romance novels Annabelle’s loves. But don’t people read them just because of the hope of those endings? As we head into what will almost certainly be another turbulent four years, I want to believe in the future in a novel like Running Mates.

 

Jeopardy Second Chance Tournament Recap, Part 1: Week 1 Semifinals

 

Three full years into its existence I remain unconvinced at the wisdom of Jeopardy’s Second Chance Tournament. However going into this year’s Tournament I am convinced that while the idea is madness the producers have at least managed to provide some method to it that might be able to win me over.

There are two major reasons I felt more inclined to be favorable going in, apart from the obvious fact that there are only going to be two weeks of tournaments this season. (I know it was because of the strike; it doesn’t change that…let’s move on.) The first was a procedural change that I was unaware of until well into we were well past all the Second Chances. Whoever manages to win the Second Chance tournament this week and next does not unlike in 2022 automatically get a spot in the upcoming Tournament of Champions. Instead they earn a spot in the next round of the postseason Champions Wildcard. I am unaware of  how many  players are participating ( I hope to inform my readers at some point next week) but it seems likely that there might be at least one semi-final round and then a final. That means whoever wins this week and next must win at least three additional games before then qualifying for the 2025 Tournament of Champions (as Juveria Zaheer managed to do last season). Considering that means someone who participates in the Second Chance Tournament will have to win at least six games to get to the TOC and that many of those participating only won 3, it’s hard to argue they won’t have earned it.

The second reason, if you read my previous article, has to due with how more qualified the participants are this time. All of those who are waiting for the TOC are more than qualified but none – not even Adriana Havemeyer and Isaac Hirsch – were as dominant as say, Cris Panullo or Ben Chan were in Season 39. While I found it hard to justify the majority of competitors in the inaugural Second Chance Tournament, there was only one participant in this group that I not only couldn’t understand why they were here but in many ways may have  foreseen their appearances.

And so far in the Tournament, the matches have been everything one could hope for. All three semi-final matches in Week 1 have been incredibly close game, competitive right up until Final Jeopardy. The material has been at the same level as regular play but all nine players have been up to it in a way that even some of the bigger winners of Season 41 haven’t been able to master so far.

Here is a brief summary of all the three semi-final matches. For brevity’s sake I will focus most of my time explaining the play of the contestant who ended up winning, as well as explain why they were invited to the Tournament in the first place.

 

Semi-Final Game 1

Tekla Sauter-Will Yancey-Alex Michev

Will got off to a fast start in the Jeopardy round finding the Daily Double on the third clue in A EUROCENTRIC CATEGORY. He was at -$200 but he risked $1000:

“Unter den Linden in Berlin is a tree-lined avenue running westward nearly a mile to this 5-portal monument.” He knew it was the Brandenburg and went to $800. However Tekla and Alex both gained ground rapidly and at the end of the Jeopardy round Alex was ahead with $4800 to Will’s $3200 and Tekla’s $2800.

Will managed to take the lead in Double Jeopardy early when he found both Daily Doubles back to back. The first was in SAME FIRST & LAST LETTER. He wagered $2400: “To do this is to drain a body of all its blood.” He knew it was to exsanguinate and moved to $7200, tying him with Alex for the lead.

He found the other Daily Double in THE 13^TH CENTURY: “This phrase in the title of an Indiana Jones movie has also been used about a useless effort by King Edward I in 1271.” He knew it was the Last Crusade and moved back into the lead.

Keeping it proved tougher as Alex stayed close to him throughout occasionally overtaking him. It was not until he got three out of the four last clues correct that he built up a slight lead with $14,800 to Alex’s $12,800 with Tekla not out of contention with $5600.

The Final Jeopardy category was GEOGRAPHIC NAMES. “In 1492 Columbus visited this island that he named for the country whose flag he flew.” All three players knew the correct country: “What is Hispaniola?” (It is named for Spain). Will’s wager was almost irrelevant (Alex had bet conservatively) but he finished with $25,601 and advanced to the semi-finals.

Will had played dominant in the Jeopardy round of a match early in the season, more humanly in Double Jeopardy and was the only player to get Final Jeopardy incorrect. He proved more than worthy of his second chance.

 

Semifinal 2

Scott Tcheng-Kaitlin Tarr-Mike Ferguson

Kaitlin had come very close to defeating Adriana Havemeyer in what would ultimately be her thirteenth victory (she told us her friends have reminded her ever since of the Daily Double she got wrong that may have cost her the win) and from the start of her appearance to the end she very much played like that. She had gotten the five of the first six clues in the Jeopardy round correct before she found the Daily Double in NONFICTION. She told Ken she’d always wanted to say: “Let’s make it a true Daily Double” and she must have regretted she said it immediately afterwards:

“King of the Osage Hills” & “For the Betterment of the Bureau” are chapters in this 2017 bestseller.” She apparently hadn’t seen the recent film Killers of the Flower Moon which was the correct response (the book it was based on).

Undeterred she built up very rapidly and had $7800 by the end of the Jeopardy round.

Scott challenged her early in Double Jeopardy but a Daily Double didn’t go his way. The game was much closer with all three players playing well. Kaitlin had a slight lead with $10,800 when she found the other Daily Double in SINK, SANK, SUNK. More cautious she bet just $1400:

“Vermont scuba divers (a hardy lot) can explore the Water Witch, a schooner at the bottom of this lake since 1866.” She knew it was Lake Champlain and went up to $12,800. She finished with $14,400, $3000 more than Scott with Mike in contention with $8200.

The Final Jeopardy category was THEATER ETYMOLOGY. The clue was very tough: “A centuries-old type of performance, this word includes Greek roots meaning ‘imitator of all.” No one came close to a correct response though Kaitlin’s of: “What are impressions?” was the closest. The correct response was pantomime (the roots as Ken exclaimed were ‘pan’ and mimo’. Kaitlin wagered $5999, leaving her with $8401 just enough to win.

 

SEMIFINAL 3

Colleen Matthews-Gino Montoya-Josh Moss

Both Colleen and Josh had been defeated by Adriana; Josh in what would be Adriana’s third win, Colleen in what was Adriana’s fifteenth and last. In the Jeopardy round, however, Gino and Josh got off to the fastest start and Gino had the lead with $7000 to Josh’s $6200 while Colleen trailed with $3800.

This was the closest played of all the semi-final matches and it was not until Colleen found the second Daily Double in SHAKESPEARE that she took the lead for the first time. Even then it took some thinking: “Polonius saying: ‘I hear him coming, let’s withdraw, my lord’ is the cue for this immortal line.” I have to tell you it took me nearly as long as Colleen to figure it out she said: “What is to be or not to be?” just a moment before the buzzer rang. Colleen also helped herself by getting four of the six $2000 clues correct in this round and that enabled to her end Double Jeopardy with $18,600 to Josh’s impressive $12,200 and Gino’s $11,800 (Josh moved ahead on the last clue of Double Jeopardy.)

The Final Jeopardy category was U.S. PRESIDENTS: “According to his son Fred, this man first tried smoking just because it was against the rules at West Point.” Colleen knew the correct President: “Who is Ulysses S. Grant?” (Gino also knew it was Grant; Josh wrote down Eisenhower,  who did also go to West Point and like Grant was a smoker, albeit of cigarettes, not cigars.) Colleen wagered $5801 to win the semifinals.

I will be fascinated to watch the finals not only because of how well all three players have done but because two of the finalists were defeated by Adriana Havemeyer and have a different kind of motivation to get to the next round that Will, for all his skill, doesn’t have. And considering that Tekla and Josh also lost to her, I wonder if there isn’t a custom T-shirt market for this group: “I competed against Adriana Havemeyer on Jeopardy and all I got was this lousy shirt – until today.” Perhaps that prize could go to either Colleen or Kaitlin should they advance. There’s also a market for T-shirts with Drew Basile’s name on it, but both of those challengers are next week.

I’ll be back with you after Friday’s final to dissect the results.