Saturday, March 15, 2025

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Jared Golden?

Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME)
Yesterday we talked quite a bit about Senate Democrats, and how disappointed I was in Sen. Chuck Schumer's inability to handle the government shutdown bill.  Today, we're going to talk about one of the underwritten aspects of the budget battle this week involving Rep. Jared Golden of Maine.  While Sens. Jeanne Shaheen & Angus King both ultimately voted for the bill in the Senate (Shaheen recently announced her retirement, and it's difficult to see the 80-year-old King serving beyond his current term), the only Democrat in the House to vote for the bill was Jared Golden, the extremely rare true moderate left in Congress, and one who has a significant decision to make in the coming months about his political future.

Golden, unlike Shaheen & King, is quite young, only 42 which is basically infancy in Congress.  A handsome Marine Corps veteran, he was first elected to Congress during the 2018 Democratic wave, in large part due to Maine's ranked-choice voting.  The incumbent, Republican Bruce Poliquin, actually was ahead of Golden in the initial round of voting by slightly less than a percentage point, but because Golden got a disproportionate amount of the third party candidates' second choice ranking, he was ultimately declared the winner.  Since then Golden has carried the district, one that voted for Donald Trump three consecutive presidential cycles, by small but ultimately winning margins, including last cycle in a nailbiter (I predicted Golden would lose) against Austin Theriault.

Golden's position as one of just three incumbent Democrats who represent a district that Donald Trump won in both 2024 AND in 2020 (the others being Marie Gluesenkamp Perez & Marcy Kaptur) means that he oftentimes has to take views at-odds with his party.  In addition to supporting the most recent government funding bill, he did not support President Biden's student loan cancellation policy in 2023, he opposed the Bipartisan Background Checks Act in 2021 (one of only two Democrats to do so), and was the only Democrat to not support the Build Back Better Act in the House.  He also refused to endorse either presidential candidate in 2024.  In an era where down-ballot splitting is rare, Golden's ability to win such a red district as a Democrat is carved out largely by taking moderate stances, sometimes unpopular with his base.

But Golden is also in a strange position-a talented politician, he cannot hold this seat forever.  Maine's 2nd congressional district is not getting any bluer...indeed Donald Trump won it by 10-points in 2024, up 3-points from the previous cycle.  At 42, there's no way he can hold this for much longer, and I'd wager that he'd go into 2028 as the underdog (and would honestly be vulnerable even in 2026).  The future of the party is not in holding these types of rural seats, but instead in the suburbs.  The question for Golden is-what does he do next?  Does he keep running impressive races, helping out the DCCC as long as possible, knowing that he'll never be in the House at the age of 50 at this rate?  Or does he try for a promotion to a safer seat with the bluer statewide Maine electorate?

The signals from Golden's camp are that he wants to run for Governor.  Janet Mills is term-limited in 2026, and the Democrats need a new candidate.  The problem for Golden is that the moderate/conservative stances he's had to stake to win a red district are going to hurt him in a Democratic Primary.  Other leading Democrats in Maine like State Senate President Troy Jackson, House Speaker Ryan Facteau, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, and House Speaker Hannah Pingree all have much more progressive positioning, and because there's no risk of splitting the progressive vote thanks to Maine's ranked-choice voting, there's no path for Golden to win as the moderate in the room.  Golden could still make it (he's well-respected as a talent in the state, and he's the best-known name o the bunch), but any progressive worth their salt could find a way to win over the blue Maine electorate (without alienating their general election electorate...Kamala Harris did win the state, after all) & turn them against Golden.  Golden could run as an independent, conceivably, but again-the ranked-choice voting that brought him to national prominence screws him over in a three-way race because the Democratic nominee would still ultimately be favored.

Golden with Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
I don't think Golden is a man without a future, though, but I do think that he'd have to shift gears to another race: the Senate contest.  Sen. Susan Collins is up for reelection in 2026, and has made her intentions to run for another term apparent (though I still think there's room for her to pull out if Trump's popularity continues to slide).  Golden has been reluctant to go against Collins in the past (similar to the 2024 presidential race, he refused to publicly back either Collins or Democrat Sara Gideon in the 2020 campaign), and one wonders if he wouldn't want to go after her at this point out of a sense of deference.  On the flip side, though, Collins doesn't have an opponent right now; Democrats spent a fortune trying to beat her in 2020 when she ultimately prevailed, and many Democrats think she's unbeatable as a result.  I think this is hooey-Collins has never faced a race like she might in 2026, where she will be the incumbent Republican senator with a Republican president in charge who is unpopular with the Maine electorate (that was not the case in 2002).  Collins has also gotten sloppy, backing people like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, and as recently as yesterday voted in support of DOGE (it should be noted her fellow Republican Lisa Murkowski voted against the motion)...she seems to also think she's invincible, and is taking a posture well out of line with Maine voters.  She's tough, but she's beatable.

If Golden's smart, he can play this to his advantage.  As a non-incumbent in an open seat, Golden is never going to have an easy time winning a statewide race in Maine-there's always going to be someone to his left that can hurt him with a blue primary electorate.  But in a race against Collins, the math becomes different.  Golden is the best candidate to take on Collins, Collins is a candidate Democrats don't think they can beat, & Democrats know they can't afford to keep Collins in the Senate for six more years if they want a majority in the next six years...if he announced early enough, Democratic powerbrokers could step in (like Kirsten Gillibrand at the DSCC), throw their weight behind Golden, and clear the field for him even if he's more moderate than they'd like.  Assuming I'm right, and Collins is far more vulnerable than conventional wisdom dictates if Trump is unpopular, this would set up a situation where Golden, as a moderate, can get through the primary, and then get into a general election he has a decent chance of winning.  Once elected, he'd have room to moderate some positions with a bluer electorate, and as an incumbent senator, would be very hard to oust in the future even if he stayed center-of-the-road.  If I was Jared Golden's campaign advisor, I'd tell him to pursue this path-it might be the only way he is in Congress by 2028.

Friday, March 14, 2025

The Fallout of Chuck Schumer's Cowardice

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
I would've had this article done yesterday, but, honestly, I've been super tired this week & also that would've deprived me of writing a complete article.  For those who have been following along in the past few days, a government shutdown has been averted, thanks in large part to Sen. Chuck Schumer, who was willing to defy most of his caucus, virtually the entirety of the House Democrats, and most of his base headed into next year's midterms to pass a bill that contained no guarantees that Donald Trump & Elon Musk would stop their utter destruction of the US Government between now and when the funding expires in September.  

We have a general rule around here that we don't discuss individual pieces of legislation, because I find it exhausting, legislation fights are generally pretty ephemeral to give too much light to them for a hobby and, after 4000+ articles, you probably know my opinions on most pieces of legislation, but we're going to make an exception today both because it's a very weird situation, politically, and because I think it opens up some conversations electorally that are worth discussing.  For the record, I think what Schumer did was wrong, less so on the merits of the bill and more for what he just established.  This bill did not have input from either Schumer or House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries-Democrats were lifted out of it.  Virtually every House Democrat save one (Jared Golden, whom we'll discuss in another article later this weekend) stood against this, including Democrats in actually conservative districts like Marcy Kaptur & Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (unlike someone like John Fetterman, whose state barely went for Trump in 2024 and voted Biden in 2020).  Schumer also has spent much of the past four years arguing that he couldn't pass a lot of serious legislation (such as codifying Roe v. Wade) because of the filibuster...and then when he had a chance to stand against Trump, he chose to abandon the filibuster and roll over.  The precedence this sets is that the Democrats will do ANYTHING to keep the government funded, including abandoning every other position in a debate.  We're so used to Republicans failing in negotiations, this is up there with basically how poorly someone like Kevin McCarthy used to run the House.  It's also the extremely rare circumstance where Schumer largely stood against what the bulk of what his conference wanted; 37 Senate Democrats just voted against something their leader actively helped happen.  Schumer, in my opinion, should be ashamed for the lack of courage he showed today, and deserves all of the hate he's going to get in the coming weeks.  He also have a better plan for how to handle the drop off in small-dollar donations as I sure as hell am not giving to the DSCC after this.

People were pretty quick to point out this makes Schumer vulnerable to a challenge from the left, and indeed Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been extremely vocal in her criticisms of Schumer (though, it has to be noted that Hakeem Jeffries & Nancy Pelosi spending the day criticizing Schumer should probably be the bigger headline as that is far more unprecedented).  There are three problems with this.  One, it is probable that by the time that Schumer is up again in 2028 that this will be a distant memory.  It's hard to tell what legislation sticks as a rule (for every Affordable Care Act vote, there are hundreds that people only remember for about a day or two), but we'll have countless fights with Trump before 2028, and Schumer has time to get back into the New York Democratic Party's good graces.  Two, Schumer is one of the most aggressive retail politicians in the country; he is not the public speaker that Ocasio-Cortez is, but he's also spent 40+ years cultivating relationships across New York that will be hard for anyone to best.  And third, and most important, Schumer is likely to retire in 2028.  He'll be 78, and will have been Senate Leader for 12 years...he'll want to move on to the book deal & speaking tour portion of his career.  So I'm not getting as hung up on that-AOC could easily be the nominee for Senate in 2028, but she probably won't have gone through Schumer to get there.

That said, primaries aren't totally off the table here.  Most of the ten Democrats today would be past them for a variety of reasons.  Several are already retiring (Jeanne Shaheen, Gary Peters), others are bound to be on their last term (Angus King), and still others are in marginal enough seats where the Democrats won't want to disrupt the balance (Catherine Cortez Masto, Maggie Hassan).  Brian Schatz is a really odd figure on the 10 supporters list, particularly given he doesn't have the cover of Mazie Hirono (the only senator who spent much of day being silent to ultimately vote "No").  Hawaiian politics are distinct, so it's hard to tell if this will result in a primary, but it likely takes his name off of the table to succeed Schumer as leader given all of his chief competition (Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Chris Murphy) voted "No" here & it abandons a lot of the grassroots work he's done in cultivating a social media following in the past few years.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
The three remaining names tell a different story.  Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, if you believe DC gossip, was the most adamant (after Fetterman & Schumer) that they not have a shutdown (sources say she was heard yelling about the shutdown at a conference meeting yesterday).  Gillibrand is a polarizing figure in the party for reasons that are largely sexist (given her outsized role in pushing Al Franken to resign), but I am curious what her end game is here.  She's only 58, and has sincere ambitions (she ran for president in 2020), but at this point it's hard to see where they go.  I think she's vulnerable for a bunch of reasons to a primary, but timing will help her.  She's not up until 2030, and most of the top Democrats (like AOC) will make their run in 2026 (against Hochul) or for an open Schumer seat.  I don't know her plan here (she pushed hard to get the DSCC job...but she's not going to be in leadership after this), but her behavior the past few days is eyebrow-raising.

The two names that are surely getting a primary threat after this are John Fetterman & Dick Durbin.  Fetterman has spent much of the post-election season overreacting to Trump winning his state.  I think Bob Casey losing while Elissa Slotkin, Jacky Rosen, Tammy Baldwin, & Ruben Gallego all won Trump states threw off Fetterman's confidence, and honestly it's hard to tell how serious of a person Fetterman is.  Much is made about his clothing, but more concerning is he has a shockingly bad attendance record in the Senate, regularly just skipping votes.  In many ways, his attitude is reminiscent of former Senator Kyrsten Sinema, who also got to the point in her first term where the base hated her so much a path to reelection wasn't there.  There are plenty of Democrats in the state that would consider a run, and if I'm Conor Lamb (and given we were born two days apart, I practically am), I'd take advantage of the extremely thin "right of first refusal" window in 2028 and go after him again.  This vote alone won't doom Fetterman, but he's lost so much goodwill (and seems to relish in criticism rather than handle it seriously) that I don't see a world where he isn't primaried in 2028, even if it's unsuccessfully.

Lastly, there's Dick Durbin, who is the only senator of the 10 who is still (on paper) considering running for reelection and up for reelection in 2026.  Durbin is 80-years-old, has been in Congress since before both Conor Lamb & I were born, and already was facing a primary threat given how he handled the blue slip process during the Biden years.  This vote isn't surprising (he is #2 in the caucus, and part of that job is backing Schumer), but it might as well have come with a retirement announcement.  The Illinois bench is very deep for Democrats, and there are few opportunities to move up.  There will be some Democrats who would refuse to go after Durbin out of respect for his long tenure if he runs...but there's no way there isn't at least one that would smell blood in the water and try to skip ahead in line.  I personally think today signaled that Durbin doesn't want to seek reelection, but if he does...he's going to have the toughest primary of his career ahead of him, one I suspect he'd lose in a head-to-head battle.

To close out, I want to bring this back to Schumer, whom I am really disappointed in, even if not entirely surprised given he's never been the grittiest leader.  Democrats have had competent leadership in Congress for most of the 21st Century.  Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, & Hakeem Jeffries...none of these names are remotely in the same "silly season" league as figures like Trent Lott, Kevin McCarthy, and convicted felon Dennis Hastert.  But if we're being honest, Pelosi (and to a much lesser degree Reid) is the only truly exceptional leader of the bunch in the long run of Congress.  Schumer did a good job at managing the Manchin & Sinema egos the last four years, but he's nowhere near Pelosi's skill level.  Pelosi being so good at leading House Democrats made it so that Democrats got complacent in keeping their leaders longer than they should have.  I have long espoused that we should turn over congressional leaders more often if they don't secure majorities.  In fact, if you go far enough back on this blog, you'll find articles where I say that Pelosi should leave office prior to her back comeback in 2018 (in that I'll admit I was wrong-she was exactly the figure we needed to get through the first Trump term).  Leaders leaving is a way to sort of stow-away a bad idea, and allow for new leaders to emerge (Americans love the future in politics), and it's also a way to make sure that any bad strategies get left behind.  If a congressional leader can't secure a majority in a couple of cycles (like Gephardt couldn't) or they lose their majority (like Schumer did in 2024), it makes sense to let them go.  You don't owe loyalty to someone who can't win in politics (it's not a regular job), and Schumer's inability to win in 2024 (even against tough odds), and in particular him not being able to win Pennsylvania...I'm sorry, we shouldn't be in this position right now because he should've been a backbencher by now.  Hopefully Democrats learn this lesson soon, because he is clearly not up to the moment of taking on Donald Trump.

Thursday, March 13, 2025

5 Thoughts on Jeanne Shaheen's Retirement

Well, we have yet another Senate retirement happening in New Hampshire, and as we have for the last three retirements (the average-per-cycle is five, and with Dick Durbin heavily rumored to be next, we should meet that, if not exceed it, at this point as Trump Fatigue settles into the upper chamber) we are going to do a rundown of what that means for both parties with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen forgoing a fourth term in the Senate.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
1. Jeanne Shaheen Retires a Trailblazer

Shaheen's retirement is not a surprise for a variety of reasons, particularly given her age (she will be 79 during next year's election, making her considerably older than Sens. Tina Smith & Gary Peters who are also retiring this cycle).  People are saying this is a "blow" for Democrats, but I'm going to be completely honest-I think that this might be a scenario where Dems are getting a blessing-in-disguise.  The assumption that the incumbent is always the best candidate got upended in a spectacular (and eventually horrifying) way for the left last year when Joe Biden's age became the central issue of the campaign.  Shaheen is just a couple of years younger than Biden, and coming in the wake of Biden, Dianne Feinstein, and the frequent issues with Mitch McConnell as Senate leader, Democrats shouldn't assume that running a tough race (which Shaheen may have been in for-more on that in a second) would've been better with Shaheen as their nominee.

That said, Shaheen would've been the favorite, and goes out a real icon.  Those who have followed this blog for a while know that she's had a lot of chapters in her career.  The first woman in American history to serve as both Governor and Senator of a state (the only other since then has been her co-senator Maggie Hassan), she was on the shortlist for Al Gore's running-mate in 2000 (given she would've carried New Hampshire, had he picked her he likely would've become president), and ran for the Senate in 2002 against John Sununu.  In a rough night for the Democrats, this loss was particularly rough given that Republicans had, during the campaign, used a telemarketing firm to jam a Dem call bank that was canvassing for Shaheen (it would result in multiple Republicans being sentenced to prison, and accusations from some that they stole the seat...for the record, Donald Trump, this is what an actually rigged election looks like).  Shaheen would get her revenge six years later by beating Sununu in the 2008 wave, and has been in the Senate ever since.

Gov. Chris Sununu (D-NH)
2. Will Chris Sununu Run?

Speaking of Sununu, the big name in this race is his baby brother Chris, the former New Hampshire Governor whom the NRSC will now heavily court to run for the open seat.  Sununu would be the best chance the Republicans have of flipping this seat (I would go so far as to say the only chance they have), but I do have some doubts on whether he'd run, and if he would, whether he'd ultimately win even though he'd be a big recruiting coup.

Sununu turned down the chance to run in 2022 against Sen. Hassan, which was a much better environment for him to run, instead choosing to campaign for reelection (at the time, I thought this saved the seat though given Hassan's end margin it's possible Sununu made the right call here).  In 2026, though, the environment would historically favor the Democrats, and this is a Harris state-the last time that a governor won an open Senate seat in a state that their party lost the previous cycle was Joe Manchin in 2010, and that was holding a seat (the last governor to flip a state his party lost in the previous presidential cycle was Evan Bayh in 1998).  Since then we've seen everyone from Linda Lingle to Bob Kerrey to Evan Bayh to Phil Bredesen to Steve Bullock to Larry Hogan attempt to do this, and all of them without luck.  Democrats are admittedly trying to do the same thing with Roy Cooper in North Carolina, but they have the "advantage" of not having the White House (and North Carolina is swingier than New Hampshire).  Perhaps the biggest reason to go for Sununu is there's virtually no bench for Republicans here-their next best option would be former Sen. Scott Brown...former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, who lost to Shaheen in 2014.

Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH)
3. Chris Pappas Takes His Moment

On the Democratic side, the #1 name is Chris Pappas, the four-term congressman who represents one of New Hampshire's two districts.  Despite being only 44, Pappas has been in politics for decades, currently as a House member but previously as a County Treasurer, State Representative, & Executive Council-member.  Pappas is widely-expected to run for the seat, and it's possible that he would clear the field.  Pappas would become the first openly gay man to serve in the Senate (there have been multiple queer women, but the only openly-queer man in the US Senate, Harris Wofford, came out of the closet after he served), and will surely tout his victory over Trump's Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt in his 2022 reelection bid.  With Annie Kuster's retirement last cycle, he would be seen as the heir apparent to the position...

Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-NH)
4. Will Pappas Clear-the-Field?

However, I do think there's room to play here if another Democrat wanted to go for it.  Pappas, because his seat is relatively swing-y, has a more moderate record than you'd expect for a Democrat who is looking at a competitive seat in a relatively blue state.  He voted against the legalization of cannabis (one of only six House Democrats to do so) in 2020, supported the Laken Riley Act, voted to end the national emergency status of Covid-19 in 2023 (one of only 12 Democrats to do so), and was the only LGBTQ+ member of Congress to vote for a bill that would strip health care access from transgender children of military members.  This is a lot of moderate positions that were essential to running in his district...they're also positions that would be super easy to exploit in a congressional race.

The problem for progressives seeking an alternative is that one will need to run, and one on the scale of Pappas.  Kuster is apparently interested in the seat...but only if Pappas doesn't run.  Executive Councilor Karen Liot Hill is too new to office, Joyce Craig just endured a very high-profile loss in the gubernatorial race, and former Gov. John Lynch is too old.  If there's a candidate, I suspect it'll be Pappas House colleague Maggie Goodlander.  Goodlander, at 38, is young and might just want to wait for another opportunity...but Senate races don't happen very often & even with just one term under her belt, the idea of running to Pappas's left in a primary has to be tempting for the former Biden administration official who got her job in the first place by defying New Hampshire's expected order for the seat (Kuster and many other prominent New Hampshire Democrats endorsed her rival in the primary Colin van Ostern).  Emily's List, who endorsed Goodlander in that race, would likely view this as a key place to replace Shaheen with another pro-choice woman.  Personally, if I was Goodlander I'd go for it-the odds don't favor her, but you could see a clear path where they do.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)
5. Which Senator is Next?

The next question remains-who is next?  As I said above, we are nearing the cycle average already, which is pretty early in the cycle to do so.  I think the big name I'm watching right now is Sen. Dick Durbin, who turned 80 this past November and is widely-expected to not just retire, but open up a floodgate in Illinois as the bench in the Land of Lincoln is deep.  Other Democrats that still feel up in the air include Mark Warner (VA) & Jeff Merkley (OR), though I honestly think if we get a name after Durbin, it'll probably be a Republican like Jim Risch.  That said, there are some older Democrats that look to be running for reelection-both Ed Markey & Jack Reed, despite being in Shaheen's age bracket, are intending to run for another term...though in Markey's case, I still wonder if he can make it through the primary without someone trying to make an example of him in a post-Biden dropout era.

Monday, March 03, 2025

1948 Oscar Viewing Project

I put this on Twitter, but one of my goals going forward is to have at least one Oscar Viewing Project ballot or one Oscar My Ballot each month until I have finished the project.  Because I just finished being on vacation (I was in Florida, having a blast in DisneyWorld), we're going to actually get a couple of these this month, both from 2024 in a few weeks AND from 1948 today.  Yes, I have officially seen all of the nominated films of 1948, and thus we are going to discuss the movies of this year.  We generally start with a look at the box office from a given year, but I will note that pre-1980 box office numbers are hard to find accurately, as it wasn't as consistently reported in trade papers before then.  Additionally, certain types of films (like, say, Disney films) tend to have been re-released in theaters more frequently than others (hence how movies that were considered flops initially like Bambi would eventually end up in the black).  That said, this is what Wikipedia has for the top domestic grossers of 1948, so we'll use it as a jumping off point (with a grain of salt):

1. The Red Shoes
2. Red River
3. The Paleface
4. Johnny Belinda
5. Easter Parade
6. The Three Musketeers
7. The Snake Pit
8. The Emperor Waltz
9. Homecoming
10. Sitting Pretty

As you'll see below, Oscar didn't start taking a really big detour from what was popular with audiences until the 1990's, as 9/10 of these movies are ones I not only saw, but would've seen in connection with the OVP, the sole exception being Homecoming with Lana Turner & Clark Gable (which I'll see for the My Ballot that year).  Other top grossers that year that sometimes are listed on the Top 10 include Sorry, Wrong Number with Barbara Stanwyck, Yellow Sky (which I have seen despite no nominations because I love westerns) with Gregory Peck, and A Date with Judy starring a young Elizabeth Taylor.  As you can see, Oscar wanted to embrace what was popular, particularly in a year of upheaval for Hollywood, as the theatrical monopolies had ended, and 1948 was a weak year at the box office.  With that context, I want you to go back to a different time, to a time of Truman defeating Dewey, of the creation of both Israel and the frisbee.  And of course, let's remember the movies...

Note from John: When I did this series during the time when I wrote individual articles, and had this blog be a daily part of my life, I made a point of highlighting each nominee in my many write-ups.  While I will be writing these every time I complete a year (like I said above, hopefully monthly going forward), I can't make that time commitment, either in terms of number of articles or in terms of giving each nominee their due with a mention, anymore.  I promise, though, that I have given each nominee their due under the confines of the specific category while making my rankings (and of course I've seen every single nominated picture discussed below), including giving higher rankings to movies I didn't like if the craft was better than ones I did like (Oscar should consider that).  Hopefully you enjoy the trimmed-down, but still devoted to the original concept version of the OVP we'll have going forward!

Picture

1. The Red Shoes
2. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
3. Hamlet
4. The Snake Pit
5. Johnny Belinda

The Lowdown: I actually did a podcast devoted to this specific topic (if you go to the Gilded Films podcast site, you can find both of their episodes on 1948, as I'm the guest on both of them) so feel free to listen if you want a voice reveal (and some great convo on this contest).  For me, it's not a difficult decision on the winner here.  The Red Shoes is just on another level.  There are really good movies here (honestly-there is no bad movie in this quintet, though I do frequently have to re-remind myself that I like Johnny Belinda as Oscar liked it way more than me), but the sheer modern scale of The Red Shoes here is unbeatable, besting worthy defenders like The Treasure of the Sierra Madre and Hamlet.

Director

1. John Huston (The Treasure of the Sierra Madre)
2. Laurence Olivier (Hamlet)
3. Anatole Litvak (The Snake Pit)
4. Jean Negulesco (Johnny Belinda)
5. Fred Zinnemann (The Search)

The Lowdown: With The Red Shoes out of the race, I've got a much closer contest, pitting John Huston & Laurence Olivier for the top spot against each other, much like in real life (weirdly, both were directing themselves, as both of their pictures in the collage are from them acting in their movies, though Olivier was the lead while Huston had a bit cameo).  I actually like Olivier's Hamlet more than most modern critics, as I think it's moody and just a little bit creepy (it's easy to see how the Coen Brothers were inspired by this when they did their telling of Macbeth), but Treasure of the Sierra Madre is one of those movies it's impossible to deny Huston's impact, giving us a perfect decrescendo into hell with Humphrey Bogart.  Kudos also to Antaole Litvak who also had a lot of modern touches (rare for a social issues picture) in The Snake Pit.

Actor

1. Laurence Olivier (Hamlet)
2. Montgomery Clift (The Search)
3. Clifton Webb (Sitting Pretty)
4. Lew Ayres (Johnny Belinda)
5. Dan Dailey (When My Baby Smiles at Me)

The Lowdown: Bogart's snub in 1948 was a big deal, some calling it the biggest of its kind since Bette Davis was looked over for Of Human Bondage in 1934.  It's insane, given how good he is (he'll be on my My Ballot for this year) that he was missed, but looking at just Oscar's choices, I'm going with the same selection as the Academy, giving Laurence Olivier (an actor I am very hit-or-miss with) a pretty easy victory.  Olivier might be too old for this part, but he leans in really well with the uncomfortable Oedipal overtones that Shakespeare provides his prince for his mother Gertrude, and while Clifton Webb is delicious & Monty Clift has a terrific star-is-born turn, this is a case of an actor's "time" also being for some of his best work.  I will also say that Dan Dailey getting Humphrey Bogart's nomination here is both perplexing (like...why?) and bordering on a war crime he's so bad.

Actress

1. Olivia de Havilland (The Snake Pit)
2. Barbara Stanwyck (Sorry, Wrong Number)
3. Jane Wyman (Johnny Belinda)
4. Irene Dunne (I Remember Mama)
5. Ingrid Bergman (Joan of Arc)

The Lowdown: No one is as bad as Dan Dailey of the 20 nominations (an embarrassingly terrible performance), but Best Actress is not a great lineup compared to the guys despite having generally better actors.  Irene Dunne is playing I Remember Mama like she's channeling Loretta Young (not a compliment), and Ingrid Bergman once again proves that for one of the best actresses of her generation, Oscar nominated her for the wrong roles.  The win is between de Havilland, whose really raw performance adds to The Snake Pit's accuracy-to-life, and Barbara Stanwyck as a truly vicious femme fatale who totally nails the film's rough ending.  Stanwyck is the opposite of Bergman (she tended to get nominated for her best work, this being the least of her four nominated turns but still solid), but I'm going with de Havilland given she provides more accuracy.  Jane Wyman, the actual winner, uses physicality well in her role but doesn't add enough beyond being great casting given her giant saucer eyes are so crucial to filling in gaps in the underwritten plot.

Supporting Actor

1. Walter Huston (The Treasure of the Sierra Madre)
2. Charles Bickford (Johnny Belinda)
3. Cecil Kellaway (The Luck of the Irish)
4. Jose Ferrer (Joan of Arc)
5. Oscar Homolka (I Remember Mama)

The Lowdown: Both of the supporting turns I'm going with the actual Oscar winner, and while I'm usually cognizant that I have a bias toward the actual victors (because, unlike the 2000's & 2010's, the winners here have been the "winners" my whole life), unlike Olivier (where Clift or Webb would make acceptable victors), the supporting winners are heads-and-shoulders above the rest (again, both will make my My Ballot list).  Huston's turn as a weathered gold miner is so calculating, and filled with such meaningful backstory in the way he portrays it, I wish that he'd worked with his son on ten more pictures.  The only thing that comes close to it is Charles Bickford's concerned father in Johnny Belinda, but even there it's not close to what Huston is bringing to a better movie.

Supporting Actress

1. Claire Trevor (Key Largo)
2. Agnes Moorehead (Johnny Belinda)
3. Barbara bel Geddes (I Remember Mama)
4. Ellen Corby (I Remember Mama)
5. Jean Simmons (Hamlet)

The Lowdown: Finishing out the acting races is Claire Trevor.  Trevor is one of those actresses who rarely played leading roles despite leading lady beauty, but she was also better suited for character work, as she understood the assignment in westerns & noir.  In Key Largo, she gets one really critical scene where she belts out a torch song to her own humiliation (it's a hard scene to watch, but it makes the movie), but she's good throughout.  No one else is in the same hemisphere as her.  Even second place Agnes Moorhead (not as good as Bickford, despite being a more reliable actor otherwise) is only in second because I didn't have anywhere else to turn and I like her as a rule.  This is all Trevor.

Motion Picture Story

1. The Red Shoes
2. Red River
3. The Naked City
4. The Search
5. Louisiana Story

The Lowdown: A quick reminder that Motion Picture Story is technically about the concept of the movie, which is a writing gift, but it's not (for example) about the specific dialogue in the picture.  This helps a movie like The Naked City, which is really better as an idea than a picture itself (though I liked it), but I have to dock points for something like Louisiana Story, whose almost documentary-like naturalism gets in the way of the actual tale it's attempting (or is it...this is a weird movie, speak up if you've seen it in the comments).  My top prize goes to The Red Shoes, which is really gifted in the way it uses its romances almost as a red herring, over Red River (which, conversely, uses its ambition as a red herring to cover some of its romances).

Screenplay

1. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
2. The Snake Pit
3. The Search
4. A Foreign Affair
5. Johnny Belinda

The Lowdown: 1948 is the most recent year where the Screenplay categories were not split out between adapted & original screenplay, and so we have four adapted films against the original The Search.  I actually wish I could give this to The Snake Pit, because it's the sort of picture that Oscar generally loves and I generally don't (social issue pictures are not my jam), but it's done so well I could actually find some common ground between us...but in this case both Oscar & I are siding with the work of John Huston in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, one of the truly great studio film screenplays of the era (no notes-even the Hays Code couldn't ruin this one).

Score

1. The Red Shoes
2. Hamlet
3. Johnny Belinda
4. The Snake Pit
5. Joan of Arc

The Lowdown: Movies are rarely gusty enough to do what The Red Shoes does with its score.  Look at a film like Tar, for example, which is about classical music and thus uses actual classical music throughout the picture to instruct that.  But The Red Shoes literally spends so much time talking about how it is written for a classic ballet, but instead of Tchaikovsky or Prokofiev, it's literally original music.  The chutzpah...and that they land it, making it sound like a genuine classic...it's impossible to deny, though the moodiness of Hamlet or the windswept grandeur of Johnny Belinda both would've made fine wins (this is the best of the many Johnny Belinda nominations, and the one that I'll come closest to duplicating with my My Ballot even though I won't actually).

Scoring

1. Easter Parade
2. Romance on the High Seas
3. The Pirate
4. The Emperor Waltz
5. When My Baby Smiles at Me

The Lowdown: Similar to Motion Picture Story, I'm not entirely sure how to grade this, and it's more difficult as we'll actually have this for the My Ballot for 1948 (we will not do the same for Motion Picture Story).  But I'm going to look at this as the best overall musical in terms of the way it's staged, sung, & conducted in the picture itself (with perhaps a bonus point or two for truly original song scores).  With that in mind, you can't really beat Easter Parade, with Judy & Fred sounding lovely, particularly with him taking on "Steppin' Out With My Baby" and our first real Ann Miller MGM musical.  Romance on the High Seas benefits from a young Doris Day, and The Pirate has a beautiful choreography from Gene Kelly, but neither are as good as what Easter Parade is achieving.

Original Song

1. "It's Magic" (Romance on the High Seas)
2. "Buttons and Bows" (The Paleface)
3. "The Woody Woodpecker Song" (Wet Blanket Policy)
4. "For Every Man There's a Woman" (Casbah)
5. "This Moment is Magic" (That Lady in Ermine)

The Lowdown: Yes, for those who grew up watching his cartoons, the title song from Woody Woodpecker performed by the Kay Kyser Orchestra, was Oscar-nominated (the only time in the history of the Best Original Song category where a short film was nominated).  But while it's a cute little ditty, I have to go with "It's Magic" as it does a really incredible job of establishing Doris Day as a star in the picture.  "Buttons and Bows" is also a standard, but it has less to do with the success of the film (and let's be honest, is more of a standard than a classic, if that makes sense).

Sound

1. Moonrise
2. The Snake Pit
3. Johnny Belinda

The Lowdown: One of the big reasons that the Oscar Viewing Project will take me so long is that, just a few years earlier, the Sound categories were popping out a dozen or so nominees each year, and then by 1948 they randomly became only a three-wide affair.  The quality here is better, though, with only a trio of nominees, and gives us the single finest "hidden gem" nomination of this bunch: Moonrise.  Moonrise is a dynamite picture (if you've never seen it, please add it to your Letterboxd Watchlist as it's masterful), and it's also a cool nomination.  The film features one song moment (though it's not a musical one), that is executed perfectly, and it also works really well with the circus motif to create strong background noise to heighten tension.  Oscar gave the statue to the also solidly authentic work in The Snake Pit, but for me it's all about Moonrise.

Art Direction - Black & White

1. Hamlet
2. Johnny Belinda

The Lowdown: For the record, we will not be separating between Black & White and Color for my My Ballot's (though we will have five nominees, so for this at least we'll have more than Oscar).  The win here is easy for me-Olivier's Hamlet is a really cool combination of stage play and realism (again, much like the Coen Brothers' lauded turn with Macbeth), and totally upstages anything that is done in Johnny Belinda.  Honestly, the real credit from staging in Johnny Belinda is believably making California look like Prince Edward Island (if there was an Oscar for location scouting...this is the one it should've won).

Art Direction - Color

1. The Red Shoes
2. Joan of Arc

The Lowdown: Both very worthy nominees (say what you will about the end product of Joan of Arc, it surely looks terrific), but much like Moira Shearer, I cannot deny The Red Shoes.  Even the title cards for the movie are crafted to match the set, as if they are somehow part of the movie itself, everything so careful, beautiful, and deliberate.

Cinematography - Black & White

1. A Foreign Affair
2. Johnny Belinda
3. The Naked City
4. Portrait of Jennie
5. I Remember Mama

The Lowdown: Back to the arbitrarily chosen nominee count, Oscar went with the naturalism of The Naked City, which is understandable.  Shot entirely on location in New York, the movie uses real life so well it's hard not to fall for the gimmick (this is one of the hardest My Ballot quintets I'll have ever had to assemble, for the record, as I don't know that any of these will end up on it, and normally the Top 3 would be gimme choices).  I'm instead going to pick the naturalism on display in A Foreign Affair to reward, where Marlene Dietrich is shot in actual war-torn Berlin as if she was back with von Sternberg (compliment).  At some point someone needs to explain to me how I Remember Mama got a nomination in this category when much better options existed (hell, if you just stick to movies Oscar was already watching, you have Moonrise or The Snake Pit right there!).

Cinematography - Color

1. Joan of Arc
2. The Three Musketeers
3. Green Grass of Wyoming
4. The Loves of Carmen

The Lowdown: There's literally room for one more nomination, and in one of those situations where I have to assume there was a paperwork mistake (like Roddy McDowall accidentally going lead for Cleopatra), The Red Shoes was cut from this, which it definitely should've won.  With that out of the way, I have a moment to honor its competitor Joan of Arc, though honestly not by much-this is not just the best lineup of this list, it's also one of the best lineups I've seen Oscar assemble during the Classical Hollywood era...every single one of these I gave 4/5 stars in my personal rankings (which is hard to get as I grade on a curve).  Even The Loves of Carmen in last place has a wonderfully vibrant motif (and Rita Hayworth has rarely looked so lovely).

Costume - Black & White

1. Hamlet
2. B.F.'s Daughter

The Lowdown: Despite costumes being in movies since the dawn of time, it took until 1948 for the Academy to bother rewarding the men & women who made them (this is the first year of the category).  For Black & White, I will go with Hamlet, which gives us not just lovely frocks for Jean Simmons to prance about in, but we also get some attention-to-detail loveliness in the menswear (guys like wearing pretty things too).  BF's Daughter gets nominated almost entirely for a stunning white-and-gold dress that Barbara Stanwyck wears about halfway through (hopefully this link works, but you can see it here) which is breathtaking...but nothing else in the movie compares so it can't really be on the same level as Hamlet.

Costume - Color

1. Joan of Arc
2. The Emperor Waltz

The Lowdown: Similar to how we constantly talk about John Williams in Best Score and whether or not I'm giving him another Oscar (he was nominated so often), we'll be doing the same for Edith Head.  In our second profiled year of Head's 35 competitive nominations (we did 1957 here) Head won, but while I was intoxicated by Joan Fontaine's glorious green dress with matching hat in The Emperor Waltz, it was the only look that really stood out to me, and so I'm more inclined to the many armored outfits of Ingrid Bergman wore in Joan of Arc instead.

Film Editing

1. The Red Shoes
2. Red River
3. The Naked City
4. Johnny Belinda
5. Joan of Arc

The Lowdown: Fun fact-The Red Shoes will not be sweeping the My Ballot awards in the way you're thinking right now because, well, there are a lot of really good movies in 1948 that Oscar chose to ignore that I'll get into.  But I cannot deny with this specific lineup that the Powell & Pressburger film shouldn't take the cake.  The way that the ballets are structured and shot, jumping the line between reality and fiction, are made in the editors' room, even against solid naturalism in The Naked City and the gigantic cattle drives of Red River.

Special Effects

1. Portrait of Jennie
2. Deep Waters

The Lowdown: The early years of the special effects categories are odd because while effects have always been a part of the movies, that doesn't mean that they were as common as they are now (where even crowd work in a rom-com is likely done at a computer).  Portrait of Jennie takes out Deep Waters both because Deep Waters doesn't really have a lot of effects to champion (just a gigantic storm sequence late in the picture), and because of the way it uses the film's cinematography as a tool with the color lensing in the water effects at the end of the movie to give us an ethereal beauty.

My Thoughts on the 97th Academy Awards

I'm continuing the occasional pop-in for the blog here today with a look at last night's Oscars, an annual tradition on a blog that is largely devoted to the Academy Awards.  Because I just finished a vacation, I will actually be revealing my OVP for 2024 two weeks from today (and my My Ballot two weeks from tomorrow), but I did see all of the 2024 OVP nominees before the ceremony, a first for me (I have never gotten them all done in advance, a testament specifically to the lack of surprises in the International Feature Film lineup which is usually where I struggle).  We're going to play around with the formula a little bit from last night, which we normally refer to as the "The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly" of the Oscars, mostly because I wasn't really impressed at all with last night's Academy Awards, but also because it was more blasé than actually bad (which would've honestly been more fun).  Let's instead break it out by the components of what makes a quintessential Oscar night, starting with our host Conan O'Brien.

The Host

I initially thought of O'Brien as a really strong choice for the Oscars.  I enjoy O'Brien's brand of self-referential and dry humor, and he was an ace host when he did the Emmys, particularly in 2006.  But I felt underwhelmed.  His musical number about how long the show was was a complete dud, and he particularly couldn't figure out how to continue the emcee role beyond the opening monologue.  The monologue had some good lines, my favorite being "Bob Dylan wanted to be here tonight...but not that badly" but it also included both that tired number and a weird bit with Adam Sandler where he came out dressed like John Fetterman that felt like it might be an attack on Donald Trump's attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's appearance...but was so out of place that it was hard to tell.  I get that Oscar-hosting is a tough job, but I was underwhelmed by O'Brien here, and he wasn't able to keep up with the jokes throughout the night the way that Billy Crystal used to be able to (think of Crystal's many post-speech jokes about people like Jack Palance & Cuba Gooding Jr.), losing a lot of the improvisational humor that normally is important for hosting (Crystal, for example, would've had at least one good line about Kieran Culkin wanting his wife to have two more kids with him).  O'Brien has indicated this was a one-time thing for him, and I think that might be for the best; like his hero Dave Letterman, this might not be his schtick.

The Winners

The winners continued to be what they have been for years-a continuation of the slow death march of a too crowded awards season, where stats-based punditry has not just taken over, but it's also taken all of the fun out of Oscar predictions.  The one truly competitive major race of the night was Best Actress, which was weirdly the only competitive race of the night the past few years in a row, and did result in something of a surprise: the Anora sweep took out sentimental favorite Demi Moore in favor of the film's title actress Mikey Madison.  But most of America didn't see that (we'll get to that in a second), and the rest of the acting winners (Adrien Brody, Zoe Saldana, & Kieran Culkin) were preordained months ago, and outside of the Shorts categories and Animated Feature Film, there were no really big shocks in the remainder (and the Shorts, let's face it, don't count as surprises).

This wouldn't have been so bad if it was a quartet that truly deserved it, but Culkin & Saldana's wins feel particularly untoward because they are not remotely supporting performances.  Category fraud has been a threat to character actor performances like those of Yura Borisov & Isabella Rossellini (true supporting roles) for years, and some have scoffed at this, saying it's not that serious.  What happened last night, though, was the complete death of supporting performances.  Culkin has a larger screen presence than any Supporting Actor winner ever, including people like Jack Albertson (The Subject was Roses) and Timothy Hutton (Ordinary People) who are pretty much universally agreed-upon to be leads by Oscar observers (he nearly has more screen time percentage than Tatum O'Neal in Paper Moon, who is literally in all but one scene of that movie).  Saldana isn't much better-she has more screen time than her lead costar Karla Sofia Gascon, and is #5 on the list of largest screen time shares, right around the mark of clear leads like Goldie Hawn in Cactus Flower and Viola Davis in Fences.  This means that for the first time ever(?) literally no supporting performance actually won an Academy Award...I don't know how to fix this, but you're going to continue to see leading stars ensure that performers who are in the true category actor vein of Eileen Heckart, Walter Brennan, & Joe Pesci will never have a shot at an Oscar win again.  And given the group think is getting worse, those victories will not be a surprise.

The Presenters & the Performers

The one silver lining for me in last night's ceremony was the presenters.  Billy Crystal & Meg Ryan were an inspired choice to present Best Picture, both screen favorites who have never given out the big award (and two actors who have weirdly never been nominated for an Oscar, a rarity-just four actors, the other two being Carol Burnett & Will Rogers, have presented Best Picture without eventually getting a nomination or a win...perhaps something in their future?).  I loved some of the oddball pairings like June Squibb & Scarlett Johansson, Goldie Hawn & Andrew Garfield, Miles Teller & Miley Cyrus, and Selena Gomez & Samuel L. Jackson all come to mind as actors that make sense as Oscar presenters, just not together, and that's honestly what I want (Oscars should be about being inventive).  You also had a few names I wouldn't have guessed (Mick Jagger & Darryl Hannah specifically) which got us some new energy and gave this ceremony its own appeal.  Overall, whoever chose the presenters this year deserves a pat on the back.

The musical performances, though, were unnecessary.  Somehow on a night where we had genuine musicals in contention (Emilia Perez, A Complete Unknown) we instead got not one but two musical numbers from The Wiz, a film that came out 47 years ago.  The Wicked opening was inevitable (and understandable), and lord knows the Best Original Song contenders were so dreadful that not including them made sense, but did we need yet another uninspired tribute to James Bond, presented, once again, by Halle Berry...is she the only person they know from this movie?!?  I get the rationale here (Michael G. Wilson & Barbara Broccoli just won the Thalberg, and this felt like a death knell for Bond given they just sold the rights to Amazon), but at least mix it up-bring out Bond girls from every era or something, or have the original singers sing their songs (how cool would having Paul McCartney, Shirley Bassey, & Madonna taking the stage have been?).  Something more was needed, as the music felt either boring or silly.

The In Memoriam

It has become a performative bit each year for people to call out random missing names in the In Memoriam, and generally I don't get behind it.  I always find the way that certain performers are signaled out for recognition a bit arbitrary (why Gene Hackman & Quincy Jones instead of Maggie Smith, for example), but this year...woof, I cannot remember the Oscars bungling this badly.  And I say this as someone who generally has sympathy for AMPAS on how hard it is to handle the In Memoriam (side note: I kind of liked the Amadeus dirge being the background, as at least it was memorable).

Most of the headlines you'll see this morning will be about Michelle Trachtenberg, who is the most recognizable name to most people, but honestly feels like one of those performative callouts since Trachtenberg's career was largely in television (the same for Shannon Doherty, Linda Lavin, & Martin Mull), even if her death hits hard since it's so recent (and she was so young).  But the In Memoriam segment forgot some major classic film stars in its list, including some of the biggest snubs I can remember.  Claude Jarman, Jr., who won the Juvenile Oscar for The Yearling, became only the third Oscar-winning actor since the advent of the In Memoriam as a recurring segment in 1994, to be cut from the ceremony.  Mitzi Gaynor, who received the longest standing ovation of any musical performer in the history of the Oscars for her rendition of "Georgy Girl," and whose musical South Pacific is so engrained in Hollywood culture that June Squibb & Scarlett Johansson walked out to "Some Enchanted Evening" earlier in the night, was also cut.  Janis Paige, Kathryn Crosby, Alain Delon, Olivia Hussey...these are not just movie actors, they're movie stars...skipping them felt intentional.  In a night where we were being asked to celebrate the movies, it was hard not to think of it as celebrating movies...as long as they were made after 1975.

The Streaming Fiasco

The single biggest issue for the Oscars last night-most people didn't get to see how they ended.  ABC & Disney had made a big deal about how this would be the first year ever that all Hulu subscribers could watch the ceremony in full on their streamers.  It was included in all of their advertisements, and was omnipresent at the top of the Hulu page for weeks.  And then, right in the middle of the Best Actress field (for me they'd just announced Karla Sofia Gascon), a giant blue screen popped up, saying the live show had ended.  What it appeared had happened was that ABC had only allotted 3.5 hours for the ceremony, not taking into account the Oscars regularly run long, and for streamers this meant that they weren't still watching live like they would've on ABC, and instead this allotted time was over and it was now time for American Idol.  But in the process they cut off their two signature awards of the night.  I was one of those impacted (I have since sought out and saw the full presentations and speeches for Best Picture & Actress so I can say I've seen the full ceremony), but it is a fitting epitaph for the evening.  After all, the night's biggest winner, Sean Baker (tying Walt Disney's record for most wins in a single evening), made an impassioned plea to go to the movies in theaters rather than streaming.  That streaming proved it was too incompetent to handle celebrating Hollywood's biggest night just an hour later kind of feels like an exclamation point that even Baker couldn't have anticipated.

Thursday, February 20, 2025

5 Thoughts on Mitch McConnell's Retirement

We are making a habit of talking about Senate retirements on the blog, and we're getting our first Republican stepping down this cycle today with the announcement of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the former Senate Majority Leader and the second-longest serving member of the Senate, deciding to step down as US Senator at the end of his current term.  With that, let's talk about what this means for 2026.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
1. Mitch McConnell Retires

Sen. Mitch McConnell's long career came very close to not happening.  In 1984, McConnell was in a weird position, as the only Republican to flip a Senate seat in a night where Ronald Reagan was winning a landslide national victory, defeating incumbent Sen. Walter Dee Huddleston (Democrats did weirdly well during the Reagan landslide, picking up seats in Iowa, Illinois, & Tennessee in the same night, and even odder-all three of those new senators-elect would unsuccessfully run for president).   Unlike most Southern states, Kentucky was not a state that was totally averse to electing Republicans to the Senate, but thanks to Sen. Huddleston and Sen. Wendell Ford, the Democrats had dominated the Bluegrass State for much of the 1970's.  McConnell was a scrappy campaigner, though, winning the race by less than half a percentage point, attacking Huddleston for being "out of touch" with Kentucky, something that would prove a bit ironic for McConnell, one of the most consistent "creatures of DC" for virtually all of my lifetime (McConnell was elected to the Senate the year I was born, so I don't remember a time he wasn't in Congress).

McConnell's legacy will be complicated, less so because of McConnell, an ardent Republican famous for securing a conservative Supreme Court majority not just for the rest of his life, but for the rest of all of our lives at the current rate, but more so because of Donald Trump.  McConnell recently made headlines for voting against Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, & Robert Kennedy, Jr. to Trump's cabinet, something unthinkable when he was Majority Leader, and likely spurred by his fervent support of NATO and countries like Taiwan, Israel, & Ukraine.  His retirement means that the Republican Party is losing its highest-profile supporter of the post-WWII democratic order that GOP presidents like Eisenhower, Reagan, and both Bush's made a hallmark of during their presidencies.  In that regard (and in that regard only, as I despise McConnell for what he's done to this country) I feel a little bad about what is going to come from him leaving.

Attorney General Daniel Cameron (R-KY)
2. The Republican Primary Will Be Brutal

Kentucky is a dark red state, and the Republican nominee will not just be the favorite, but a safe bet for the win.  Former Attorney General Daniel Cameron, who lost a close race for governor in 2023, has already announced his candidacy, and it's possible that McConnell will use what's left of his clout back home to get Cameron the nomination (the 39-year-old was McConnell's legal counsel and is seen as the closest thing McConnell has to a protégée).

But Cameron will not get the race to himself.  Rep. Andy Barr, who recently lost a bid to chair the Financial Services Committee in the House, is expected to jump in given he couldn't get this plum House seat, and wealthy businessman Nate Morris is already running.  Other names (Ambassador Kelly Craft, Rep. Thomas Massie, Secretary of State Michael Adams) could also get into the race, given how rare it is to see an open seat for the Senate in Kentucky.  First attacks have been fired, with the Club for Growth very clearly against Barr (who for years had a more moderate House district, and it shows in terms of his public statements), and Cameron & Morris both playing the "who can MAGA harder?" card.  I don't see a world where Donald Trump doesn't feel the need to insert himself into this race, which has to make Cameron nervous (Trump & McConnell hate each other...if Cameron is seen as McConnell's preference, Trump might speak up against him).

Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY)
3. Democrats Look to Andy Beshear

The only name that any Democrat cares about in this race is two-term Gov. Andy Beshear.  Beshear will be heavily courted (I would imagine he's already talked to Chuck Schumer & Kirsten Gillibrand today), but I would be stunned if he ran, for two reasons.  First, Beshear is widely-expected to be considering a presidential run in 2028, and would be a top tier candidate.  Similar to Gretchen Whitmer & Brian Kemp, running a Senate campaign would be too risky.  If he won, he just went through a grueling session that will leave him exhausted headed into a POTUS race, and if he doesn't win...he's a loser headed into a POTUS race.

Also, Beshear won't win (unlike Whitmer or Kemp).  We've been to this dance too many times to count, and it always ends up the same.  The last Governor to win an open Senate seat in a state that his party lost the previous cycle was Joe Manchin in 2010.  Since then, figures from Evan Bayh to Ted Strickland to Larry Hogan to Phil Bredesen to Steve Bullock have all tried, and all have failed.  It's simply not possible to do this, and Beshear is smart enough to know that.  He won't run.

House Minority Leader Pamela Stevenson (D-KY)
4. Should Democrats Field No Candidate?

House Minority Leader Pamela Stevenson has already announced her candidacy for the Democratic nomination, and given her position as one of the most powerful Democrats in the state not named Beshear, I assume she'll get the nomination and become the sacrificial lamb in the race.  But I will admit-the one thing I'd like to see here is not Stevenson or Beshear, but instead "no candidate."  Rather than a Democrat, having a moderate Independent, one who threatens not to caucus with either party in DC, would be my suggestion.  We have seen this come close to working a few times (AK 2020, KS 2014, NE 2024), and it's a strategy with some credence...if we have red states we can't win, why not see if there's a way to get the Republicans to lose?  In all three of those cases, the candidates outperformed what a Democrat would do, though being the de facto Democratic nominee ultimately ended up costing them actual wins.  If I was the DSCC, I'd be looking for another Dan Osborn, not Andy Beshear.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
5. Will We See More Republican Retirements

We've focused pretty heavily in these Senate articles on Democratic retirements, both because of recent retirements from Tina Smith & Gary Peters, and because so many Democrats up this cycle (Markey, Shaheen, Durbin) are old, and I think likely to step aside.  But as McConnell indicated, there are Republicans who could also skip town.

Generally I think this is a case where you retire because you don't think you'll have the majority, but since Republicans are heavily favored to win, Republican retirements feel more about being old (like McConnell) or being a bad fit for MAGA 2.0 (again, also like McConnell).  Sen. Jim Risch is the next oldest Republican up this cycle, and while the low-key Risch is unlikely to face a conservative challenge, he's 81-years-old and may want to head back to Idaho after over 50 years in politics.  The MAGA threat could be more an issue for people like Bill Cassidy (who voted to impeach Donald Trump, something he'll never escape if he runs) or John Cornyn (who has plenty of threats from his right from more devoted Trump loyalists).  I also still maintain that Susan Collins should be on the retirement watch until early 2026, because Collins prides herself on having never lost her race, and I think (if she runs) that will be a test she can't win with a second Trump midterm taking her down.  Any of these could join McConnell in what is increasingly looking like a turnover cycle in DC.