Prime

You’ve likely seen from Kate Riga’s reporting that things were trending in this direction. But over the weekend, Dave Wasserman of The Cook Report announced that according to his analysis the Democrats are now the net winners of the 2020–22 redistricting process nationwide.

Take a moment to let that sink in. For much of last year people were assuming that Republican state legislatures were going to use redistricting to engineer a gerrymander that might put the House and thus functional control of the federal government out of the reach of Democrats for the next decade. But that’s not how it’s turned out. Wasserman now thinks Democrats are on track for a net 2–3 seat gain.

Before we go any further there are critical caveats to understand here.

“Were you struck, as was I, by the absence of an ad hominem attack on Pence in Trump’s responsive statement? Trump attacks ‘Old Crow Mitch McConnell’ but nary a word against Pence. Looks to me like an invitation for a quid pro quo — I won’t attack you if you are circumspect with the Jan 6 Committee.  He knows that Pence has the goods but he is offering a non-aggression pact.”

There’s a fascinating passage in these new Trump election lawyer memos from the pre-January 6th period. One particularly jumped out at me in which Trump campaign lawyer Kenneth Chesebro casually runs down the relative difficulty of stealing the election in each of the key states.

“In conclusion, it appears that voting by an alternative slate of electors is unproblematic in Arizona and Wisconsin; slightly problematic in Michigan (requiring access to the senate chamber); somewhat dicey in Georgia and Pennsylvania in the event that one or more electors don’t attend (require gubernatorial ratification of alternates); and very problematic in Nevada (given the role accorded to the Secretary of State).”

Perhaps I’m just so dispirited after a year of being forced to analyze and discuss Joe Manchin on a daily basis. But I find myself compelled to resort to media criticism for the second time in a week. I read this morning that Whoopi Goldberg has been suspended for two weeks from The View for her earlier comments about the Holocaust. This whole episode is a testament to the general insipidness of our public culture.

Goldberg’s comments were clearly rooted in ignorance rather than malevolence. She not only issued a genuine apology rather than a half-assed ‘I’m sorry if anyone was offended’ type apology. She also spoke to people, privately and publicly, and seemingly learned why her comments were wrongheaded and corrected herself. ABC’s suspension was needless and stupid. It will be derided as “cancel culture.” But it’s really more the kind of corporate ass-covering that only discredits the values it purports to serve. It’s a consequence that, as far as I can tell, basically no one was asking for.

I confess to some feelings of pessimism (something I’m usually characterologically and ideologically opposed to) and drift about the current political moment. But despite the frequent and understandable claims that none of it matters, there’s more going on than people maybe realize with ex-President Trump and the January 6th investigators. Here I don’t mean specifically what the investigators are coming up with — though I think there’s a lot going on there too. I’m talking about Trump’s efforts to manage the Republican response to those findings and its on-going work.

You’ve probably seen this controversy with Joe Rogan and his podcast which now involves Neil Young, Joni Mitchell and a series of other musicians whose heydays were decades ago. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that! Most of the things I listen to are at least three or four decades old.) I noticed a Twitter exchange this morning that basically asked, ‘How is this controversy going on for so long?’ Maybe something is in the water. Or — given the centrality of COVID to this — in the air. But last night I had a similar thought: How are we still talking about this?

The whole thing seems more mundane and pedestrian than the way it’s being portrayed. Some of it is the focus on “disinformation” or “misinformation” in public discussions which traces back to or at least became ubiquitous after the revelations about Russian disinformation campaigns during the 2016 election.