Once a year I emerge from my lair, see my shadow, and remind you that Al Franken is never going to be a US Senator again. thehill.com/homenews/senat…
Last time this came up, I noted that Minnesota's two senators are both women, and both much younger than Franken. Neither is retiring soon, and his not going to challenge either of them in a primary.
Since then, Franken has apparently moved to New York City. He recently conceded the obvious fact that there's no way in hell he's going to primary Gillibrand, and that leaves Chuck Schumer.
Schumer is running for re-election in 2022, and Franken will be eighty years old in 2028. So that's out.
And there's no senate seat anywhere in the US that isn't New York or Minnesota that Franken would have a chance in hell of winning.
For new followers who are wondering what I think about Franken's resignation, there's a big thread here which links to further details in previous threads:
Short version: Some of the Franken allegations were made up, some weren't. He had weeks to present a coherent argument for retaining his seat, but never did. He could have held on and demanded a trial, but didn't do that either, and it probably would have gone badly if he had.
(And by "Al Franken is never going to be a US Senator again," I of course mean "Al Franken has no plausible path back to the senate." If you disagree, tell me which seat you think he [1] might run for and [2] could win, in which year.)
Also, for those of you who are angry that I'm claiming to know the future: I COMPARED MYSELF TO A WEATHER-PREDICTING GROUNDHOG in the original tweet.
Could I be wrong? Sure. Amy Klobuchar could be hit by a rogue meteor tomorrow, and Franken could get lucky in a primary. But he's not young, he's divisive, and the only two states where he'd be a vaguely plausible candidate aren't likely to have open seats anytime soon.
And to the folks who suggested West Virginia is his ticket back? Well...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The thread linked above is very good and very clear, and well worth reading.
I've been arguing for years for the importance of the specificity of the term "white supremacy"—referring, as it originally did, to the political project of implementing white rule. It really is an essential framing for understanding the modern GOP.
More than half of the 38 Harvard professors who signed an open letter backing an accused sexual harasser on the college's faculty now say they no longer stand by the statement. bostonglobe.com/2022/02/08/met…
Twenty of the 38 signers have withdrawn their names. This after two of the twenty released a statement saying that the letter wasn't intended to say what it very clearly said. thecrimson.com/article/2022/2…
Four more Harvard profs removed their names from the Comaroff support letter overnight, bringing the total to 24 withdrawals out of 38 signatories. bostonglobe.com/2022/02/08/met…
"We need to use the n word while quoting racists so people will know how anti-racist we are, and I don't care if you think that's racist" is a seriously strange take.
Like, yes, I understand that there are arguments to be made that articulating that word is sometimes an antiracist practice. I find them far less compelling than I used to, but I understand them. But this ... isn't that.
Wartching Desperately Seeking Susan with the kid, and am overcome by a vertiginous wave of longing for the shitty downtown magic club. If that place existed, I’d be there twice a week.
It’s like Marie’s Crisis, Spain, and the Coney Island freak show had a baby.
This is our second or third time watching it, and was the outcome of a 20-minute “what to watch tonight” negotiation.
Lots of people confused by this claim, and with good reason—the data Yglesias used came from a study that estimated population once a century. His chart, and particularly his tweet, doesn't reflect that.
So yes, London was probably the biggest city in the world in 1900, but no, that doesn't mean it was the biggest from 1900 to 2000, or that Tokyo "suddenly" took over that year.
Everything sucks, nothing's getting better, and it increasingly feels to many people like nothing CAN get better. So OF COURSE if you ask people "how are you doing?" questions they're going to respond in tones of despair.
(To put it another way, if you click through to @Nate_Cohn's thread, I think he's got it mostly right, though I'd underscore existential despair more than he does.)
I also think Cohn is 100% right to say that how people respond to questions about the economy aren't solely, or in many cases even primarily, about how they feel about the economy right now.