U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 25, 2023 12:42 AM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • 26 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.”

–Franklin D. Roosevelt

Tweet
Share

Comments

26 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread”

  1. Republican Party is continuing to pursue the Jan 6 insurrection.

    All it would take is for five Republicans to vote with 213 Democrats to remove the debt ceiling – that's less than 2.5% of the House Republicans.

    Looks like the Republican Party as a whole actually wants the Country to default. 

    1. Don Bacon (NE) and Brian Fitzpatrick (PA) are the only two quickly coming to mind who might agree to that. Still need three more, assuming all 213 Dems go along.

      Any R that votes with the Ds, though, will be permanently ostracized by the MAGAs who run the party now.

      1. They will be given the full Liz Cheney treatment if they vote with the Dems. Perhaps even worse….whatever that might entail. 

      2. It seems to me that being ostracized by the MAGAs would be a good thing. 

        Like getting an Elmo Mush to take away your blue-check.

        Like Putin putting Heather Cox-Richardson on the Russian sanctions list is a feather in your cap.

        Any Republican NOT ostracized by MAGA is by definition a fascist.

        1. Unfortunately for conservatives…

          MAGA ownership of the Republican Party means there is no possible opening for a Conservative Party.

          No Labels is an anti-Dem stalking horse (err, Rat Fuck) for the GOP.

      4. There are a number of "Republicans" from the Northeast (and elsewhere) who have clear ties to financial corporations.  I suspect they are getting clear advice — "go ahead and stay with the effort to get whatever the Republican conference can, but default is NOT an option.  If there is no deal, you need to do anything necessary to avoid default:  Signing and supporting the "clean" discharge petition is a last resort."

        And if there are 5 who sign and McCarthy and the Freedom Caucus try to come after them — remember, McCarthy needed EVERY available vote to become Speaker.  If there is a block of 5, they could easily negotiate with Democrats, make the motion to vacate the Speaker's chair, and kick McCarthy to the curb.  There could be some sort of agreement that would put Jeffries in as Speaker — maybe with limits on policies or agreements on committee reshuffling.

      1. Along with that are reports that some Dems are willing to vote no on a motion to vacate the chair, at least in the short term.

        It's supposed to provide My Kevin with some degree of job security – admittedly not much but he knew that was going to happen when he took the job.

        It's also supposed to let the Free Dumb Carcass know that their threats may not have as much of a punch as they'd like to believe.

    1. From reading the article, sounds like Beauprez is doing what he should be doing as treasurer; due diligence and safeguarding the organizational resources.

      It also seems that the full board of directors should have been on top of the issue a long time ago. Beauprez was trying to get on top of things, but apparently was kept in the dark about off-book finances.

      2. I may not agree with him on a lot of stuff, but he knows banking and finance, and it sounds like he did the right thing by resigning rather than participate in fishiness

  7. Brett Kavanaugh is the unexpected voice of reason. Ian Milhiser at Vox.com

    Alito just removed over 50% of US wetlands from regulation by the EPA. Kavanaugh disagrees:

    The fundamental challenge facing any water regulator is that water systems are interconnected. As Kavanaugh writes, “because of the movement of water between adjacent wetlands and other waters, pollutants in wetlands often end up in adjacent rivers, lakes, and other waters.”

    The Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision on Thursday which places a drastic new limit on the Clean Water Act, the 1972 law that forms the backbone of the United States’ efforts to ensure that America’s water supply is clean and safe.

    As Justice Brett Kavanaugh writes in a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Sackett v. EPA is likely to hobble the law’s ability to protect several major waterways, including the Mississippi River and the Chesapeake Bay.

    The case involves an admittedly quite difficult question of how to read a vague provision of the law. The Clean Water Act prohibits “discharge of pollutants” into “navigable waters.” But it also defines the term “navigable waters” counterintuitively, to include all “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.”

    …

    Alito’s opinion does not apply the act to all wetlands that are “adjacent” to nearby waterways. Under Alito’s approach, only wetlands that have a “continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right, so that there is no clear demarcation between ‘waters’ and wetlands” are subject to the law’s restrictions on pollution.

    This somewhat fast and loose approach to statutory text is a common feature in Alito’s opinions. In Brnovich v. DNC (2021), for example, Alito’s majority opinion imposed a number of extratextual limits on the Voting Rights Act — such as a strong presumption that voting restrictions that were commonplace in 1982 are lawful — that appear nowhere in the Voting Rights Act’s text.

     

    1. Admittedly, Bud Light (“The official beer of GOPer recall petitioners, everywhere!”) did take one on the chin. But, I’m not sure a company with a target market of outdoor recreationalists has very much to fear from her Snoozing MAGAts?  North Face’s biggest fear would probably be those people actually being seen in public wearing their gear (in XXL, XXXL, and XXXXL)? Now, Depends, Black-Eyed Pea, Schechers, Sansabelt, Dulcalax, Golden Corral, and those Shatner-endorsed CPAP cleaners, that’s a whole nuther ball of FOX.

    2. Boebert is ignorant as usual. North Face generally markets to a younger crowd that doesn't have the prejudices of some old far righties and their few younger enablers, like Bobo.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

97 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!