DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 31, 2025 08:13 AM UTC
18 Comments
The new darling of the centrist Democrats, “Abundance Liberalism,” which is just the same failed neo-liberalism of the past 40 years with a new name, blames regulation for all of the failing of liberal policies, while ignoring the effects of wealth concentration, industry monopolies/monopsonies, and increasing corporate capture of regulatory and legislative bodies. There is definitely space for an informed discussion about removing or replacing regulations that are not working, but this new movement will just further entrench corporate power and socialize the human and environmental costs of industry. The challenge of this time is not to find ways to cut regulations, but to find ways to reduce income inequality.
Here’s a well balanced response: https://washingtonmonthly.com/2025/03/23/the-meager-agenda-of-abundance-liberals/
Let’s also pay attention to the moneyed interests behind this neo-liberal rebrand.
https://prospect.org/economy/2024-11-26-abundance-agenda-neoliberalisms-rebrand/
Not only was Ben Stein a trained economist and a rock-ribbed Republican, his father, Herbert Stein was Nixon's chief economic advisor. Not that Trump nor his Quackenomic advisors know or care.
I believe the kids in this clip represent the 2024 voters who voted for T**** because of inflationary prices even though they were warned about how tariffs would increase prices during the campaign.
As the morbid joke goes, "What are two of the most critical problems we face?" Answer: "I don't know and I don't care"
Mary L. Trump dissects her uncle's failing Ukrainian "Peace Plan"
I'm confident JD Vance and his patrons are waiting with bated breath for Trump to kick the bucket so they can take over.
Senator Lisa Cutter Interview
Discussing her efforts in the Colorado Senate
She's a really smart and thoughtful advocate for the environement.
deleted
I predict that tomorrow's news will have me at first wondering if it's an April Fool's joke, but then I shall say "Oh crap, it's real."
Amazon is announcing some kind of Kindle special tomorrow.
What would be hilarious is if tomorrow when you click on the "Kindle Special" it went to a page that said "April Fools!"
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!
Colorado will recognize nuclear power as a ‘clean’ energy source after governor signs bill
Easy, David…and congratulations on a personal victory for you.
Though, as you know, I completely disagree. The next thing you know, Colorado will declare natural gas a “clean” energy source.
I guess the BigEnergyBoyz are running the first floor of the Capitol again…or, still, that is.
Transition to Clean Energy must include Gas-turbine & should include Nuclear.
I have to agree with David that we need a mix of energy sources. As David points out, the intermittant nature of wind & solar, means that renewables alone can't handle the energy needs (and growth) of the present grid. The only ways to deal with this is through storage, grid management and supplemental sources. Nuclear & Hydro are the only non-carbon electricity sources. And, only gas-turbine & nuclear can scale up or down as the grid requires.
I disagree with David that the direct costs of solar, wind & storage are too onerous. The indirect costs (e.g. climate change), make the transition to non-carbon electricity imperative.
Duke & ParkHill – first thank you.
Second, I am a loud advocate for solar & batteries for peak power usage, micro grid backups, etc. I have solar & batteries at home.
Third, I dislike wind because the way we use wind, with SCGT as backup – it doesn't reduce CO2. If it systemically reduced CO2 I'd support it.
Fourth, the gas companies love wind & solar – because they require gas backup. They sell almost as much gas for wind backup as they do for a CCGT. And they can greenwash themselves.
Serious question, David. What is your take on the carbon capture industry?
They can do it now – but in small expensive pilot projects, which is how everything starts. So it is possible. The volume this needs to be done at to make a difference – that will require gigantic scale and at an affordable price.
I'm hopeful we'll see this on a large scale within 15 years. But I worry my wishful thinking has me more optimistic than I should be.
I watched an investigation on the industry on a 60 Minutes program recently. It (the carbon capture industry) is almost wholly funded by the OilyBoyz. There are reasons to have serious doubts about the reported data, vis a vis the actual efficiencies.
What is best for the Boyz is convincing the lungs of the world that carbon capture can have a meaningful impact and will be paid for by some means other than taxpayer-funded subsidies. Of course, if they can sell the idea that carbon capture is a viable solution, the pressure to stop burning their dirty fossil fuels is likely to diminish.
Not sure I trust them…
Here's someone who looks at the science behind the various technologies speaking on carbon capture