CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


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

(D) Joe Neguse*


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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 28, 2022 07:09 AM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

“Whoever makes the fewest mistakes wins.”

–Johan Cruyff


41 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread

  1. From the internets this morning: 

    Yesterday the first Russian reservist units filmed themselves moving into position in Ukraine and today Ukraine presented the passports taken from the reservists’ corpses.

    1. A proverbial house of cards.

      From the same thread: 

      Had someone ask me about the Siberian natural gas pipeline intended to ship gas from Russia to China. Don’t bet on it working. It pulls supply from exclusively Eastern Siberian fields, fields developed exclusively by foreign firms. Russians cannot maintain them.

      1. Let's hope so. And there are still Putin sympathizers in the GOP including FDFQ. Baffling, and downright un-American. Probably for the sole reason Biden supports Ukraine. So childish.

  2. Does anyone find it interesting that the sabotage of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that was all over the news yesterday, is not mentioned today on Drudge or other news outlets? Maybe it is but I haven’t seen any coverage.

      1. Why would Russia sabotage their own pipeline when all they would have to do is shut off the supply. Chris Coons explanation is not very credible.

        More likely it was done by the US or NATO because Biden said the pipeline would be jeopardy if Russia invaded Ukraine.

        WSJ is behind a pay wall.

        You should like Drudge, he hates Trump.

        1. Lots of speculation about the disruption of the pipeline.  If the explosions were done well, there ought to be all sort of findable clues to help people jump to the wrong conclusion.

          Of course it could be Col. Mustard, in the Conservatory, with a lead pipe. 

          First pass on "who" assumed it had to be a government.  The twisty-turny explanation that made SOME sense to me blamed Russia, using a sub or underwater drone, to blow up the not-operating pipelines, in order to make US, Norway and Poland look bad AND undercut any internal Russian opposition from overthrowing  

        2. Of course it is.  You want quality you pay for it.  Thank god the WSJ understands that's what America is about.

          You want crap information go to Drudge, Newsmax, etc. or agree to become a data donor for Google and FB.

        3. You've got a point that it's hard to think of anyone who has an interest in destroying the pipeline. Turning it off – yes. But destroying it?

          Looking at what was done and in three places, it pretty much has to be a state actor with significant naval capabilities. But I don't see it as being the West. First off, that would be a giant escalation with no real value.

          Second, the fact we did it would leak. It would take a substantial number of people involved and one of them would leak the info. That always happens.

          So that leaves Russia. If it is them, then the purpose is to say that their shut off of gas is not temporary. And that they can go inflict physical damage on NATO facilities. 

          Does that make sense? Maybe not to you or me but the question is – does that make sense to Putin? And I think he could see that as a useful escalation.

          Personally I figure if 2 weeks after the explosions there is no leak of it being done by a Western power, it was the Russians.

          1. When Biden says he will put an end to the pipeline, that kind of puts him at the scene of the crime. To me end means something different than shut down.

            I don’t know who did it but it seems like a very very big escalation. It took the US months to respond to 9/11. If it wasn’t Russia, there is a big ball to drop sometime. Let’s hope it’s not mushroom shaped.

            1. I read today that the old, incontinent, morbidly obese adderall junkie/serial rapist is offering to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Problem solved! laugh

    1. Basically, Trump's chosen Special Master has seen through the bullshit, and is demanding that he put up or shut up.

      He's hitting Trump right where it hurts: You gotta pay the $500/hour lawyers, and the document control vendors. This is your law suit, and you have the burden of proof. And, you gotta pay up front because everybody knows you stiff your contractors.

      "You said that the government planted documents… which ones?"
      "You say you declassified docs… which ones?"
      "You say you personal files and government classified files are mixed together… Which are which?"

      Judge Loose Cannon is all pissed off because the Special Master is also calling out her bullshit. "Umm, what do you mean I exceeded your mandate? I'm doing exactly what you told me to do."  Dearie is basically telling Cannon to live with it or fire him, in which case the entire Cannon ruling probably gets thrown out by the 11th District Court, conservative as it might be.

  3. Renewables Learning Curve: 10% per year exponential price decreases, by David Roberts

    One of the best reporters on the renewable energy beat.

    The forecasts make probabilistic bets that technologies on learning curves will stay on them. If that's true, then the faster we deploy clean energy technologies, the cheaper they will get. If we deploy them fast enough reach net zero by 2050, as is our stated goal, then they will become very cheap indeed — cheap enough to utterly crush their fossil fuel competition, within the decade. Cheap enough that the most aggressive energy transition scenario won't cost anything — it will save over a trillion dollars relative to baseline.

    We've gotten the sign wrong: the transition to clean energy is not a cost, it's a benefit. The implication is that it makes overwhelming sense to rapidly transition to clean energy technologies, without even counting climate and air pollution benefits. That's why the paper made a splash.

    The Oxford scholars take a different approach, centered on technology "learning curves” (sometimes called “experience curves”). They begin by noting:

    "The prices of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas are volatile, but after adjusting for inflation, prices now are very similar to what they were 140 years ago, and there is no obvious long-range trend. In contrast, for several decades the costs of solar photovoltaics (PV), wind, and batteries have dropped (roughly) exponentially at a rate near 10% per year."

  4. Pivot and attack Madlibs

    Courtesy of Rachel Bitecofer.

    "We all know there are more important issues than…."
    "What he just said is completely absurd."
    "Republicans are killing women who have pregnancy complications"

    Republicans don't cut ads to win fact checks, they cut ads to win elections.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

68 readers online now


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