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) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank



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
April 05, 2023 12:23 AM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

“It is said that the present is pregnant with the future.”



20 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread

  1. Political optics are just as important as the legal case. Josh Marshal at TPM.

    We’ve now had the day of spectacle and legal experts have had a chance to provide their first analyses of the case brought against former President Trump. On the substance the case isn’t difficult to understand: In the final weeks of the 2016 campaign Trump orchestrated a hush money scheme to keep a series of affairs and assignations out of the press and in so doing broke a series of laws. The law is more complicated, involving both federal and state laws, and a specific argument about how different violations of the law interact with each other to create a broader pattern of criminal conduct.

    On this point fair-minded people (by which I mean people who are knowledgable and by no means carrying water for Trump) appear divided. Those saying the legal foundations of the case are shaky include Rick Hasen (see here) and Ian Millhiser (see here). On the contrary, Ryan Goodman et al. at JustSecurity (see here) say these skeptics are wrong and, broadly, that they’re not focusing squarely enough on the New York case law which controls the prosecution. I’m not in a position to tell you which narrowly legal arguments are better. But I am in a position to argue against the underlying political argument of those who fear that the legal merits of the case aren’t unassailable.

    Many who worry that the legal arguments of this case aren’t strong enough argue that if the case gets watered down or thrown out on a legal technicality that that will just confirm the beliefs and add power to the arguments of those who say the legal system is already a sham, biased against conservatives and worse. So in this sense, it’s not just that the case may fail. It’s that its possible failure will empower those already trying to tear down civic democracy, the concept of impartial justice and the rule of law.

    1. Trump will face his federal obstruction charges presumably before this case puts it's pants on. 

      I think it is true that it will make Trump the Republican nominee. I think it is true his supporters won't trust the judicial system regarding any Republican or Trump.

      Republicans will continue to cry and I won't feel pity for them. 

    2. Trying to game out what Republicans are going to shout about beforehand has always been a losing proposition. We lose ground in the attempt to appear non-partisan (or bipartisan) and then they scream about it anyway.

  2. Good news from Grand Junction’s municipal election: after several failed election efforts over 40-some years, the Western Slope’s largest city finally will build a community recreation center. It will join Gunnison, Montrose, Durango, Delta and Glenwood Springs with such amenities.

    Even better, the City Council will be a much more reasonable group after three moderates and even Democrats won seats last night. Among the failed conservative slate were the retired CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, a local real estate developer and a chiropractor who was the most vocal anti-vaxxer in town and whose wife, the president of the school board, led the charge to eliminate a student health clinic in the under-construction new Grand Junction High School and who is facing a recall.

    Mesa County as a whole remains as Trumpian as ever, with the county commissioners and DA penning a recent op-ed lambasting proposed gun laws in the legislature.

    As one wag put it last night while enjoying the rec center campaign’s victory party: “Grand Junction is turning into a liberal bastion surrounded by insanity.’’



    1. The election of Scott Bielfuss to  city council is particularly gratifying to me. Not only because Scott is an extraordinarily good man. I have known him for years. He will, one day, be  revered for his service to Grand Junction.

      It is especially gratifying that he defeated Diane Schwenke. I was the chair of the WCC (now WCA) energy committee when Diane personally delivered a letter to the organizations' director, terminating our membership. Her justification for summarily dismissing our paid membership was due to, in her words, "political differences"

      I relate this story to you to illustrate the impunity with which Mrs. Schwenke and the cadre of realtors, developers, bankers OilyBoyz. and their hand-picked cronies have unabashedly run this county. At least since I came here in the mid-seventies.

      So…congratulations Scott!! Grand Junction just got lucky!

  3. The more progressive candidate won Chicago's mayoral election over the more "moderate" candidate who was supported by the Democratic establishment and the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police.

    The Chicago FOP has invited Ron Desantis to speak to their members. What's with the fascism in police Unions? Or, is it just the white police unions that are fascist?

  4. Yet Denver voters trust idiots who say that a covenant that says a site must be used as a golf course really doesn’t mean that.

    EDIT: Spelling of words matter


  5. Sarah H. Sanders has egg on her face today. After telling the Fed'ral Gub'mint to stay out of Arkansas' bid'ness, she went poor-mouthing to pay for the tornado recovery. They won't, but it'd serve her right if the Feds told her they didn't want to meddle in her state's affairs.

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

53 readers online now


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