CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

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
January 06, 2024 12:12 AM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • 25 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Society cannot share a common communication system so long as it is split into warring factions.”

–Bertolt Brecht

Comments

25 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread

  1. On February 8, The Supreme Court will hear Trump’s appeal of Colorado’s  ruling barring him from the primary ballot. Discuss. 

    Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold said people in her state and around the United States “deserve clarity on whether someone who engaged in insurrection may run for the country’s highest office.”

    Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group representing the challengers to Trump, added, “We’re glad that the Supreme Court will definitively decide whether Donald Trump can be on the ballot. We look forward to presenting our case and ensuring the Constitution is upheld.”

    1. And it will end up being a five plus one to three decision. (Or maybe a four plus two to three split. That’s if Alito and Thomas go to town on the Colorado Supreme Court and show their true colors while the three Trump appointees show some modicum of restraint and thereby entice John Roberts to go with them.)

      Once again, thank you, Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

      1. And a big thanks to Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society, Mitch McConnell, the thankfully-dead Nino "the world is 6000 years-old" Scalia and Ronald Reagan, among other right-wing kakistocrats.  Would be a good time to curb much federal court jurisdiction, including SCOTUS's.  

        1. What sort of "fight" would have been worthwhile, in your view? 

          And do you have ANY experience on either side of an executive/legislative relationship at a state or federal level to guide your judgment?

        2. The only thing Obama could have tried – and he probably should have but it would have only been a short-term solution – was a recess appointment.

          But once Trump won the 2016 election, he would have gotten to select a permanent replacement for Scalia.

          What Ginsberg did in not stepping down in 2013 was unforegiveable. Did ashe really believe – with multiple cancer diagnoses – that she was immortal?

          1. RBG’s ego was inexcusable and costly.

            Obama’s mistakes were indeed procedural in terms of declining to do a recess appointment; which was one of numerous dumb or disappointing political decisions from the admin from start to end with that process.

          2. Check your congressional calendars.  The Senate doesn't "recess" anymore, and certainly doesn't when the majority is the opposite party as the President. SCOTUSblog put it this way:

            The presidential authority at issue in this possible scenario exists, according to Article II, when the Senate has gone into recess and the vacancy a president seeks to fill remains.  Such an appointment requires no action at all by the Senate, but the appointee can only serve until the end of the following Senate session.  The president (if still in office) can then try again during a new Senate session, by making a new nomination, and that must be reviewed by the Senate.

            The Supreme Court had never clarified that power until its decision in June 2014 in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.

            The decision was something of a compromise.  The Court expanded the concept of when the Senate would be in recess so that the president could make a temporary appointment, but it also gave the Senate more control over when it does recess and how long the recesses last.  The gesture toward the Senate’s choices was probably the more important result…..

            Could President Obama make a nominee during that recess?  Only if the Senate is taking a recess lasting longer than three days, and does not come in from time to time during that recess to take some minimal legislative action.  Both of those circumstances would be entirely within the Senate’s authority.

            1. The bottom line is Obama and his apologists got busy telling the rest of the nation what they couldn’t do and wouldn’t do.  And they basically did nothing.  This is the opposite of fighting, and is an intensely weird take on how to do politics.

  2. Here's the cartoon I posted earlier.  However, editing a comment with an embedded image causes it to become corrupted.  Something with the editor, it seems.

    political cartoon

    1. This may actually help him in the general election. Remember, there are a lot of angry older, white, male, presumptively heterosexual, non-college educated voters in CD 4 who will hear the term "protection order" and think that this guy is getting fucked over by the Woke Deep State.

       

  3. I am of a mind to think Fox News and it's denizens should be held accountable for lying to Americans as a policy. Republicans, in massive numbers, believe totally false and easily debunked information. Fox, Newsmax, and every media outlet that repeats the lies of the Christian right are culpable in the spreading of subversive information.

    The " Insurrection Media" is no less guilty of sedition than Trump himself. 

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

32 readers online now

Newsletter

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