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
August 27, 2016 12:11 AM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • 115 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“All nonsense questions are unanswerable.”

–C. S. Lewis

Tweet
Share

Comments

115 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread”

  2. As if there weren't already sufficient reasons to make sure Der Drumphenfuhrer never occupies the White House, here is another…

    Hamm is a vocal Trump supporter and he advises the candidate on energy and economic issues. The fracking mogul has been named as a possible energy secretary if Trump wins in November.

    Harold Hamm as Energy Secretary??   That would definitely be an act of terrorism.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/c11723a3-9c3d-3b97-9272-8905f28d338c/ss_the-oklahoma-oil-billionaire.html

      1. Too bad it's summer rerun time. Otherwise SNL could have Jeff Bridges guest host (he does have a new movie out) and play the doc in a skit that wouldn't even require script writing. Just transcribing.

  5. I don't know if anyone has posted about this.

    A new study out today from Johns Hopkins in Environmental Health Perspectives revealed associations between fracking and various health symptoms including nasal and sinus problems, migraines and fatigue in Pennsylvanians living near areas of natural gas development. The study suggests that residents with the highest exposure to active fracking wells are nearly twice as likely to suffer from the symptoms.

    This is the third study released by Hopkins in the past year that connects proximity to fracking sites with adverse health outcomes. Last fall, researchers found an association between fracking and premature births and high-risk pregnancies, and last month, found ties between fracking and asthma.  

    Not much to add but this:

    http://www.ecowatch.com/health-dangers-fracking-1986527671.html

    2. Can't find the link but here is a snapshot of the response to the proposed EO from the Colorado Coalition for a Livable Climate (which includes the Denver Catholic Network) 

        1. V. – to think we couldn't have an economy sans hydrocarbons is an affront to our ingenuity.  It's already happening in Germany.  We can keep our showers hot and  our beer cold with and without CH4. We won't be hydrocarbon-free for some time.  Not because we couldn't, but because we choose not to.  We know everything we need to know today to make the transition, it's now just a matter of public will and policy.  

          Those precious hydrocarbons the baby Jesus hid below the surface (put there so man wouldn't find them) are proving to be this generation's Garden-of-Eden-apple.   

          3. The french are much more advanced than the germans, mainly because of the wise use of nuclear power.  To the left, nuclear is off limits because jane fonda made a movie about it and didn't like it.  But unless we double nuclear, to at least 40 pct of baseload, we can"'t get to carbon free.  Vive la france

            1. There is only one nuclear plant we should depend upon for our future energy resources: the Sun. 

              There are a handful of reasons society will no longer blindly accept the nuclear argument. (although DavidT has some compelling arguments on Thorium)   We destroyed pristine farmland surrounding Chernobyl, Fukushima has compromised ocean marine life.  Like coal and petroleum , we pretend they're cheap … until their not.  

              A solar spill?  That's just another beautiful day in Phillips County…

              The arguments over baseload from hydrocarbons and/or nuclear have long been lost.  I visited a site in northern Germany where they are overbuilding wind by a factor of 2, and using negative dispatch to control the daytime baseload.  Fascinating engineering minds working on that opportunity.  We could do it here, too.  There is a quantifiable 27x more energy we could produce from wind on the eastern plains than we consume as a state.  That doesn't even factor in the solar rooftop resources that are untapped in this state.  

              We are literally drowning in energy. 

              This is a political problem, not technological.  

               

              1. There is an easy way to separate those who are serious about combating climate change from those who see "granola technologies" as a way to destroy big business and somehow revert to a pastoral society:  Just ask where they stand on nuclear power.

                If they cite the french example — standardizing nuclear so it is safe and economical — and blending it in with wind, solar, and better use of existing hydro, including pumped storage — they are serious.   If they just thump the Bible — in their case, that old Jane Fonda movie and
                Chernobyl — you can be pretty sure there is something in their agenda other than reducing carbon.

                Climate change has changed the rules of politics.   And when the  

                rules change, they change for everybody.

                http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

                1. That was a valid point a decade ago.  It's less persuasive today.  Wind and solar are at, near, or quickly approaching parity.  It's turned from a purely environmental to an economic argument.  When factoring in externalities, nothing can touch the cost-effectiveness of wind, solar and advanced biofuels.  The problem is the regulatory market is set up to ignore those externalities and socialize those costs.  

                  Like I said, the good news is they can compete with fossil fuels today disregarding the life-cycle argument. There's a reason Xcel Energy wants to put more wind on the grid, even though they aren't mandated to do so.

                  21st-century economies aren't going to be powered by dinosaur poop. Their success and global leadership will be rooted in their embrace of technology and infinite, clean fuel. 

                  1. Granted, dinosaur poop has had it's day.   But dinosaurs don't poop uranium.    And until we out law night, wind and solar still have intermittency problems. Nuclear, already 20 pct of our electric, is the best bet for 24/7 baseline power with zero emissions of carbon.

                    [Yes, we emit some carbon mining uranium.   But solar panels and windmills use carbon in their manufacturing as well.]

                     

                    1. We made it to atomic weapon capability first. We landed a man on the moon first. We can create the technology and infrastructure to store and distribute energy derived from wind and solar whenever the hell we give that the same level of priority.

                    2. There's a reason Congress passed the Price-Anderson Indemnity Act: no private insurance company can take on the liability of nuclear disaster.  So, you and I are on the hook for all of them.  That's not really a 'free market' solution or a risk John Q. Public should be required to take, particularly when there are cost-competitive, environmentally-benign options. 

                      To BC's point below, if we wanted to have a 100% renewable grid and made this our Moonshot, we'd be there in less than a decade. We went from the sands of Kitty Hawk to the Sea of Tranquility in 60 years; we accomplished a 10-year goal of landing a man on the moon in eight years. We're Americans; our Yankee ingenuity tackles significant global challenges. Five decades ago we were challenged to reclaim our leadership in space; today that challenge lies in developing clean energy solutions and mitigating the effects of a climate in peril. We can do this.

                       

                       

                    4. There is no point in arguing theological objections to nuclear power, bc, other than noting that is what they are.   Right wingers say "The Bible says it, I believe it and that settles it."   The left says "Jane Fonda made a movie, I saw it, that settles it."  The rational middle looks at facts and realizes nuclear is key to controlling global warming.  if wind is 24/7 reliable, why did we give up sailing ships?

      1. out of replies as usual, this is to mike.  Absolutely, fracked gas is so cheap and abundant it not only killed coal but hurts nuclear.   There is such thing as a role for government regulation.   On economics alone, gas kills coal.   If you want to eliminate gas as well, give me a carbon tax that restores an edge to nuke, as well as the sainted solar and wind.  ( I dislike hydro on other grounds and we've already used most sites.)  But I am willing to redirect obsolete hydro, like hoover dam, as possible pumped storage   to make wind more 24/7 friendly.   Solar too, but it does have the advantage of peaking during the day when electrical demand is highest.   Gas can maybe as boone pickens preached, replace gasoline in cars and trucks, cutting carbon emission there in half.  

        Markets are marvelous things but there are also times when you want subsidies or taxes to direct those markets to meet social goals.   Our current deadlock isn't promising.

        1. V – I'm not opposed to responsbile natural gas development.  I am opposed to industry owning the government and not implementing waste/emission technology that is available today.  We have established that methane leaks go far beyond what is officially published.  While methane is in the atmosphere a shorter period of time that CO2, it is highly destructive while there.  

          If markets worked we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.  The only remedy John Q. Public has to this environmental destruction, absent a government who plays the role of responsible arbiter, are ballot initiatives and elections.

          The infamous invisible hand, in neo-con theory, should be taking care of the destruction wrought upon us by the externalities of fossil fuel production.  The only thing the invisible hand appears to be doing is slapping the shit out of Mother Nature – and she's not happy.  She always bats last, and she always bats 1.000

        2. TO MIKE AGAIN:

          fascinating on super capacitors.   More than 50 years ago I experimented with capacitors, in part trying to use them as quasi vacuum tubes and tuning devices.  Obviously my tools at Holyoke High were so crude I failed. But it turns out my theory was doable. I kept thinking they could have a role in energy storage but kept reading nah, only batteries can do that.   but this threatens to make super capacitors so cheap we might store 72 hours worth of wind energy in them (enough to carry you through a long lull.)   A solar/wind/ super capacitor team, capable of surviving a week of cloudy skies, might even work.  It's like the diesel locomotives where the engine just charges the battery and the battery runs the train.   And they're working with a waste product!  fascinating stuff.

            1. Problem with the proposed route for the Transwest line; as I understand it; is that it would not follow within existing power line corridors, but would get a new route. Which, again as I understand, would go through prime sage grouse habitat.

              1. True, but if you check out the link Michael provided on the Anschutz article, his company has been doing big time studies on the actual, observable behavior of the sage grouse, inasfar as it impacts his giant wind farm, not the Transwest route. But it shows that Anschutz is willing to work with conservationists and preserve habitat.

  6. Can someone please drive a stake thru the black heart of anyone and everyone involved with The Third Way Bullshit?

    It ought to be noted for the record that the Republican commitment to institutional vandalism will not be going anywhere any time soon, and that there are Republicans—and a few Democrats and faux independents—who see an inert executive to be a political opportunity.

    That means the bipartisan show of support she has now—thanks to Donald Trump and the "alt-right," conspiracy-driven campaign Clinton attacked Thursday in Reno—is likely to evaporate as soon as the race is called. If she wins the presidency, Clinton would likely enjoy the shortest honeymoon period of any incoming commander-in-chief in recent history, according to Washington strategists, confronting major roadblocks to enacting her ambitious agenda, as well as Republican attacks that have been muted courtesy of the GOP nominee. "It will be the defining fact of her presidency," Jonathan Cowan, president of the moderate think tank Third Way, said of Clinton's problem of entering office with a divided Congress. "It's unprecedented."

    Good Lord, not these people again. They represent nobody. There is no viable constituency for anything they represent. The Republicans are going to be bad enough, but all HRC is going to need is to be heckled from the Joe Lieberman Memorial Peanut Gallery, especially with Zombie Evan Bayh on the verge of reappearing in the Senate, after his sabbatical during which he helped save representative democracy by being a lobbyist.

    Maybe Democratic Senator/Electoral Failure Mark Udall can pull a Manchurian Candidate on them…

    1. I doubt very much that anyone imagines a third way joining of hands and singing. But with Trump being such a completely crazy option, if that makes some R support and votes available, what are Dems supposed to do? Turn them down?

      After Obama, no Dem, least of all a Clinton who has been the object of a very real right wing conspiracy, could have any delusions about peace, love and cooperation from Rs. If a significant chunk of Rs are going to help pump up an HRC victory to landslide status which historically means more seats all the way down …. fine. We'll take it. Instead of honeymoon with Rs (delusional), a Dem Senate and Supreme Court and getting within striking distance of taking back the House will do just fine. Even if a vote for HRC from friggin' Wolfowitz helps us get there. 

       

  7. For fun I went to both the Hillary and Donald campaign websites.

    Hillary – put in my ZIP Code and it showed the nearest field office and listed multiple local events per day.

    Donald – I had to sign up and got this: "We are setting up state headquarters across the country and we will reach out to you when opportunities are available in your area."

  8. The sad record of Democrats' Inside the beltway, Establishment, Party Professional campaign organizations:

    An anti-Trump wave is building in most of these states and it would be a safe bet to assume Hillary wins Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and probably North Carolina and Iowa, with an outside chance of winning in Arizona and Missouri as well. As much as I detest Evan Bayh's politics (me too.-ed.) — he's the ultimate Blue Dog type and corrupt to his core— he's what they like in Indiana and he'll probably win the Senate seat (and by a lot) despite Hillary's struggle there.

    As much as I hate to say so, it was "smart" as part of a short-sighted, short-term policy for the DSCC to recruit him. But it's the other contests that are worth discussing.

    In Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania, Schumer and sock-puppet have worked to make sure the nominees would be corporate whores resistant to any kind of populism or progressive agenda.

    Steinhauer says the Democrats "find themselves hobbled by less-than-stellar candidates." Find themselves? How did that happen? Sounds very passive but it was anything but passive.

    At Schumer's direction the DSCC spent millions of dollars driving good candidates out of the races and replacing them with truly miserable ones or, as Steinhauer puts it "by less-than-stellar candidates." It's costing the DSCC and their allies millions of dollars that could have been used against Republicans, to burden the Democrats with, for example, worthless former fracking lobbyist Katie McGinty in Pennsylvania, possibly the worst candidate running for any Senate seat anywhere this cycle.

    And for that Schumer and his allies spent big to destroy the Democrat, Admiral Joe Sestak (Disgusting. Sestak is a winner's winner. Maybe not politically hip, but that's where the DSCC could've, and should've, helped.-ed.), who likely would have beaten Toomey. They installed hopeless and pathetic old Ted Strickland in Ohio and are spending millions to make sure talentless "ex"-Republican Patrick Murphy– who, if he gets the nomination August 30– will relieve McGinty of the "worst candidate running for any Senate seat anywhere" title. 

    It's probably a fact the DC and CO Political pros are all on each others' speed dial, mailing lists, and strategy forums. This is also probably why CPols is so bashful about bashing Dems when they do something stupid, even though it is an undeniable truth that both D's and R's regularly act against their own best interests.

    In this rare case both sides do do it:

      1. If Zappy is back on his "high horse" bashing Dem candidates, that's a sure sign that the Dems are doing something right.

        The Zappster must be falling asleep as he hasn't bashed Michael Bennet for what, two weeks now?

        1. Zap has gone through the denial, the anger, the bargaining and is now in the acceptance stage when it comes to Thurston's Senate career. Better to move on and vent about other less-than-perfect candidates. 

  9. Duke, I met a friend of yours, Bob Winkler, at the Jill Stein campaign event in Fort Collins tonight. I'm trying to talk him into doing some diaries on Pols.

    Dr. Stein fired up the crowd of millenials, Berners, and old time Dems like myself.

    As for Dr. Stein, she's an impressive lady who gave a rousing speech at Avogedro's Number in Fort Collins. I don't know if I can vote for someone who has no more elected-office experience than I do (PTA Pres, Neighborhood Assoc. Pres, couple of other minor offices). I got to meet Arn Menconi, too. Also a compelling speaker. I agree with 90% of what these folks have to say.

    Stein will be in Denver and Boulder tomorrow.

      1. Yeah, she actually is impressive. I'm probably still not voting Green this year, but I believe that Dems ignore and dismiss the Greens (and the Bernie wing of the party – https://ourrevolution.com/) at their peril.

        The peril is of being as fractured and ineffective as the Republican party is now. In my little rural county, the leadership is composed of nice elderly people who run meetings and bake sales, are used to being a blue dot in a sea of red,  and have about as much idea of how to put up a Facebook post as they do of eating at an Ethiopian restaurant.

        The new Dems in my County get all their news from Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. They came out for the primary vote in numbers 10 times greater than that of previous years. Do you see the problem yet?

        1. I heard Stein in an interview a couple of days ago. I was very impressed with her and her message. 

          Good to hear that Bob is still kicking around. if you see him again, tell him I said hello.

          I hope he does post some diaries here. 

        3. Hey, Gary Johnson is impressive too! Well, at least, the fact that he’s polled at 16% in Colorado is impressive (and he happily points that out on his web site!).

          But nobody’s going to get condescending on this site as long as he pulls votes away from Trump! If somebody pulls a few points away from Hillary’s blowout?! The horror!

          1. That's a decent ad. You'd have to be a politics nerd like me to find out that Johnson is not great on issues I care about – he's definitely for privatizing schools, doesn't think insurors should provide birth control, and is against corporate income tax, full stop.

            But he's far and away the most progressive and specific candidate against the failed War on Drugs. Cannabis entrepeneurs seem to like him a lot.

            So far, the polling I've seen indicates that Johnson pulls equally from Democratic and Republican voters.

          2. Objectively, Johnson, as a former Governor for God's sake, is certainly not completely unqualified to run for president whether I agree with his policies or not. Stein, on the other hand, has absolutely zero qualifying experience for the job by any objective standard regardless of any consideration of who is taking votes away from whom.

            Small wonder, without benefit of the pop culture celebrity enjoyed by the equally (but no more so) unqualified Trump, she is barely a blip on the polling screen. It's just evidence that most liberal voters aren't as hopelessly clueless as most rightie voters.

        4. The Bernie wing including Bernie is not being dismissed but wielding plenty of influence and the overwhelming majority, including Bernie, are voting for HRC because they…. you know… have a clue.

          You can't very well be a Bernista and vote against Bernie's choice and wishes. He knows perfectly well that progressives lose all influence if Trump wins. So being with Bernie now means being with HRC.

          Voting for Stein means aligning oneself against Bernie. Of course any former Bernie supporter is free to make that choice but only as a former supporter now in opposition.

          Oh and BTW…. Like Carroll, Stein, Naral and many other progressive groups, Stein is not supporting 69.

          Stein is just another self centered distraction like Nader was. I'm no more impressed with her than I was with him. Besides, she is no more qualified to be President than Trump is. I fail to see what there is to be impressed with. 

          2. I didn't say I was voting for Stein. I said that I found her impressive, and I agree with her 90%. I want her campaign to continue speaking on issues I care about and pulling the Dem establishment to the left. For example, as my activist stepmother reminded me today, Stein is the only candidate with a pro-Palestinian human rights stand.

            As always, I speak for myself, not for "Dems" or "Progressives" or "liberals" or "Berners".

            I am working within my party to push progressive policy – as Bernie asked, and is asking, his supporters to do.

            TPP is toast, Vger. It will not stand up against the concerted lobbying of bajillions of Bernistas.

            1. Wake me up when the Palestinians actually acknowledge Israel's right to exist. 

              No TPP means giving the Chinese economic hegemony over the western Pacific. Too bad Bernie didn't have a solution for that. 

              1. 1. I hope you woke up back in 1988 when Yasser Arafat, wrote in Oslo:

                "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

                This superceded the Fatah's statements made in 1965. But in 1988, when the "two-state solution" was agreed to, it implicitly and explicitly mandated Israel's right to exist. The 2 state solution was also agreed to in 1947, even though it hasn't worked well in practice.

                2. Then along comes Bibi Netanyahu. He wants the Palestinian authority to affirm Israel's "right to exist as a Jewish state". This effectively disenfranchises all of the Arab, Christian, Bahai, atheist and agnostic citizens of Israel. The reasoning in the linked article from Haaretz is valid, in my opinion.

                It would be like the Dominionist Christians that salivate for the USA to be declared as a Christian nation. This would invalidate our founding documents, and make our founders roll over in their graves.

                 

              2. The Netanyahu regime has been doing everything it possibly can to make sure that never happens but regardless….Israel cannot continue to exist as a Jewish state without a two state solution. Period. No matter who is right, who is wrong or what combination of rightness and wrongness one ascribes to the two sides. It can't survive as a Jewish state with a Palestinian majority. And nobody has done more to ensure that it doesn't survive than Bibi. 

                As far as not supporting TPP as written or China will have economic hegemony…. wake me when China has economic hegemony.

                My experience is that whenever American workers are threatened with dire consequences unless they go along with the big international corporate interests the only dire consequences they ever suffer are those that directly result from relinquishing all their power to those international corporate interests. 

                Whenever the American middle class is told to do fill-in-the-blank or else it's always a scam. The middle class always loses. The better jobs promised just as long as they give something up (see unions, see living wages, see health benefits) never materialize and, in fact the middle class has been on an accelerated downward trajectory ever since they bought Reagan's bullshit Morning in America/all your problems are because of those Cadillac driving Welfare Queens/blame them and the unions, not the wealthy job creators (ha!) crap. 

                So if you and V support TPP exactly as written as the only possible choice you'd better be able to come up with something more credible than the same old threats that have been used to get the shrinking, stagnating American middle class to hand over more and more of their lunch money for decades. 

                The do it or we're all gonna die and besides it's going to be great for good paying jobs for everyone crap is getting pretty old. Like 40 years old.

            2. I didn't say you were voting for Stein. Just that anyone who does vote for her is by definition not a Bernie supporter and that I don't understand what's impressive about her as a presidential candidate. 

            3. The test for tpp, mj, is whether a republican congress will pass it in a lame duck sesson, as their business backers will want.  I don't think paul ryan worries too much about currying bernie's favor — or yours.

            1. I looked through the comment this is responding to and I have no idea what I admitted but, whatever it is, if it makes you happy…. you're welcome.wink

  10. I see a few of the writers/prognosticators on the political sites such as 270towin, Larry Sabato's Chrystal Ball, Politico, etc. are starting to place odds on the election.

    For:

        President:                  Clinton  81%

       U.S. Senate going to Democrats  88%

      U.S. House going to Democrats    61%

     

    I find those numbers interesting but just not sure about the House numbers.

    Any comments?

     

    1. 538 and Political Wire are other good prognostication sites. Like you, I think the House prediction is a bit "out there."  What I've read is that the House will stay Republican, but by a smaller margin than now. Ryan will have to make nice with Dems, though, to get things done as the so-called Freedom Caucus will remain a first class pain in the Speaker's posterior.

      1. They will because the seats which GOP will lose are in marginal (swing) districts where more mainstream Republicans hold office. In essence, the tall trees will be felled in a Clinton landslide leaving only the baboons of the Tea Party standing. 

    2. With the courts taking up gerrymander cases the 2020 state races will be costly, with only the offset of the several seats which might be open due to changed district boundaries.

    3. Blackie101 –

      Princeton Election Consortium says it will take a 8% win by Clinton to wash out the Republican House majority [ http://election.princeton.edu/house-polling-margin/ ] Their current estimate for Clinton is 5.4% in a 2-way calculation. I'm not sure what happens with a 3- or 4-way race.

      My less calculated sense is Trump falls apart, Republicans mostly abandon him, there's a lot of money spent on down-ballot advertising, and Democrats get a small bump because they have a better ground game. I'd guess a 20 seat gain – enough that Colorado gets one more Democrat in the delegation, but not two.

      1. So far, much to my surprise and disappointment, the Morgan Carroll campaign doesn't look like it's exactly seizing the opportunity to unseat a multiple incumbent. Summer is gone with no apparent effort to get the typical presidential year low info election voter to notice her existence at all.

        With HRC polling so far ahead here it seems incredible that we might not pick up even one seat but that seems like a pretty damn strong possibility. I'm baffled by the extent to which Carroll is so far pretty much a no show.

        Can't imagine what the Big Line showing 50/50 in that race with Carroll getting the up arrow and Coffman the down arrow is based on besides wishful thinking.

    4. The US House is unlikely to go Democratic.  While the possibility exists, it's probably more than 1 in 10 chance. There simply aren't enough seats in play. For now

       

       

       

  11. Derrick Wilburn, Colorado GOP State-Party Vice Chairman, calls out the Denver Post for being racist for not writing about the groundbreaking, black history making things being done by himself, Casper Stockham and Darryl Glenn. He also never mentions what is being done to make history. http://www.allenbwest.com/derrick-wilburn/three-black-man-verge-making-history-liberals-silent

    My favorite part though is where he whines how the Denver Post never writes about Darryl Glenn (cuz they're racist). Meanwhile…

    Glenn declined to talk to The Denver Post after the Lakewood event Tuesday. “My press secretary back there will handle all Denver Post questions,” he said, repeating the same line four times when asked other questions.

    http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/28/darryl-glenn-colorados-senate-race/

    This is more of the same crazy strategy Trump uses to blame "the media" for everything. I call it the "Let's call them assholes then blame them for not helping us" strategy.

  12. Those numbers seem reasonable at this point. I think getting back the House is probably too big a lift.

    Right now, I am watching some real red-on-red bloodletting on This Week on ABC. Alex Castellanos is pathetic. He needs to take lessons from E. Sladen on how to defend the indefensible.

    Ana Navaro is all over him.

    It is fun to watch.

  13. So I checked out that 270towin site and their refreshingly helpful electoral map and find this out. As the map reads right now concerning electoral votes, if Trump takes all the undecided states leaving Florida and Pennsylvania behind he still doesn't have enough electoral votes to take the White House. So that leaves us with Florida and Pennsylvania, the must win states for both candidates. If Hillary takes Pennsylvania and Trump takes Florida, the ending count will be 269 to 269. A dead fucking tie. Hilldog has to take Florida in order to win. As far as those undecided states, I don't really see too many of them that look promising for Hillary so it is feasible that there could be a tie in the electoral count. So if the decision has to go the Supreme Court for whatever lawsuit is filed with a split 4 to 4 Court,…….what happens next?

    2. DM, I played with your map at 270towin…do you really think it's plausible that Trump takes New Hampshire, Nevada, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, and Utah? Utah at least really hates him. Nevada also has plenty of union employees who are none too pleased at their treatment in Trump casinos and properties, nor at his race-baiting against Latinos.

      1. On my 270towin map–I'm giving Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, and North Carolina to Clinton.

        With Maine giving all four electoral votes to the Dems, Nebraska giving the Omaha area vote to the Dems—all in all, 347 to Clinton.  

  14. It absolutely goes to the House of Representatives in case of a tie. Each state has one vote so wyoming cancels California and idaho puts Trump in the white house.  There are more republican controlled states than dem so house scenario goes R.  But maybe hill gets 1 vote from nebraska in the omaha district and wins 270-2:68 anyway.

      1. I'm guessing, in that case, that you'd see president Gary Johnson, since they pick from the top three vote-getters.

        I don't understand this whole notion of a wave election.  Folks aren't going to forget they're Republicans if they don't vote for Trump.  I think the Dems are likely to end up with 50 or 51 seats in the Senate and maybe pick up a few in the House, but I think, by and large, Rs will still vote, and not for Ds.

        1. I've been told (threatened) by staunch Rs that they may just stay home and not vote.  They think an all D control of President, House and Senate will be the doom of the great states of 'Murica. And they think it will serve all of us Ds right. 

        2. Actually, spudy, house chooses from top three vote getters in electoral college.   Barring a faithless elector. Johnson is highly unlikely to win a single electoral vote, since he won't win a. Single state.

        3. The House would pick from the top five (Article II Section 1), but top five of electoral votes. Johnson won't get any electoral votes (my assumption). The only choice for the House would be Clinton or Trump.

          1. Actually, GAF, the House chooses from the top THREE electoral vote winners. not 5.  Article II was modified by the 12th amendment after the Burr, Jefferson mess.

            It has actually happened once, in 1825.  Nobody won an electoral majority.   Andrew Jackson had 99 electoral votes, John Quincy Adams 84, William Crawford, 41 and Henry Clay 37.   Clay was speaker of the House and ran the body with an iron hand.   Everybody assumed he would elect himself president in the event of a deadlock but because Crawford came in third, Clay was not eligible.   He hated Jackson and threw his support to Adams.   As President, Adams then appointed Clay Secretary of State — the usual stepping stone to the presidency.   Jackson backers yelled it was a "corrupt bargain" and never forgave Clay, who never became president.

            Here's a fun scenario — Hillary wins 269 electoral votes, as does Trump.   But a faithless Trump elector casts one vote for Paul Ryan.   That makes Ryan eligible for election and he wins with 26 or more states — becoming president without winning a single popular vote.

            A better one: a faithless elector casts one vote for Blue Cat.   Given a choice between Hillary and Trump, a majority of states gives America its first Jewish President and its first  woman.  President Blue Cat names M.J. Secretary of Education.   I Get to be chairman of the Federal Reserve, the group that really runs the country.  Moddy is named ambassador to someplace so remote it doesn't have internet access.

            Zappatero denounces the whole thing as a "corrupt bargain."

            For once, he's right.

            1. I like your second scenario – but I seriously doubt Madame President Bluecat would name moi to a cabinet post. Kitchen cabinet, maybe – I'm a damn fine cook.

              1. Hey, I'd name you to Education. Not so sure about V to chair the Federal Reserve. While you're a professional educator I don't think finance is exactly in V's wheelhouse. I'll try to think of something for him, though.

                    1. I cant link from my fire but krugman was more supportiveof tpp when actual language came out.  He says it would increase us gdp but only by a very modest amount, chiefly because tariffs are already very low under wto. 

                      As for me, if I can't  have the federal reserve, I'll tell that faithless elector to vote for Dianne Feinstein and let her be president.  In return, I get commissioner of baseball, where I outlaw the designated hitter rule and legalize the spitball.  Janet Yellen can keep the fed.

  16. I encountered this interesting article, a rarity at Motley Fool, and I am interested in Polsters' take on the authors conclusions…

     

    The Marijuana Industry Pulls Victory From the Jaws of a DEA Defeat

     

    There's also a bright side to the DEA's decision. Had the DEA rescheduled cannabis, the substance could have been exposed to a laundry list of FDA regulations. For example, the FDA could have placed requirements on packaging and marketing, or it could have demanded consistent levels of THC from each crop of marijuana. Even more importantly, FDA oversight may have forced the cannabis industry to run clinical trials in order to demonstrate the efficacy of the drug for treating certain ailments. These added costs could have put smaller players out of business and essentially handed the industry over to bigger businesses. Given less competition and more regulation, legal marijuana prices would likely rise rapidly.

    In other words, marijuana's DEA defeat is, in many ways, a victory.

     

    It sounds pretty reasonable. Since it is from a writer for Motley Fool, he considers the investor and suggests the following.

     

    Unfortunately, keeping cannabis as a Schedule 1 substance will probably keep big business from gaining substantial market share within the industry. This leaves investors little to no opportunity to profit from the growing legal marijuana market.

    This, in my mind, is in no way unfortunate. Quite the contrary.

    1. In the meantime, due to the Schedule 1 classification, the industry is clobbered by egregious tax rules that disallow nearly all costs of running a dispensary.  Not to mention banking regulations and "high' sales taxes that make things even more difficult.  Federal decriminalization of marijuana is required to bring the industry into the light and let a thousand flowers bloom (so to speak).

        1. Let's see if I'm right. Rats. Couldn’t make it happen. I think it has to do with the embedded CSS (style=”float:left; height:300px; width:550px”)

            1. I see the full graphic I posted if I'm logged in, without any text shifting over.  I was trying to test my guess about what was shifting text over (pasting images directly into comments).  When I'm not logged in, I can see only the top of the graphic too, so maybe it doesn't affect the poster the same way as everyone else.

              At any rate, I think it's pasting rather than linking images that's jacking things up.

        2. its an issue with resizing graphics – this site isn't really good at it, so the "edit/ reply button gets wrapped around the graphic if the graphic is less than 650 pixels wide. Which makes for some ginormous graphics.

          It doesn't happen all the time, but if I resize a graphic and it's less than 650 wide, it will happen. I fixed it, I think.

           

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

139 readers online now

Newsletter

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