Who is more likely to be elected to the Senate? Ryan Frazier or Michael Williams

[Lunar]

I give this about a 50/50 between them actually, hard to decide.  Williams is fairly big name in the GOP field.


http://www.williamsfortexas.com/multimedia

Skip to about 5 minutes into the featured video.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_L._Williams



VS



http://www.frazierforcolorado.com

He's a relatively big minnow in a GOP field of minnows

[Keystone Phil]

I'd guess Williams. I really, really hope he wins. I like the guy. He updates his Facebook status was too much though. 

[Lunar]

I'd guess Williams. I really, really hope he wins. I like the guy. He updates his Facebook status was too much though. 

I'm listening to his speech I linked above (seriously, skip the beginning if anyone wants to watch it, it's not even him talking), and he's both articulate [oops, don't want to Biden that up] funny and ideologically perfect for conservatives in Texas and would be a better spokesman than 90% of current GOP Senators even ignoring his ethnicity.  He's interesting to listen to even as he spits out talking points.    Also, he can use words like "swagger" without seeming cheesy and get those rednecks in the crowd to holler and whistle.


Both these two candidates are actually ideologically in sync with what their party needs to nominate. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If there is to be hope for the rejueventated Republican Party both these individuals will be in the Senate. Lunar is right they are ideologically well positioned for what the party needs to nominate in there locales. The problem is how does Williams stand out in a crowded field and how does Frazier not lose to a conservative.

[Lunar]

Well, Frazier has a couple things going for him.  First, he's far-right economically and his stance on social issues is more libertarian than liberal (opposes gay marriage strongly but supports civil unions strongly, opposes abortions but doesn't know if the government should be regulating that).  Secondly, he has a good biography that appeals to conservative voters -- veteran  & businessman & father.  Third, Frazier has generally the best, or near the best, netroots presence in the field and usually wins online straw polls on blogs and stuff.  Fourth, his primary opponents suck and could even split the more hardline vote.

And Colorado at least has a history of electing minority politicians statewide and African-American local politicians -- the current majority leaders of both the upper and lower state houses are African-American, the only state in history that has done that.

I think Frazier's biggest problem is simply being beaten by a self-financing candidate (Cleve Tidwell) and/or one with more name recognition and establishment support (Beauprez).  I don't know if the CO GOP leaders that be have figured out yet that their state has changed.

[Saxwsylvania]

These two had better watch out.  They will be lynched by the segment of the Democrat Party that can't tolerate black Republicans.

[pogo stick]

Frazier ,and that's who I like better.

Also another black guy is running for the GOP in North Carolina. Mike Minter. For Larry Kissell's Congressional seat.

[Lunar]

Mike Minter is not running, that is incorrect.

[Rowan]

Minter ruled it out.

[auburntiger]

Wow I like them both!
Thing is, we have Texas already, but we need Colorado back! without it (and that applies to all tiers...POTUS, Senate, Governor), there is no other path to victory.

Go Frazier! And yes, Colorado has changed, and he is the only one that can win it back! Plus, the GOP will look much better as a more diverse party.

[Keystone Phil]

but both would be great for the party of bigotry.

[pogo stick]

Hopefully Frazier.  Williams is a bit out there for me, but both would be great for the party of bigotry.

According to your avatar you already gave up on the Republican party.


I may not like the direction the party is hurtling in ,but at least I have the guts to stay in my party.

[pogo stick]

ALso ,I'm supporting Florence Shapiro (R-TX)  for Hutchinson's seat.  So yea, Williams is cool ,but.....

1) Frazier is better

2) I'm already rooting for someone else in Texas

3) We need more Jewish republicans to get rid of the "Party of the Christians", Shaprio is that Jewish republican!!

Though Hutchinson (If she wins) can pick Williams as Lt. Gov

[Lunar]

This poll, like my Kendrick vs. Artur poll when I last saw it, is perfectly split.

Isn't that something?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Williams.

[Magic 8-Ball]

Williams.  All he needs to do is make it through the primaries.

[Keystone Phil]

but both would be great for the party of bigotry.

I'm not necessarily saying I see it that way, but there's no denying that's its image these days and there isn't much we've done to improve that.

We've run several prominent blacks. There is no bigger supporter of blacks advancing in the Republican than me. I mean that. Take a look at the people I've strongly supported in the past (and who I'm strongly supporting now).

That being said, I'm not for affirmative action in general so don't be shocked when I feel we need to meet a certain quota within this party.

[Lunar]

but both would be great for the party of bigotry.

I'm not necessarily saying I see it that way, but there's no denying that's its image these days and there isn't much we've done to improve that.

We've run several prominent blacks. There is no bigger supporter of blacks advancing in the Republican than me. I mean that. Take a look at the people I've strongly supported in the past (and who I'm strongly supporting now).

That being said, I'm not for affirmative action in general so don't be shocked when I feel we need to meet a certain quota within this party.

Indeed.  The reason why I think the GOP needs to be recruiting more minorities and women is not to meet an self-imposed ideological quota but rather part of a national messaging campaign -- long-term political tactics if you will.  I doubt we're on different pages  on this 'un.

[pogo stick]

Yes, I think we need more minorities in the party. Like Jews , Blacks, Cubans ,SPanish people and Asians.

Without Minorities in the party, the party will die.   

[Keystone Phil]

but both would be great for the party of bigotry.

I'm not necessarily saying I see it that way, but there's no denying that's its image these days and there isn't much we've done to improve that.

We've run several prominent blacks. There is no bigger supporter of blacks advancing in the Republican than me. I mean that. Take a look at the people I've strongly supported in the past (and who I'm strongly supporting now).

That being said, I'm not for affirmative action in general so don't be shocked when I feel we (don't?) need to meet a certain quota within this party.

I was a little confused, is that what you meant?  If so, I agree completely.  Recruiting blacks and women, like Lunar said, is more of a publicity thing that we haven't really been into lately.  Sure we have run plenty of both groups, but no one really notices.  We need to fight the image that the Republican Party is for white male Christians only.  In the same sense that affirmative action was meant to reverse racism of the past, we should promote our minority group candidates more in an effort to fight the bigoted image of the party.

Like I said, I'm all for fighting the image that we're just a white male Christian party but I'm not for setting quotas on how many blacks we have to run for office and stuff like that.

[Keystone Phil]

Like I said, I'm all for fighting the image that we're just a white male Christian party but I'm not for setting quotas on how many blacks we have to run for office and stuff like that.

Alright, well that's not what you said, that's what I was trying to clear up.  And I already agreed with that...

Oops. I see now. I forgot a critical word. 

[Badger]

but both would be great for the party of bigotry.

I'm not necessarily saying I see it that way, but there's no denying that's its image these days and there isn't much we've done to improve that.

We've run several prominent blacks. There is no bigger supporter of blacks advancing in the Republican than me. I mean that. Take a look at the people I've strongly supported in the past (and who I'm strongly supporting now).

That being said, I'm not for affirmative action in general so don't be shocked when I feel we need to meet a certain quota within this party.

The GOP's main problem isn't its ability to promote African-American (and other minority) candidates, but rather it's ability to pick up more than a sliver of the broad African-American vote on Election Day. Electoral flops like Lynn Swann, Ken Blackwell and Michael Steele have demonstrated that black GOP candidates mean little in terms of Republican capturing the black vote. It would seem a fundamental shift in policies and ideology may be in order. Otherwise encouraging minortiy candidates seems like window-dressing to combat a deeper fundamental problem in appealing to minority voters.

[Lunar]

I have to disagree with the above post.

Sure, policies drive the demographics and to ignore the underlying policies is foolish, but part of the reason why minorities are turned away from the GOP is that they represent a monolithic while Christian male party.  There is only one non-Christian Republican both Houses of Congress.  Hell, many Republicans [not necessarily any on the board] don't consider the four GOP women left in the Senate as authentically Republican (!) because they are too liberal on issues like abortion.  The point of running an African-American candidate isn't to make all the African-Americans vote for that candidate in that election [although Michael Steele did very well for a Republican, like 25%], but rather to:

1) Build up the image of a welcoming, diverse party.  Hell, this is important to attract young white voters who are turned off by the monolithic image too.
2) Create high-level messengers that can talk to that community


It's not like decades of voting patterns will be reversed overnight the minute the Republicans nominate a black candidate for this or that.  But it would still do something to break up that old white Christian male stereotype just a little.

[Badger]

I have to disagree with the above post.

Sure, policies drive the demographics and to ignore the underlying policies is foolish, but part of the reason why minorities are turned away from the GOP is that they represent a monolithic while Christian male party.  There is only one non-Christian Republican both Houses of Congress.  Hell, many Republicans [not necessarily any on the board] don't consider the four GOP women left in the Senate as authentically Republican (!) because they are too liberal on issues like abortion.  The point of running an African-American candidate isn't to make all the African-Americans vote for that candidate in that election [although Michael Steele did very well for a Republican, like 25%], but rather to:

1) Build up the image of a welcoming, diverse party.  Hell, this is important to attract young white voters who are turned off by the monolithic image too.
2) Create high-level messengers that can talk to that community


It's not like decades of voting patterns will be reversed overnight the minute the Republicans nominate a black candidate for this or that.  But it would still do something to break up that old white Christian male stereotype just a little.

All completely true, especially the point about minority outreach and diversity being needed to appeal to young moderate white voters as much as minorities. My primary point remains that counting on minority candidates to woo minority voters with the same message as Bush/Cheney revisited will do little more than raise the GOP's share of the African-American vote from 10% to 15%, maybe.

If policy changes are too hard to swallow maybe simply avoiding voter intimidation/suppression might help. Just happened to run across this old article today:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/11/21/cheat_sheet/

These kooky antics reappear in every election and, justifiably, get a lot of press in the African-American and Hispanic media. For some reason they're all touchy about voter suppression. Something about history and their grandparents who marched and were arrested for the right to vote, blah, blah, blah, yadda-yadda.

Anyone that wants to argue these are rogue actors as opposed to jobs delegated just enough to keep off the fingerprints of the GOP's Karl Rove wannabes, please see me about a bridge in Brooklyn I'm selling.

[California8429]

Well, Frazier has a couple things going for him.  First, he's far-right economically and his stance on social issues is more libertarian than liberal (opposes gay marriage strongly but supports civil unions strongly, opposes abortions but doesn't know if the government should be regulating that).  Secondly, he has a good biography that appeals to conservative voters -- veteran  & businessman & father.  Third, Frazier has generally the best, or near the best, netroots presence in the field and usually wins online straw polls on blogs and stuff.  Fourth, his primary opponents suck and could even split the more hardline vote.

And Colorado at least has a history of electing minority politicians statewide and African-American local politicians -- the current majority leaders of both the upper and lower state houses are African-American, the only state in history that has done that.

I think Frazier's biggest problem is simply being beaten by a self-financing candidate (Cleve Tidwell) and/or one with more name recognition and establishment support (Beauprez).  I don't know if the CO GOP leaders that be have figured out yet that their state has changed.

GOP is done with Beauprez...at least for 2010. And that state to add to that