Ryan Frazier is Running for Senate, For Some Reason

UPDATE #2: Local conservative blog Colorado Peak Politics is very excited about the diversity of the growing field of GOP Senate candidates–perhaps a bit too much so? Their post on Ryan Frazier’s entry into the race originally stated:

Republicans now have recruited two blacks, [Pols emphasis] one Hispanic, a woman (maybe), and a fresh face (maybe)…

Since edited to read:

Republicans now have recruited two black guys, [Pols emphasis] one Hispanic, a woman (maybe), and a fresh face (maybe)…

We assume because we stopped referring to African-Americans as “the blacks,” you know, several decades ago. This is the same blog that assigned the label “Hispanic” to a candidate from Calcutta, India last year, so we guess this racial stuff just isn’t their strong suit.

We’re happy they’re happy, though.

—–

Who has one thumb up and no chance at winning a U.S. Senate race? This guy.

Who has one thumb up and no chance at winning a U.S. Senate race? This guy.

UPDATE: This is Ryan Frazier in a nutshell. His campaign announcement video says that “after nearly 8 years, Senator Michael Bennet has only made things worse for you.”

Um, Bennet was appointed to the U.S. Senate in 2009. Math is not our best subject, either, but we’re pretty sure that 2015 minus 2009 equals not eight.

—–

Politics is often a discussion about possibility and potential, largely because there are so few certainties that we can rely upon in our arguments.

And then there is Ryan Frazier.

The former Aurora city council member has reportedly decided to enter the Republican field for U.S. Senate in 2016, telling 9News that he will kick off his campaign with a video announcement on Thursday.

It would be hard to get too excited about his candidacy if you are a Republican, because we already know what happens when Frazier runs for higher office: He loses, badly. Frazier’s last two campaigns (CD-7 in 2010 and Aurora Mayor in 2011) both ended with double-digit losses, and 2010 was a very good year to be a Republican candidate.

Colorado Pols first reported back in August that Frazier was having discussions about a potential Senate run, but we were skeptical that he might really jump in the race; we didn’t think we’d ever see Frazier running for another office after his second consecutive drubbing in 2011. Here’s what we wrote back on Aug. 12 when we first heard that Frazier might be considering a run for Senate:

We don’t have many details on the “Frazier for Senate” rumor, but in some ways, it almost doesn’t even matter if the story is true or not. If anybody is seriously considering getting behind Frazier in 2016, it is a clear indication that Republicans are essentially conceding the seat to incumbent Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet.

Late last month, Frazier left his part-time “political analyst” position at 9News because he was apparently getting serious about the Senate race, but even then we had a hard time taking the story too seriously. Ryan Frazier is not good at running for office, and we doubt he could even win a Primary against state Sen. Tim Neville. Check that — Frazier will not beat Neville in a GOP Primary.

It is unclear who exactly is behind the idea of a Frazier campaign for Senate, but this isn’t going to end well for him.

29 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. WTF is Frazier thinking? Neville may be a Grade A certified wingnut, but he's also a comparative political powerhouse. Frazier is likely to get as much traction as Gilmore has in the Presidential primary. Well, maybe not that bad… as much as Pataki, then.

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      If Frazier wants to run, and what he is or isn't thinking, well, that's his business. 

      Unless, or until, baby god raptures all the Nevilles and Nevillettes off this planet, someone semi-sane in the Republican Party needs to run against them.  I for one am glad that there are still a few of the less-certifiable who are willing to make that effort and run against today's wingnuts, regardless. 

  2. davebarnes says:

    And, to think that yesterday, I changed my voter registration from unaffiliated to Republican.

    Fun times.

  3. OrangeFree says:

    I want him to win the GOP nomination…

    …just so he can humiliatingly lose a major elected position for the third straight attempt. I will be wonderful. 

    /Still remember back in ’10 when, during a debate, Ed put his hand on Frazier’s shoulder and Frazier acted like he was being grievously assaulted

  4. ajb says:

    I'm sure Moddy will be along any minute now to tell us that Frazier was including Bennet's time at DPS in the 8 years… or maybe it was his time as am investment banker. 

  5. Socialisticat says:

    We've got two blacks, one Hispanic, and a possible woman.  Diversity, mother fuckers!

  6. Hayduke says:

    Down … goes … Frazier! (Again.)

  7. ElliotFladen says:

    What is the correct terminology these days?  I used African American a few months back and got corrected to use Black by somebody who was African American/Black/Whatever the Correct Term is. 

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      Human being. 

    • Socialisticat says:

      I find the difference is the part of speech.  Adjective or adverb– OK.  Noun– might want to rethink that.

      viz.

      A black; the blacks; two blacks

      A black man; black men and women; black people

      • mamajama55 says:

        Thanks, S – cat…you crystallized when dehumanization and objectification happen, and it is when adjectives describing humans in a specific time / place become nouns that categorize all humans in all times / places. Categorizing people with nouns should be limited to polls, studies, legal cases, limited and specific instances. 

        So, Mexican-American students in (place / time) = OK. Mexicans, not OK.

        Undocumented immigrants in ______(place / time) is OK. "Undocumented" or"immigrants" or "illegals" as blanket generalizations applying same rules to all, leads to faulty policies.

        White people in (place/ time)  = OK. Whites, not OK. Same with black people.

        Young/ old women, OK. Females, not OK.   Generalizations are not valid unless supported with actual statistics from studies, i.e., they are not generalizations, but are specific and limited descriptions.

        So the usage:  " 75% of women in this study said _____,

        ___% of men in that study were ______," is legit usage.

        "All men are ____", not legit. "

        Women who accuse men of rape just want to gain power over men," is not legit.

        Jewish / Catholic/ Muslim people, OK. Jews / Catholics / Muslims, all want to ______ is not OK.

        LGBY youth in (time/place) said / did __________, fine. The gays all want, are waiting to pounce in the bathrooms, etc= not legit usage.

        It's really not that hard. Humans are in fact diverse and complicated and changeable. Our language should reflect this, by being descriptive, specific, and reality-based, not generalizing specifics to entire populations. Being "politically correct" is  all about the grammar.

        • mamajama55 says:

          It's also why some people refer to the "Democrat" (noun) party, instead of the "Democratic" party. Nouns freeze people in place, adjectives allow fluidity and process.

        • marklane1351 says:

          This wasn't covered in English class! 

          • mamajama55 says:

            Propaganda techniques should be covered in English, Law,Journalism, and Speech / Forensics classes.  How else can people be prepared to recognize and counter them?

            • Duke Cox says:

              How else can people be prepared to recognize and counter them?

              ..read ColoradoPols?  wink

            • BlueCat says:

              When I was in school, fortunately in arguably the best public school district in the Chicago 'burbs (it was generally the first thing mentioned in real estate ads before number of bedrooms etc.), we were taught logic, deductive and inductive reasoning and also required to write what used to be called circular form essays all the damn time. 

              These were essays that required an introductory paragraph introducing the point you wanted to make or position you wanted to defend, a body making your case with all the back up you could muster and a conclusion returning to your initial statement and summarizing how what you presented proves your point or supports your position.  All of this left us well equipped to defend our own opinions cogently and to detect unsupported bull, including propaganda, spin not to mention plain old lies, when we saw them.

              The self esteem movement, on the other hand, encouraged many cohorts of students to feel that it's perfectly valid to express any opinion they wish to pull out of their asses based on nothing and that every opinion arrived at in this fashion is just as valid as any other. Opinion and "feelings", even if completely unsupported by anything concrete, were not to be constrained by anything so dull and uncreative as facts as this would interfere with the precious darlings' creativity and self esteem. We couldn't have anyone feeling that somebody else's opinion was superior to theirs just because the other opinion was presented with logic and evidence and theirs was just how they "feel". Nope. Feelings were King. It had to be smiley faces all round.

              Of course, just like the education I received back in the day, unusually high quality even then, this brand of education worked both ways. Anything they read or heard that appealed to them was valid without reference to anything so fussy as facts or evidence. Those educated in this manner, as well as those educated in inferior school systems (always plenty of those) in any era, couldn't be a richer source pool for targeting with spin, propaganda and blatant lies, perfect potential admirers of demagague clowns like The Donald, "news" networks like Fox and hate mongers on rightie talk radio.

    • BlueCat says:

      Also offensive when you use "the" to lump people into a block as in Trumpspeak…. "the blacks love me", "the Mexicans love me", etc.

  8. yameniye says:

    This should be a very interesting primary.  Of course there is always the possibility that Ryan will be convinced to run in CD7 again.

    Anyone want to see this on Predictit?

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.