Romney wins Wyoming GOP caucuses, CNN projects

[ManSnake]

Link

So does this matter in the grand scheme of things? The latest poll in NH shows that Romney is trailing McCain by more than 5 points.

Another Link

Romney wins with 67%
Thompson 25%
Hunter 8%
The rest received 0%

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: ManSnake
Link

So does this matter in the grand scheme of things? The latest poll in NH shows that Romney is trailing McCain by more than 5 points.

Wyoming doesn't matter much.

 

[glenn1]

Another pretty decent showing for Fred Thompson, though. Things could get really interesting from here. McCain has a good shot as winning in New Hampshire, and Thompson in South Carolina. That would leave it a wide open race going into Mega Tuesday.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Another pretty decent showing for Fred Thompson, though. Things could get really interesting from here. McCain has a good shot as winning in New Hampshire, and Thompson in South Carolina. That would leave it a wide open race going into Mega Tuesday.

Its looking more and more likely of a contested/broken convention.

 

[First]

Wyoming doesn't matter much, yes. More and more, though, McCain is looking legit with the latest NH results. I really hope McCain takes the Republican nomination. It'll be especially hard, that way, for Obama to win the presidency at that point, as McCain polls well nationally in scenarios where he gets the nomination, but either way you get what seems like a very decent candidate willing to work with both sides of the aisle. Especially McCain.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: glenn1
Another pretty decent showing for Fred Thompson, though. Things could get really interesting from here. McCain has a good shot as winning in New Hampshire, and Thompson in South Carolina. That would leave it a wide open race going into Mega Tuesday.

Its looking more and more likely of a contested/broken convention.

that's an exciting prospect.

seems like every election cycle, a winner is anointed before the race even starts (granted, the earliest election cycle I have any memory of is 1992).

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: glenn1
Another pretty decent showing for Fred Thompson, though. Things could get really interesting from here. McCain has a good shot as winning in New Hampshire, and Thompson in South Carolina. That would leave it a wide open race going into Mega Tuesday.

Its looking more and more likely of a contested/broken convention.

that's an exciting prospect.

seems like every election cycle, a winner is anointed before the race even starts (granted, the earliest election cycle I have any memory of is 1992).

The last contested convention was Ford vs Reagan in 1976. It worked out WELL for Reagan since he was denied the nomination, and went on to spank Carter in 1980.

Having a contested convention, will slightly help the republicans. Because they dont have the money the dems do. So they'd only have to worry about 3 months of campaigning instead of the typical 6 months. The dems wouldnt be able to go on the attack the GOP nominee until after the GOP convention. Still its unlikley a republican can win this thing.

 

[bamacre]

Ok, are those numbers real? Only 12 actual people voted?

I know it sounds dumb, but hey, this is Wyoming.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Ok, are those numbers real? Only 12 actual people voted?

I know it sounds dumb, but hey, this is Wyoming.

Those are delegate numbers. Wyoming has a true caucus(like the dem caucus in Iowa).

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: glenn1
Another pretty decent showing for Fred Thompson, though. Things could get really interesting from here. McCain has a good shot as winning in New Hampshire, and Thompson in South Carolina. That would leave it a wide open race going into Mega Tuesday.

Its looking more and more likely of a contested/broken convention.

That would sooo rock. Imagine a convention that actually MATTERS. :thumbsup:

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: glenn1
Another pretty decent showing for Fred Thompson, though. Things could get really interesting from here. McCain has a good shot as winning in New Hampshire, and Thompson in South Carolina. That would leave it a wide open race going into Mega Tuesday.

Its looking more and more likely of a contested/broken convention.

that's an exciting prospect.

seems like every election cycle, a winner is anointed before the race even starts (granted, the earliest election cycle I have any memory of is 1992).

The last contested convention was Ford vs Reagan in 1976. It worked out WELL for Reagan since he was denied the nomination, and went on to spank Carter in 1980.

Having a contested convention, will slightly help the republicans. Because they dont have the money the dems do. So they'd only have to worry about 3 months of campaigning instead of the typical 6 months. The dems wouldnt be able to go on the attack the GOP nominee until after the GOP convention. Still its unlikley a republican can win this thing.

Don't be so sure about that. While donations to individual candidates are down compared to the D candidates, donations to the RNC are out pacing donations to the DNC. R money is going to the party instead of the candidates in what is shaping up to be a cock-fight in the primaries. Almost seems like a wait and see type thing. "Lets stash our money here until someone separates themselves from the pack."

 

[BrownTown]

I really doubt there will be anything but a clear winner in both races even though I currently have no idea who it would be. People always seem to like voting for the winner, so whoever gets the momentum early can really start steamrolling through the later primaries. Even if the first hour states all go different ways through some miracle there will be a clear leader after super Tuesday and that person will get a huge swing in every other state ensuring victory. TBH the only thing I really want to happen right now in the primaries is for Hillary to NOT make it, so long as she is eliminated I will be happy.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: glenn1
Another pretty decent showing for Fred Thompson, though. Things could get really interesting from here. McCain has a good shot as winning in New Hampshire, and Thompson in South Carolina. That would leave it a wide open race going into Mega Tuesday.

Its looking more and more likely of a contested/broken convention.

that's an exciting prospect.

seems like every election cycle, a winner is anointed before the race even starts (granted, the earliest election cycle I have any memory of is 1992).

The last contested convention was Ford vs Reagan in 1976. It worked out WELL for Reagan since he was denied the nomination, and went on to spank Carter in 1980.

Having a contested convention, will slightly help the republicans. Because they dont have the money the dems do. So they'd only have to worry about 3 months of campaigning instead of the typical 6 months. The dems wouldnt be able to go on the attack the GOP nominee until after the GOP convention. Still its unlikley a republican can win this thing.

Don't be so sure about that. While donations to individual candidates are down compared to the D candidates, donations to the RNC are out pacing donations to the DNC. R money is going to the party instead of the candidates in what is shaping up to be a cock-fight in the primaries. Almost seems like a wait and see type thing. "Lets stash our money here until someone separates themselves from the pack."

The RNC has about $12million more than the DNC. Not nearly a big enough margin to close the fundraising gap between Hillary and Obama, and the GOP candidates.

But like I said, it works to their advantage because DNC and RNC money isnt spent until after the conventions. They'll be on a much more even playing field than having to campaign the three months prior to the Convention and then the two-three months after.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
I really doubt there will be anything but a clear winner in both races even though I currently have no idea who it would be. People always seem to like voting for the winner, so whoever gets the momentum early can really start steamrolling through the later primaries. Even if the first hour states all go different ways through some miracle there will be a clear leader after super Tuesday and that person will get a huge swing in every other state ensuring victory. TBH the only thing I really want to happen right now in the primaries is for Hillary to NOT make it, so long as she is eliminated I will be happy.

40% of the Delegates are decided on Super Tuesday. Super Tuesday is made up of states where they could easily split 3-4 ways.

I see Huckabee, Romney or McCain, and Giuliani(if he can hang on to Florida), splitting Super Tuesday. I can see Huckabee going into the convention with the most delegates thanks to the bible belt and the south. Followed by Giuliani, then Romney or McCain.

Lets face it folks, the Christian Right will carry Huckabee to wins, is the heartland, bible belt and the south. And lets face it Giuliani is going to carry the more liberal states, with the exception of MA. That leaves the rest to Romney and/or McCain. You have to have 50%+1 to get the nomination. Theres not a chance of that happening with a 3-4 horse race like this. A three horse race when the convention comes, with each hovering around 30%, would be quite interesting.

 

[Excelsior]

And lets face it Giuliani is going to carry the more liberal states

Which is kind of odd if you really think about it....

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

And lets face it Giuliani is going to carry the more liberal states

Which is kind of odd if you really think about it....

Not really, New York and NJ are pretty much sure things since he was mayor of New York. California Republicans are pretty liberal, as is Giuliani. Giuliani is a hawk no doubt, but he has quite the liberal streak that makes him a RINO.

Just look at the polls

+38% in New Jersey
+10% in California(Huckabee is at number 2 with 17%).

They arent even polling in NY because its a given Rudy and Hillary will take them with ease.


Its quite possible at the Convention no one has a majority and they have to broker for it. I could realisticaly see Giuliani and Huckabee having the most delegates. That would be hilarious, two people at the opposite end of the GOP spectrum having to haggle for delegates to be the GOP Nominee for President.

I honestly think Romneys out of it if he doesnt win NH. Hes lagging by quite a bit in SC and his second homestate(Michigan his firewall) has him tied with Huckabee.

Personally I would love to see a RNC where no one has enough delegates and theres three candidates with 600-700 delegates a piece. This is extremely plausible in my opinion.

You'd have a right candidate, a middle candidate, and a left candidate. Huck, McCain, and Giuliani.

I told someone about an hour before the debate that, if McCain wins NH, that theres a good chance of having a brokered convention, and that it's McCain's only hope to win the GOP nomination.

 

[dawp]

Doesn't Wyoming have a higher percentage of Mormons than most states? that may be the reason for the Mit's win there.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

And lets face it Giuliani is going to carry the more liberal states

Which is kind of odd if you really think about it....

Not really, how the hell can Giuliani (or however it's spelled) be considered a conservative?

 

[Lemon law]

Wyoming is a real odd ball this year. Only Romney, Thompson, and Duncan Hunter even bothered to show up to campaign. And Romney's sons hit the state quite often with one of his sons even owning a ranch in State.

Then delegate wise, Wyoming is almost worthless, and this year, because Wyoming violated GOP rules in holding an early caucus, they lose half of their delegates.

Its still translates into Romney needing some early wins to stay viable, and Wyoming just will not count as one of those wins.

And as we saw in last nights ABC debate, everyone else in the GOP seems to see Romney as a threat, and they seem to want him out of the Race. I don't know how much of it is strategy and how much is visceral dislike, but the bulk of the field seemed to be ganging up on both Romney and Ron Paul.

 

[Jhhnn]

Dawp has it right- mormonism is strong in all the states surrounding Utah, and they're pretty much Republican to their cores. Expect Romney to make a strong showing in Idaho, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, for sure. Arizona is different because of McCain...

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Excelsior

And lets face it Giuliani is going to carry the more liberal states

Which is kind of odd if you really think about it....

Not really, how the hell can Giuliani (or however it's spelled) be considered a conservative?

Because he is for taking away more rights in name of safety, likes to put people that have little exp. in high positions, etc...

Seems like another Bush, just a little liberal on social issues like abortion, gay rights, etc...

 

[eits]

looks like 3 of the entire 5 people in wyoming like romney.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Excelsior

And lets face it Giuliani is going to carry the more liberal states

Which is kind of odd if you really think about it....

Not really, how the hell can Giuliani (or however it's spelled) be considered a conservative?

Illegal drugs

During Giuliani's mayoralty he oversaw major crackdowns on illegal drugs, especially marijuana. He also indicated that he will continue to arrest, prosecute, and imprison patients who use medical marijuana.[6]

Domestic Surveillance

Giuliani has supported Bush's tactic of using domestic surveillance.[34]. He stated that "[...] we have to remain a country that has the Patriot Act, a country that has electronic surveillance to use to find out about these plots that may be being planned."[35]

Iraq

Giuliani was described by Newsweek magazine in January of 2007 as "one of the most consistent cheerleaders for the president?s handling of the war in Iraq."[31] Later that year he supported Bush's proposal for a surge in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.[32]

Giuliani has suggested that the President has the authority to "redirect" federal funds to support the war in Iraq even if he vetoes a funding bill passed by Congress, and in the absence of any other legislation authorizing such funding.[33]

But then again, most of the repub candidates have similar views on the above issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...tions_of_Rudy_Giuliani

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Excelsior

And lets face it Giuliani is going to carry the more liberal states

Which is kind of odd if you really think about it....

Not really, how the hell can Giuliani (or however it's spelled) be considered a conservative?

Because he is for taking away more rights in name of safety, likes to put people that have little exp. in high positions, etc...

Seems like another Bush, just a little liberal on social issues like abortion, gay rights, etc...

Freedom vs. Authority

"We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do. You have free speech so I can be heard." Giuliani in a March 1994 speech on crime at a forum in New York City sponsored by the New York Post as quoted by the New York Times[130]

Giuliani has expressed that he believes the President has the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no judicial review, but that "he would want to use this authority infrequently".[131]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...tions_of_Rudy_Giuliani

Exactly.