Wyoming Democratic Caucus: Obama Wins

Final Update: 100% now in, Teton went for Obama, final delegate count, Obama 187.5, Hillary 129.5, Uncommitted 2.

Update: Obama wins Sheridan, only Teton left, and that should go to Obama as well.

Update: Last five caucus results now coming in. Hillary wins Weston County. Obama won Big Horn and Johnson. Only Sheridan and Teton are left. The delegate count is now at 160 for Obama, 116 for Hillary, 2 uncommitted. Again, these are delegates to the state convention to be held in late May. CNN now projects Obama to win. Sheridan has 18 delegates and Teton has 17. The caucus ends at 6pm MT in Sheridan. (A 4 hour caucus?)

Update: I think I've found the answer as to why the race hasn't been called by CNN, thanks to McJoan and Pocket Nines at Daily Kos. Four counties start caucusing in 5 minutes at 2:00 pm MT. One starts at 3pm. That's it for me, I'm willing to call Wyoming an Obama win.

Official Wyoming caucus results will be here. They will also appear on CNN's page here. [More...]

Update: Latest state delegate totals: Obama 158, Hillary 114. Five counties still out. Why don't they call the race? The big counties are in. (And Sweetwater's delegates are finally included in the numbers.) Maybe there's a county or two where no Democrats at all showed up to vote. That would be something

Update: Obama takes Laramie (Cheyenne) and Fremont. They should call the race for him soon.

Update: Hillary wins Carbon County. The race hasn't been called yet. Obama should win Fremont, he opened an office there. Cheyenne (Laramie County, not Laramie the town which is in Albany County) is still out. Another reason they may not be calling it is because there is no exit poll data.

Update: Casper (Natrona) is in and they split the delegates there equally with Obama winning by 7 votes. Hillary wins Converse. Obama wins Park and Lincoln.

Update: Hillary takes Sweetwater, a big one where Bill campaigned. 1,000 turned out to vote there today.

Update: First big county (Albany with the town of Laramie)is in and Obama takes it big. I suspect they will call the race for Obama if he wins one more big county.

Update: Gillette (Campbell) goes for Obama. Hillary wins Goshen. They tie in Crook. Obama takes Uinta, Sublette and Hot Springs. Hillary wins Platte. Obama gets Washakie. But they will equally split deletates in Goshen and Hot Springs.

Update: Niobrara County is in, it's a tie, 10 votes for each, each gets 1/2 delegate. The bigger counties to watch are Laramie (Albany) Natrona (Casper), Cheyenne (Laramie) and Sweetwater. Every county has one caucus.

Huge turnouts in Wyoming. Registration ended Feb. 22, so those turned away today are not those who decided to vote this weekend, but those who didn't arrive in time. Everyone was told to come an hour early because you had to be in line at 9:00 am.

Obama opened 5 offices in the state. Hillary had 2. Again, Obama is expected to win, it's a question of by how much. The caucuses are open only to Democrats and the registration cut-off was Feb. 22. Wyoming has a total of 18 delegates (12 pledged) and 4 alternates.

"Delegates" are the delegates to the Wyoming Democratic Party 2008 State Convention in Jackson on May 23-24. Statewide, there are a total of 319 delegates to the state convention.

Here's a list of the registered voters in Wyoming as of March 4, 2008 (pdf.) Out of more than 200,000 registered voters, 59,000 are Democrats. Obama campaigned in Laramie, as did Bill Clinton, Hillary did not.

Natrona (Casper) has 8,000. Both campaigned there yesterday. Cheyenne (in Laramie County) is another place where Hillary campaigned yesterday.

I'm wondering which way Sweetwater will go. It has 7,500 registered Dems and Bill Clinton campaigned there.

< States Consider Lowering Drinking Age | Rasmussen Updates Electoral College Map >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:52:36 AM EST
    Update: Niobrara County is in, it's a tie, 10 votes for each, each gets 1/2 delegate.

    I assume that must be one of the bigger counties.

    I feel sorry for that delegate (5.00 / 8) (#69)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:36:38 PM EST
    That's gonna hurt. Hopefully Hillary will get the part with the mouth.

    hahah lol (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by neilario on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:59:28 PM EST
    CNN has called the contest for Barack Obama. (none / 0) (#156)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:02:57 PM EST
    Kathy says again (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:57:13 AM EST
    "I call Wyoming for Clinton!"

    (grains of salt available at the back door)

    Though, I gotta wonder: no polling has been done in WY, so we have no idea which way the wind is blowing.  What happens if this split holds throughout, and Clinton and Obama basically end up with the same number of delegates?

    I think that if Clinton gains even one delegate, that's huge momentum--wise and ads to her narrative.  I also wonder what the polling is in MS.  I know the aa vote is a big bloc, but what should we expect?

    Seems to me (none / 0) (#3)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:01:20 PM EST
    Obama has had offices in the state since before the Feb. 22 registration deadline.

    That means he has had the opportunity to register supporters as Dems for the purpose of voting in the caucus.

    It would be very, very surprising if Obama did not win Wyoming.  He was there when it mattered.


    Not necessarily (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:05:39 PM EST
    Dems didn't have to re-register to vote in the caucus, all registered Dems can vote for it.  If you voted in a recent election, you're registered for today.

    So yes, Hillary has a disadvantage because she didn't open offices until after the registration deadline, and she opened two to his five, and he's expected to win, but I don't think the voter registration deadline will be that big a deal.


    WY is a fur piece to travel (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:13:31 PM EST
    and the locals don't cotton to strangers, so it did not behoove Obama to flood the state with his eager supporters.  There was a lot of attention around the state dem party leaders' statement that he hated Clinton and thought she was tearing apart the party, and the dem governor said he couldn't stand either Obama or Clinton.  Coming off Clinton's big OH and TX wins...I call it for Clinton!

    (don't I get a little credit for standing by my principles even when I know they are wrong?)


    Wyoming (none / 0) (#27)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:45:08 PM EST
    is neighbor to Yellowstone, the Tetons, and Jackson Hole (skiing, plus wildlife refuge).

    At least the NW of the state is very tourist friendly.  I don't know about the rest, though.

    And yes, I think Hillary will win too! ;-).


    another convert! (none / 0) (#31)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:52:01 PM EST
    I wonder how Obama's position on guns was played?

    It seems to me that no one has really aggressively gone after WY.  I understand what Jeralyn said about O having more offices opened, but what does that really translate to?  I honestly think both candidates thought this thing would be wrapped up by now.  Obama's people certainly seemed surprised by the turnaround in OH and TX, so maybe they haven't been as aggressively organized as before?  And certainly Clinton probably hurls at the mere mention of the word "caucus" at this point.  HAving spent some time in WY during the Shepard ordeal (Clinton spent time there during the tragedy as well) I know that they hate outsiders scrutinizing them.

    It seems to me that WY has been very, very hostile to both dems.

    This is so exciting!  And welcome to my foolishness, Teresa, by predicting a Clinton win!  I'm trying the Secret.  We'll know if it works by the end of the day.


    The reason for little work in Wyoming (none / 0) (#72)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:39:44 PM EST
    is that horses and cattle don't vote.  I know, I know, the Obama camp will claim "we won another state" -- as they really ought to do, with so much more money and staff sunk there -- but . . . c'mon.  It's got only half a million people, and some of us in cities call that a big neighborhood.  It's got a total of 12, count 'em, 12 delegates.

    Yeh, all states matter.  But if we do believe in this democracy that what matters is one person, one vote . . . well, some states do matter more, but because more people matter more. :-)


    Voting patterns. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Iphie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:07:29 PM EST
    I would also think that a large number of Dems registered two years ago because they wanted to vote for Trauner (new Dems that is, or at least newly voting Dems). I'm guessing because so little attention has been paid here that we don't really know much about those newer voters.

    Look Romney Won! (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:09:20 PM EST
    How exciting.

    Even without campaigning, and the nomination already decided, his caucus organization came through for him.

    Gotta love the caucus system.

    That was a while ago (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:10:26 PM EST
    It was a joke ... (4.50 / 2) (#9)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM EST
    not a funny one I guess.

    Yep (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:15:42 PM EST
    Not a funny one.

    I thought it was funny. (none / 0) (#94)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:58:45 PM EST
    66-33 with 43% (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:06:39 PM EST
    Albany county came in big for Obama 74-25.

    Total votes were 969-328.

    If this is record turnout this is pathetic, There will not be 5000 voters total in this thing. How the hell does Wyoming get 12 pledged delegates? How do they get 6 Super Delegates?

    There are 50K registered Dems (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:08:48 PM EST
    There won't be 10% turnout.

    this is a sick joke.


    in 2004 only 675 Dems (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:11:13 PM EST

    I think it's relative.


    Relatively a travesty (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:14:29 PM EST
    1 delegate for every 416 Wyoming voters.

    Compared to California where 4.4 million voted for 370 delegates. 1 delegate for every 11,892 voters.

    Never again do I want to here about the will of the people and pledged delegates be spoken again in the same sentence.


    If a Wyoming voter (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:23:10 PM EST
    was as tall as their dominance in delegate selection against a normal sized California voter, they would be over 110 feet tall.

    They might work in a power point demonstration.


    Texans wished they lived in Wyoming ;) (none / 0) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:17:48 PM EST
    as do (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:22:20 PM EST
    Florida and Michigan no doubt

    The big county of Natrona comes in (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:21:01 PM EST
    Not even a 1000 votes!!!!

    They split them.


    there's only 500,000 (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:08:57 PM EST
    in the whole state. 59,000 registered Dems. It's a Republican state.

    Record turnout is 10% (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:11:23 PM EST
    12 delegates for 5,000 voters? So for every Wyoming (not count SUPERS) delegate, 1 delegate for every 416 voters.

    This is a travesty.


    has someone done a breakdown on this? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:17:54 PM EST
    Because it is a travesty, as you say.  If the roles were switched, I think that certain elements would have powerpoint presentations and graphs explaining how caucuses game the system.

    Or maybe they can just dig up their old presentations they prepared when Bush won the EV and Gore won the popular vote?


    Jay Cost (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:19:08 PM EST
    See my post earlier that cites his article.

    Size of counties (none / 0) (#149)
    by DaleA on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:48:41 PM EST
    Since there is only one caucus per county, the size of the county might influence things. My recall is some of the counties are the size of RI if not CT, and have 10,000 people in them. This should have been done by mail.

    1 car parade syndrome (none / 0) (#44)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:11:18 PM EST
    is the only way to explain this whole stinking process.

    The entire population of the state (none / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:47:23 PM EST
    is only half a million, for pity's sake.  

    Maybe Bill's campaigning paid off (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Shawn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:06:41 PM EST
    Sweetwater went for Hillary 57% to 43%.

    Sweetwater's big and you're right (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:08:12 PM EST
    it shows Bill can still be effective.

    Exactly (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:14:45 PM EST
    Bill is tremendously effective, and even more so since the campaign stopped paying for the press to follow him around.  When the newsroom had to put money behind their dogging him, they dropped it.

    I honestly believe that the only folks saying that Bill can't be effective are the ones who would never vote for a Clinton in the first place.  It goes up there with the "Clinton Fatigue" and "Hillary is divisive" theories, which are touted in the media as gospel yet don't seem to be playing out on the ground.  I remember after SC, l was in NY and saw a local reporter talking to someone in Harlem, and the woman on the street said, "Bill was protecting his wife.  That's all he was doing.  You don't let anybody badmouth your wife."  She was an Obama supporter, by the way.


    Bill is very effective (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:21:51 PM EST
    Before the primary, he gave a speech standing in the back of a pickup truck.  A campaign worker borrowed the truck from a Republican friend down the street.  The R owner of the truck listened to Bill's speech and decided to vote for Hillary.  Yes, he's effective.

    That is (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:26:01 PM EST
    a really nice story ! Thanks for sharing it.

    Just like BC (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:12:38 PM EST
    pulled in SE Ohio for Hillary too.  

    No one ever gives him credit for sticking to the message, staying out the press (as much as possible) and not attacking BO since basically SC.  Remember all the stories--he's a loose cannon and he's hurting her campaign...

    Just for perspective (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:34:41 PM EST
    my county in Jersey (Hudson County) has a population of 608,975--so for me, these "big numbers" are laughable. [no offense small states :)]

    Great story RalphB!

    That's a shame about gay youth not knowing who Matthew Shepard is, spit--I mean, with "The Laramie Project" and all?

    Some have heard of him (none / 0) (#73)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:40:30 PM EST
    a lot, a surprising number, haven't.

    They're teens, to be fair. Most teens -- this was true of me, too -- don't have much of a grasp on "past" yet.


    actually (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:43:59 PM EST
    I think that is very sad.
    and I am not willing to let them off with the "teens" thing.  he died on a rail fence in their state fer gosh sakes.
    I guess if anything it is an indicator that coming out now is a lot "less" than it was when I did it, even in WY.
    by the time I was a teenage in rural arkansas I knew a good deal of gay history.
    I think its sad for Matthew.

    To be clear (none / 0) (#80)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:46:53 PM EST
    I'm not in WY, so I have no idea if WY gay teens are more aware on Matthew Shepard -- they might be, it's local to them. In CA, they've definitely got other things on their minds. We bring them around slowly, and it works -- they're usually happy to learn that they have history, though it takes a while for them to get how important that is.

    I go off topic really easily. Sorry, Jeralyn. :)


    it may be like (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:50:50 PM EST
    creativity going up under severe repression.
    I lived in CA for 14 years.  gays, teens or otherwise, have very little to fear compared to where and how I grew up.
    when you understand what is at stake you understand what is at stake.
    whatever your age.

    It's much better (none / 0) (#91)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:55:20 PM EST
    than when I was a teen, too, but still sometimes pretty bad, depending on where they are. I'm in the central valley, so these kids often aren't having a particularly easy go of it.

    Still, when I think about what my teen years were like in the delta region, it is hard not to launch into a "barefoot both ways in the snow" thing. I try not to do it, though I've very much come to appreciate those stories from my elders in the last while.


    I hear you (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:02:13 PM EST
    and I completely agree that if you dont understand whos sholders you are standing on you do not understand yourself.
    I will say that, in some ways, coming out in the 70's might have been easier than it is even now, at least societally if not family wise.
    pre aids, post sexual revolution, different strokes.
    it was a very different time.  a golden era in many ways IMHO.

    Sh*t, most teens don't (none / 0) (#143)
    by plf1953 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:18:41 PM EST
    have much of a grasp on the present yet either ...

    Heh (none / 0) (#84)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:49:56 PM EST
    I just moved to Hudson County.  I had no idea it had so much in common with Wyoming!

    Are you active in the party here?  I'd love to dip my toe in.


    Steve M-- (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:08:47 PM EST
    welcome!  I'm from Essex Country originally, which is how I still identify.  Not big into local politics, but I have one big contact--as well as another political organizer friend in Passaic County.

    And population is about all we have in common with WY--except for maybe great steakhouses :)    

    Anyone Think... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by OxyCon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:26:46 PM EST
    Obama can carry Wyoming when it counts, this Novemeber?
    Me neither.
    Another shallow win for Obama.

    Congratulations to Sen Obama (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:32:22 PM EST
    I mean really, small or big, caucus or primary, he won this one. Why not acknowledge that?

    Will it matter about who gets the nomination? Probably not at all.


    If that's your only goal (none / 0) (#160)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:43:48 PM EST
    If you are trying to organize, then you want to work in Wyoming. While it's now a Republican state, the people there still would be better served with a Democratic Presidency. They just don't know it yet.

    Of course not (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:35:42 PM EST
    but it never hurts to build infrastructure and get Democrats to turn out energized, IMO.

    The way I look at it, the real point is longer term and probably more local. I probably won't live to see WY go blue in a national election, but for local races, it's good to have people getting involved at higher levels -- and local stuff is what effects people most directly, as well as building our bench on a larger scale. One of my big complaints with the party is that we've totally neglected local level organizing in too many places -- that makes sense for a short term strategy, but long term I think it hurts us a lot.

    Democrats are turning out, regardless of who they support, and the vast majority IMO are chomping at the bit to regain some power -- I read the turnout as excitement about getting rid of the current administration and having the election still be contested, as much as anything. I'm glad WY got some attention to help build local Dem connections, even if its meaning for this particular race is tiny. It's the plus side to a really contested primary.


    Don't you think this attitude (none / 0) (#127)
    by Maggie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:52:14 PM EST
    plays badly for Clinton?  Granted there aren't a lot of voters in Wyoming to be turned off by it.  But to say Obama hasn't had any important wins is to insult a LOT of voters all around the country.  He hasn't just won in Idaho and Wyoming.  He's won in WA, VA, WI, etc. And it's rather uncool to dismiss the southern states that have gone for him.  Indiana + North Carolina have more delegates that Pennsylvania.  But PA COUNTS, and IN and NC not so much.

    Anyway, it gets repeated so much on this site -- and I don't know if you guys hear how it comes across.  Democrats in red states apparently aren't allowed to have a real say in who the democrats choose for the national ticket.  African American votes are obviously unimportant.  etc. etc.

    I don't recall hearing Obama's team talking about how AR or TN or RI don't really count.


    Believe me (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:55:34 PM EST
    when Clinton wins California by a zillion votes, and the Obama supporters chorus "who cares, it will go Dem either way," it comes across exactly like these comments come across to you.

    OT (none / 0) (#145)
    by Josey on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:24:01 PM EST
    Wow!  I just learned Obama admitted there aren't 50 superdelegates waiting to endorse him.


    But, but, but, NBC said it was so!


    I'm from California. (none / 0) (#161)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:49:34 PM EST
    California will go for either candidate. If the Democratic loses California he or she isn't going to win this November. That's the truth. To say that Wyoming doesn't matter is an opinion, a dismissal of Democratic brothers and sisters. No matter whether a state goes Rep or Dem, the voters in that state still count.

    No wonder why Clinton keeps losing in those states. She doesn't lay the groundwork beforehand and afterwards her people say they don't count. They do count. They count towards getting the nomination. Duh.


    Spare me the spin (none / 0) (#166)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:58:51 PM EST
    "Wyoming doesn't matter" is the exact same proposition as "California doesn't matter."  It is not a grave insult to the people of Wyoming in one case and an unremarkable statement of fact in the other.

    But who said CA didn't matter? (none / 0) (#176)
    by Maggie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:07:24 PM EST
    I just think it makes a mockery of the process to go around trying to decide which states matter and which don't.  If I were a super delegate, I'd think about exactly 2 things:

    1. I'd give a good bit of weight to who was ahead by elected delegates.  That was the measure established at the beginning of the race for measuring the will of the party.  Some states chose caucuses.  Some primaries.  Some chose to have open contests.  Some closed.  But it was all laid out ahead of time.  Delegates were and are the measure of how those states decided.

    2. But superdelegates are there for a reason.  So my other consideration would be whether there were concerns about how a candidate will run in November.  This can overturn a small lead in elected delegates.  Or of there is a perception of a big problem, maybe a somewhat bigger lead.

    That seems to me to be entirely fair.  And it respects the states and their decisions about how to represent themselves at the national convention.  (Cause going with total votes basically shouts out to all the caucus states that their choices don't matter so much.  And, you know, if they knew that ahead of time, they might have chosen to put in primaries instead.  But they didn't know -- so it seems unfair to penalize them for it now.  And that's what 'popular vote' metrics does.)

    As for judgments about who would be fare better in November, we're all obviously going to differ.  I don't think polling today is worth much -- because the themes of the general election aren't in play yet.  In particular, we don't yet know if Obama will or will not be perceived as having enough stature.  But also (big also), we don't know just how rugged the terrain gets for Hillary when the country is forcefully reminded of all the political rancor of the Clinton years.  From where I sit the latter rules her out as the nominee, unless Obama really falters. She's arguably less electable, and even if you gave her the edge, I don't think it's enough to offset the will of the party as expressed by the delegates elected by the rules established when the race began.


    But... (none / 0) (#179)
    by Rainy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:28:55 PM EST
    California will go to a Dem. That's a fact. Are you kidding me?

    And (none / 0) (#180)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:27:28 PM EST
    Wyoming will go to a Republican.  Is my point really that unfathomable?

    Correct. Congrats to Obama but (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:00:38 PM EST
    again, allow me to point out that (a) to credit all of the turnout to one candidate is to ignore the data, and (b) my city, only a midsize city, has more people than the entire population of Wyoming, and (c) at this rate, we will see Wyoming turn Dem in time for my children's grandchildren.:-)

    It's pretty country in Wyoming, though, and a side benefit of a campaign such as this is that potential presidents and their staffs actually SEE so much of this country -- and its people, many or few per state.

    Btw, that's a major reason why I hope this really does go to Puerto Rico, as not only candidates but also media -- and thus those of us watching -- perhaps will see why it is so awful for a country that began by resenting being colonies still treats its territories as colonies.  Statehood for Puerto Rico, si!  And all that campaign and media money flowing there, too, si!  


    Cream City (none / 0) (#163)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:52:39 PM EST
    The delegates vote at the national convention. And the majority of them will be voting for Obama. People here keep conflating the primaries with the November election. Two different things.

    Agree about Puerto Rico. The people there should be offered statehood or independence. Let them choose one of the two. Same with D.C. Two more Democratic states!


    No, Bob. Now, really (none / 0) (#172)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:47:59 PM EST
    the hundreds and hundreds of delegates decided in Wyoming today do not all get to descend on Denver.

    Do you really think that the 12 national delegates were decided today?  Do read what BTD says first, for a change.  Or if you continue to refuse to do so, find your own source for how the caucus process works.


    It's not about not caring (none / 0) (#131)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:57:59 PM EST
    so much as taking for granted that their votes won't be enough to turn the state. In this case you complain about the electoral system, not the voters.

    Taking blue states or red states for granted is equally galling.


    Clinton (none / 0) (#142)
    by 1jane on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:18:01 PM EST
    There is no opponent more formidable in a Democratic primary than Hillary Clinton and the Clinton's coast-to-coast network of friends and surrogates.

    I agree (none / 0) (#168)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:54:10 PM EST
    That's why she's winning the majority of Democrat voters. Obama relies heavily on non-democrat voters, for better or worse.

    Obama is winning a lot of votes from typically red states in the DEM primaries. When it comes to a winner-take-all situation for the states like the electoral college in the GE, all those states are not liable to mean much unless the Dems have the power to turn over entrenched GOP interests in those states.

    To use a metaphor from elsewhere, Obama is winning a lot of "cash" in this game, but most of his cash will have the value of monopoly money in the GE. Hillary is the one winning the green (big states that we have a chance of winning). I will be very interested to see if the Soops take this into consideration or not, especially if Hillary takes Penn.


    Conflation (none / 0) (#164)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:53:32 PM EST
    Their votes help to win the nomination.

    i live in NC and we haven't gone for him yet. (none / 0) (#136)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:00:45 PM EST
    Goodness.. (none / 0) (#178)
    by Rainy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:26:16 PM EST
    this is ridiculous. If Hillary won, wouldn't you been cheering her achievement.

    Green River and Rock Springs, dammit! (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by chemoelectric on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:33:13 PM EST
    My father used to be the NAMI representative for Sweetwater County, and dammit Sweetwater has two of the biggest towns in Wyoming, which deserve to be mentioned!

    Or at least Green River does. :)

    A lot of union voters in Sweetwater, I would think. Well, not a lot of them, but a lot by Wyoming standards. Not a lot of people in Wyoming.

    Green River rules! (none / 0) (#120)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:38:45 PM EST
    And Rock Springs, well if you don't like the scenery you can take your paycheck and put some gas in your truck and drive to Green River ;)  Or Laramie, and you go hang in those little Laramie sagey mountains for awhile.

    I talked Sweetwater up (none / 0) (#122)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:43:14 PM EST
    in my posts.

    I was pretty familiar with Sweetwater and Green River in the mid-70's, it was oil and gas stuff back then. Lots of people bought land hoping for wells and could make payments of $50 a month. Most didn't pan out and people stopped making the payments.  I remember doing a bunch of foreclosures for a client on them.


    Got the answer (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:02:56 PM EST
    4 counties are just starting their caucus and 1 starts in an hour. CNN won't call the race while the polls are still open.

    See my latest update at the top of the thread.

    I'm done now.

    58-40 with 30% reporting (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:08:06 PM EST
    though since this is done by county not at all sure that Obama gets his proper share of delegates.

    Sound like a 7-6 or 8-5 split is likely to me.

    Yawn (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:18:27 PM EST
    Another caucus win in a spectacularly red state.  Surely that will swing all the superdelegates to Obama.  :-)

    Countdown to (none / 0) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:46:49 PM EST
    claims that he'll bring us Wyoming in the general in 3.2.1 ;-).

    Everyone knows (none / 0) (#82)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:49:08 PM EST
    WY doesn't count.

    Oh really? (none / 0) (#157)
    by Fredster on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:09:51 PM EST
    You mean deep in Cheney country someone thinks they'll carry it for the Dems!  LOL!

    Big counties not in yet (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:31:33 PM EST
    Natrona, Laramie, Albany, Sweetwater.

    LMAO (none / 0) (#54)
    by zyx on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:20:00 PM EST
    at what is a "big" county in Wyoming?

    Loved that. Yeh, counties are big (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:40:58 PM EST
    and cattle are many . . . but people are few. :-)

    Now 56-42 with 35% reporting (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:41:54 PM EST
    still no big counties (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:43:06 PM EST
    I get that (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:45:35 PM EST
    I have no idea (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:16:11 PM EST
    how they apportion delegates.

    I just figured it out (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:18:35 PM EST
    It is going to be 7-5 with Obama getting an extra delegate later. So it will be 8-5.

    Wow, a net 3 delegate pickup (none / 0) (#83)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:49:35 PM EST
    on the way to not getting to 2025.  This delegate math is hosed.

    Each one counts. (none / 0) (#165)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:54:56 PM EST
    What was the total in Texas?

    I think (none / 0) (#15)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:18:31 PM EST
    Cheyenne is actually in Laramie County, and Laramie is in Albany County.


    Yup, I just fixed it (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:26:45 PM EST
    I should have caught that, thanks.

    Looks like most of Obama's lead is coming from .. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:18:53 PM EST
    Goshen County.

    Fairly close everywhere else.  Cheyenne and Laramie still not reporting.

    Shoot.. I should have called (none / 0) (#18)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:22:09 PM EST
    a friend of mine who is a prof. at UWYO.
    One more vote for hillary could make a big difference!

    Hillary won Goshen (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:25:49 PM EST
    But (none / 0) (#32)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:56:56 PM EST
    Hillary is taking Goshen..

    Long Process (none / 0) (#21)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:27:02 PM EST
    This is going to take awhile if the last round is at 6:00pm.

    who said 6pm? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:32:24 PM EST
    I havent' seen that.

    My D (none / 0) (#24)
    by Lil on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:38:40 PM EST
    One of their posts said taht, I'm pretty sure.

    Politico (none / 0) (#33)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    Sorry, I was doing other things.  I saw it at Politico.  There is a link to a Kos diarist.  It has convening times.  It lists Teton as last as 6 pm eastern.

    Janet (none / 0) (#30)
    by Janet on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:47:48 PM EST
    Big tent whats prediction!!! You nailed it on Tue

    Who has a fair (none / 0) (#34)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    analysis of how say a big  (more than 10 points) Obama win
    in both Wy & Ms.   will play in the weeks leading up to PA
    (given the backdrop of last Tue. primaries)

    Just curious for a no-spin view/analysis.


    WY -- small population red state (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:44:55 PM EST
    so it would be more claims of "We won another state" but it will matter little for delegates now.  And it matters not at all in the GE, because it will be GOP now and forevermore, until the mighty Tetons fall.

    Mississippi means more delegates now, though. . . .


    You could say (none / 0) (#88)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:53:11 PM EST
    the same thing about MT. It's also a red, red state that now has 2 Dem senators and Dem governor.

    The Mountain West is opening up in a way in a new way and we have a chance for some congressional pickups.


    Uncommitted (none / 0) (#35)
    by Iphie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:02:15 PM EST
    I notice in the results that there are a couple of counties with a fairly sizable uncommitted vote. I wonder what that's about? I understand traditionally someone might vote uncommitted to register their dissatisfaction with their choices, but I guess I would have thought that with such high turnout, and with WY's newly gained importance this year that people would be showing up to try to actually impact the election. Just seems a little curious to me.

    Read upthread (none / 0) (#42)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:09:27 PM EST
    the dem gov of WY said neither Obama nor Clinton are good dem candidates.  I imagine that's where the uncommitteds are coming from.

    And (none / 0) (#52)
    by tek on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:18:36 PM EST
    WY is a curious state, no?

    Was there several years ago (none / 0) (#148)
    by DaleA on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:45:48 PM EST
    in downtown Cheyanne one problem is antalopes that wander around at times. This gives me an idea about the largest metropolis in the state.

    Did (none / 0) (#49)
    by tek on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:16:51 PM EST
    Obama tour the state wearing a cowboy hat?

    Had breakfast with a friend who's an Obama supporter.  He told me he thinks the DNC has to settle on a candidate "before they show too much favoritism."  I said it's too late, they've all but endorsesd Obama. He said they are showing a decided bias toward Hillary and all the media is showing a bias toward Hillary! (?) I was absolutely shocked that anyone could seriously believe that.  The only sitting Dem I know who has endorsed Hillary is Diane Feinstein who is retiring and cannot be threatened with losing her seat.

    This man also said that it's not the rule that the states violating primary dates should be awarded 50% of their delegates.  He's upset because he thinks Charlie Crist is a Hillary supporter and is arguing for FL's delegates to be seated.  I read that Crist is about to be drafted for the VP slot with Johnno.  

    All the men in my family (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:51:43 PM EST
    -- and there are many, I've always been massively outnumbered -- email me almost daily that Dean and the Dems have been helping Hillary, and that the media is in her corner.  

    Whaddya want?  They're latte-sippin' liberals, my brothers, driving hybrids and with lots and lots of advanced degrees -- doctors, lawyers, professors.  It doesn't make 'em smart.  Take it from their sis.

    Btw, yes, our dad was quite the misogynist.  But a dear.  He just wanted me to be happy, which to him meant having lots of babies, as my parents did.

    But I listened to my mother, instead.:-)


    hinky thought (none / 0) (#51)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:17:56 PM EST
    Is the Mathew Shepard not an issue in WY?  If not, what effect could Hillary's attempt for hate crimes legislation have on WY voters?

    I think that case was from WY, if not forget or delete.

    I wrote about that (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:24:47 PM EST
    Thanks, Appreciate it. (none / 0) (#70)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:36:44 PM EST
    I would think (none / 0) (#61)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:25:27 PM EST
    that would have very little effect on this election, honestly. It was years ago now (seems recent to me, but the gay youth group kids I interact with barely know who Matthew Shepard was) and while I'm sure people there remember it well, it doesn't really seem like something either candidate has particularly touched on -- locally, I'm sure people have a host of more recent things on their minds, even though most of us outside of WY think of Laramie through that lens.

    Gay support one way or the other may have a little effect, but even there, I'm guessing we're talking about a tiny chunk of primary voters. WY has a gay community, but probably a proportionally very small one.


    You are correct (none / 0) (#63)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:28:21 PM EST
    that it was a long time ago, but I think what folks will remember is that she was there.  It's like me remembering that Clinton was the first first lady in history to march in a gay pride parade.  It means something when someone validates you.  That feeling doesn't go away over time.  Usually it strengthens.

    That's true for me (none / 0) (#71)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:38:53 PM EST
    but queer history in particular isn't taught anywhere on any level. Most people younger than I am don't know about these things, or if they do they have no understanding of how important they were at the time.

    I tried to explain to some folks not that much younger than me how absolutely mind-blowing the Ellen coming out episode was at the time it aired, and they looked at me like I was an alien.

    Same with DOMA -- which I think of as a failure, to be clear, but I also remember the battle lines, and knew it was a step forward in the context of that time, even if it was bound to fail. But it's been recast as Bill Clinton selling out -- as though he was forced to address the issue at all in the first place.

    "Older folks" (lord, I'm only 29, but I guess I'm now "older") remember this stuff, but it's not easily accessible for young people unless they look for it. Sadly, few do so, and there are few resources even for those who want to.


    Well I am 60 (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by DaleA on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:58:24 PM EST
    and try telling younger gays that there were not always bars and gay neighborhoods. They assume there was always a gay community and do not understand the battles we fought. I can remember when gays had trouble registering to vote. And when bars were raided. And when grown ups could be locked away in insane asylums, given the most horrific tortures to cure them. I even once met Harvey Milk. Truly ancient.

    Small Town Gay Bar (none / 0) (#152)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:06:32 PM EST
    broke my heart.  It's on DVD.  Excellent reminder not to take our rights (such as they are) for granted.

    Good points -- and it's not just (none / 0) (#162)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:50:09 PM EST
    LGBT history in which this happens.  My students are convinced that the ERA is in the Constitution.

    I try to convince them that when amendments get passed, they get -- and are known by -- a number.  I.e., the part of our Constitution that was written by a woman, the Susan B. Anthony Amendment, became known after 1920 as . . . the 19th Amendment.

    But no, some students still rather condescendingly attempt to convince me that the ERA was ratified.  

    Of course, then they're the ones who get an extra assignment on this.:-)  But, sadly, they also can vote, and without any research or reality at all.


    D'oh (none / 0) (#75)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:41:05 PM EST
    meant DADT, not DOMA. I am actually quite angry with him over DOMA.

    I am past 30, so basically I should be dead by now (none / 0) (#79)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:45:12 PM EST
    I agree with you whole heartedly on DOMA and add DADT.

    I think that older WY voters will remember, though, and that's what matters.  WY is somewhat cut off from the rest of the nation-by choice, but still-and to have a national figure come to WY not to lay blame but to pay respects, meant a lot.  I'm sure folks of a certain age still remember that.

    (OT: I remember when I was in London a few years ago, the big issue was teaching gay history.  The conservatives argued that it should be taught while the liberals argued that it shouldn't on the grounds that it would only bring up bad memories and they were past all that.  Yeah, you read that right.)


    Yikes, more evidence that the Brits (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:53:49 PM EST
    are nuts.  As my Irisher grandpa would say, they must be missing some branches on the family tree!

    Washington Post (none / 0) (#58)
    by zyx on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:24:24 PM EST
    had a good article about how a win in Wyoming would kind of hurt BO, actually.


    "Downside of Obama Strategy
    Losses in Big States Spur General-Election Fears"

    It talks about how his piling up these wins in no-win general-election states is something that the Supers are going to have to think hard about.  Picking up a few more delegates in Wyoming means a shiny spot on his website, but what else?  Bragging rights?  What kind of game are we playing?

    Makes me think (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:49:23 PM EST
    Of a pair of burglars robbing a house. One of them finds the safe, takes out $100,000 in cash. He meets the other one in the backyard, who says he found $250,000 in cash in a closet downstairs. The first burglar laughs in surprise and admiration, and  is happy all the way back to their hideout.

    Happy, that is, until the other burglar dumps out the pile of monopoly money he found in the games closet.

    Obama is winning monopoly money. Hillary has been earning the real cash.


    Yes, it provides the microscope, a red State, (none / 0) (#76)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:41:39 PM EST
    Dem delegate rich, few voters, and a zero Dem electoral that are required to win a General.  This part needs to change next time for sure, I mean if, its really supposed to be a test of which candidate is electable in a GE.

    RCP (none / 0) (#104)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:06:16 PM EST
    There was a piece titled "Obama, Not Clinton, Faces Tough Math" over at RCP by Marie Cocco on the 6th.  Same stuff......

    So how has Obama fared in those states that are the crucial building blocks of a Democratic general election strategy? He's won his home state of Illinois, plus Wisconsin, Washington and Minnesota. Together, these states account for 51 electoral votes. Clinton has won her home state of New York, as well as California, New Jersey and Michigan, representing a total of 118 electoral votes.


    Try this: (none / 0) (#167)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:00:24 PM EST

    He takes most of Hillary's states, plus others where he ran well. Advantage Obama.

    If the Dem candidates run better, say five percent better than the survey, it's a blowout for Obama, not so much for Clinton.


    can someone please explain (none / 0) (#60)
    by SarahinCA on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:24:58 PM EST
    the difference between CNN's "state dels" and the Wyoming website which has actual votes and states the state delegate total is 319?  What on earth is CNN counting?

    one may be (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:30:28 PM EST
    delegates to the Wyoming state convention rather than the DNC.

    craig crawford (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:31:36 PM EST
    has an excellent post up on this stuff:

    Linked text

    The Caucus Myth

    For starters, forget about hard counting delegates from just about any caucus state.

    Pledged But Not Bound

    There is also a dirty secret about pledged delegates, those who are directly elected in primaries. They are "pledged," but not all are "bound."


    Yes, thank you, finally someone in media (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:57:49 PM EST
    says, as I saw Craig Crawford did -- read it and memorize, folks -- that the candidate with lots of caucus states has a delegate count that is as soft as the economy.  NO caucus state has a delegate count that can be counted on yet -- they have several steps to go, they can allocate differently as they go along, they won't be done until June.

    All we see in the media are guesstimates of, especially, Obama's delegate count.  To me, this is one of the main reasons why it is ridiculous to put pressure on either candidate to drop out with the delegate-count argument as evidence.  

    But, of course, it is the same media doing the stupid delegate counts that then use them to put on that pressure.


    scroll down its under the video (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:33:14 PM EST
    "dirty delegate truths"

    Laramie is in (none / 0) (#67)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:34:14 PM EST
    1308 turn out in this university area.  74% Obama (per Fox)

    the official Wyoming page (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:54:57 PM EST
    says they each get 21 delegates for Natrona.

    the wyoming state democratic party (none / 0) (#96)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:59:40 PM EST
    page, not the official wyoming page.

    21 delegates each in Natrona (Casper.)


    54-45 (none / 0) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:02:30 PM EST
    That's interesting.

    Can Clinton win the delegate count and lose the popular vote? How freaking ironic would that be?

    I hope so. Just to further expose what a farce this system is.


    HA (none / 0) (#102)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:04:25 PM EST
    that would be great. I'd be waiting for all the breathless blog posts declaring that Obama "really" lost WY.

    Now 96-70 (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:04:29 PM EST
    Sounds over to me.

    on the delegates (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:04:21 PM EST
    Same link:

    "Delegates" are the delegates to the Wyoming Democratic Party 2008 State Convention in Jackson on May 23-24. Statewide, there are a total of 319 delegates to the state convention.

    question: (none / 0) (#92)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:56:08 PM EST
    Do Rep. also have these many caucuses?  

    Only "big" place left (none / 0) (#97)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:00:02 PM EST
    is Cheyenne. Which I'd think would tend Clinton, though I don't think she's going to make up that gap very much at this point.

    What about Fremont? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:02:10 PM EST
    I think since Obama had an office there it will go to him. I just don't know if it's big or not.

    Not really sure (none / 0) (#105)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:08:00 PM EST
    Wikipedia claims a population of almost 36,000, which is pretty good for WY, but still looks to be half of Laramie County.

    About the same as Sweetwater, so I guess it's decent sized.


    And Obama takes Cheyenne (none / 0) (#107)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:09:46 PM EST
    it'll be a strong WY win for Obama then.

    Tweety will be VERY chirpy tonight (none / 0) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:11:37 PM EST
    I saw on cable this morning (none / 0) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:15:15 PM EST
    that  unless he wins huge it would still likely be something like a 7 6 split.
    is he going to win huge enough to do better than that?

    sorry 7/5 split (none / 0) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:16:14 PM EST
    ther is 12 right?

    At the moment (none / 0) (#112)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:19:08 PM EST
    looks roughly 60-40-ish in the end. The counties that remain are pretty small, so I can't imagine they'll change it much.

    I don't know how that translates to delegates, but IMO this was really all about the narrative anyway. I strongly doubt that the small difference in delegates will have any effect whatsoever.


    Sheridan isn't pathetic ;( (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:28:51 PM EST
    it has something to offer doesn't it?  It is where I used to live and I have no idea how it would go.  They consider themselves very civilized for the state of Wyoming but they don't swill latte like Teton Co is always trying to do.  Conservative with a slight smell of some old money, not religious, very racist but almost everyone is white so nobody notices so much.  Nicely shaved lawns and everybody keeps up on the paintjob on the house.  Three coal mines but nothing like Gillette or Casper for working class with middle class jobs at strip coal mines.  Has Campbell County come in yet?

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:39:39 PM EST
    I would never call anywhere small pathetic. I love small towns and rural areas, I grew up in one and I still miss it terribly in spite of its problems. I'm dying to move to the country again, when we might inherit a small farm in middle-o'-nowhere Ohio in the next decade.

    Just talking raw voting power. :)

    Campbell came in for Obama, 61-37. With one uncommitted vote, looks like.


    thanks for giving me an idea (none / 0) (#123)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:44:14 PM EST
    for tonight's late night music video.

    Btw, here's one I love, reminds me (none / 0) (#139)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:11:25 PM EST
    of trips west through open spaces and deserted former towns -- lots of marvelous photos and a lovely song (and great pro-Clinton singer):

    "The Places Time Left Behind" -- to Mary Chapin Carpenter's <<a href="mailto:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrJ1Lo8VwAg">I Am a Town </a>a ></a>"I Am a Town"

    I still can't tell from the preview if I got the link-embedding correct again on this computer.  If not, sorry; please delete. :-)


    Close (none / 0) (#140)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:15:33 PM EST
    too many a's and too many brackets. :)

    Get rid of the first bracket, and get rid of the stuff between "Town" and the last bracketed /a, and you're good.


    Whoops (none / 0) (#141)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:16:56 PM EST
    and no "mailto:" anywhere in the expression. Should just be a url.

    Strip mine Campbell County went largely (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:35:37 PM EST
    for Obama.  Sheridan CO has a larger population than Johnson CO so don't let the land size on the map fool ya.  I see Teton CO is still out too.  Cheney lives there now, lots of money in Teton CO because the scenery and the way of life is to die for.  There's a few wealthy liberals running around there too with really big mouths, and I believe it also provides sanctuary to that crazy Gerry Spence.

    What is (none / 0) (#125)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:50:00 PM EST
    the pledged delegate split then?

    VP Cheney must be happy Wy stays in the family :-)

    Dick Cheney doesn't care about Wyoming (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:53:10 PM EST
    Wyoming is for his use, not his care ;)

    True! (none / 0) (#147)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:43:02 PM EST
    Could there be a county (none / 0) (#126)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:51:00 PM EST
    where no Dems at all showed up to vote?

    ther are counties (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:59:07 PM EST
    in arkansas where no republicans show up to vote fairly often.

    I want to go there (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:01:55 PM EST
    I NEED that experience.

    in the county where I live (none / 0) (#144)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:18:52 PM EST
    my brother-in-law is the tax assessor (an elected office) and the last time he ran he had no republican opponent and no republicans showed up to vote against him.
    to be fair some of these democrats might only be barely recognizable to coastal democrats as democrats but that is how they are registered.

    LIved in Arkansas in the 90's (none / 0) (#151)
    by DaleA on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:05:34 PM EST
    beautiful place, lots of trees. Voting was odd. The ballot was huge, the size of an opened newspaper. No booths, just lots of picnic tables in the fairgrounds building. So you opened on a table and voted while anyone could watch you.

    ever since I have been registered to vote (none / 0) (#153)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:26:29 PM EST
    there I have only voted by mail.
    thats funny though and completely believable.

    growing up in my county, we knew who (none / 0) (#155)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:49:04 PM EST
    each of the 6 republicans were. Now the six communist party votes? no idea.

    at least for local elections (none / 0) (#134)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:00:14 PM EST
    that may not be true for national ones

    Yes (none / 0) (#129)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:55:20 PM EST
    In Washington state, one person voted in Garfield County (voted for Obama).

    Whoops (none / 0) (#132)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:58:23 PM EST
    I think that was one state convention delegate, not one vote.

    off topic comments deleted (none / 0) (#158)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:23:37 PM EST
    this thread is about the Wyoming caucuses today. We only have room for 200 comments, so please stay on topic. I just deleted several from new posters that were not on topic.

    off-topic (none / 0) (#159)
    by nicksorrells on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:36:40 PM EST
    so concerning the Wyoming caucus... apparently hundreds of snide comments about Obama, or the meaninglessness of his victory, or comments concerning antelopes, are on-topic, but responses to   these critiques of Obama are off-topic

    I love all the network stories (none / 0) (#170)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:35:16 PM EST
    Basically making Wyoming into a bigger deal than it is.

    Don't get me wrong. Every state does count, and I'm not belittling the results because Obama won. Congratulations to him.

    However, unlike Ohio, California, New York or many of the other states she's won, Wyoming isn't likely to go into the Blue on the big day.

    Unless Obama has a plan to make Wyoming Blue in November, he's still only playing a game with numbers, not reality. This infatuation with winning a slew of otherwise unwinable states (in the GE) is distressing, and can lead to a disastrous election day in November.

    Scoreboard (none / 0) (#175)
    by Arabiflora on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:49:02 PM EST
    The "game with numbers" to which you refer would be the Democratic party nominating contest, and the reality is that Obama is winning.

    Taylor Marsh (none / 0) (#173)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:03:22 PM EST
    has a statement from Maggie Williams re: WY:

    Clinton Beats Expectations In Wyoming With Near Split In Delegates

    Clinton Campaign Manager Maggie Williams issued the following statement in response to the Wyoming caucuses and our estimated pick-up of five delegates:

    "We are thrilled with this near split in delegates and are grateful to the people of Wyoming for their support. Although the Obama campaign predicted victory in Wyoming weeks ago, we worked hard to present Senator Clinton's vision to the caucus-goers and we thank them for turning out today."

    Embarrassing (none / 0) (#174)
    by lily15 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:08:38 PM EST
    We are talking about 8000 total votes. Are people  crazy? Who cares about a Republican state where 8000 Democrats  show up?  This is a joke.  And it underlines what's wrong with Democrats, especially those who support Obama, king of the meaningless red states.

    Obama had a bigger win today (none / 0) (#177)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:17:59 PM EST
    than the "boutique state" (an Atriosism) of Wyoming. He helped a Democrat (Foster) take Hastert's seat.