21 votes

What Happened, Wyoming?

Wyoming held their GOP convention this past weekend April 12-14. What's the story coming from Wyoming concerning delegates and committee elections?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Attention Daily Paul community:

While this thread originally concerned the Wyoming State Convention, most of the posts (and almost all of the more recent posts) are about other topics. If you arrived here looking for an account of what happened in Wyoming, please click on the following link:


If, however, you came to interact with that notorious interloper The Shazad, just keep reading...

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

Wow, now we are down to 12 net upvotes!

The comments keep growing, but the upvotes keep shrinking...

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

Truthbearer's picture

Can you say...

...dick cheny and those that are hiding in their WY bunkers?


ytc's picture

So, I would like to know: how valuable was it for Wyo Ron Paul

supporters to win all 14 (plus a few more) alternate slots at the National Convention?
Is it worth the expense to go all the way to Tampa only to sit in the alternate box?

And, again, remember: our top three WY GOP officers cast erroneous ballots:

2012 Wyoming Republican State Convention - Erroneous ballots cast purposely

(Three top Wyo GOP crooks)
-Chairman Tammy Hooper
-National Committeewoman Jan Larimer
-National Committeeman Greg Schaefer

(See below the youtube for more notes by the youtube poster.)

As an alternate, you might be able to fill an open slot...

... but you won't know unless you go to Tampa. Also, you will get to cheer on Liberty speakers (maybe even Dr. Paul himself!) and make connections with Paul supporters from around the country. If there are any campaign-related non-convention events (such as the rumored Paul rally in Raymond James Stadium), you can attend those as well (but only if they do not conflict with the Convention itself).

You were elected as an alternate because other Paul supporters voted for you. If you don't want to spend (or raise) the money to go to Tampa, you should have thought about that before you agreed to have your name put on a slate. If you bail out now, you let other Paul supporters down.

So... go to Tampa. Disneyworld and a bunch of other fun activities are nearby. You will likely have a great time.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

ytc's picture

Ok, Andrew J. Thanks for the encouragement!

We'll be there. . .

that was the projected count after the initial vote

But just like Paul has done quite well in some state conventions relative to his vote share (like Minnesota), Romney ended up overperforming in Wyoming. So, that projected 6 delegates doesn't really mean much at this point (at least for purposes of official delegate counts).


13 up votes. I just down voted. I know its hard to pass up any opportunity to win another supporter, but like many have said already, this guy is clearly not here to talk policy or make a decision. He is merely wanting to debate, or stir the pot. Entertaining him, IMO, is a waste of time. There are alot of important events tomorrow that I hope people are not forgetting about, by letting this troll side track you. I realize for most its sport, all in good fun, or maybe an admirable attempt to recruit a new patriot, but this guy has his own agenda, whatever it is its not in support of Dr. Paul.

You are correct that we must not become side-tracked...

... which is why I maintain the following thread, which focuses specifically on encouraging alternates to attend upcoming conventions:


Some of us also like to post on topics unrelated to the immediate task of accumulating delegates, however. While Shazad is a Romney supporter, and does have a tendency to "stir the pot," I have found him to be thoughtful and forthcoming when treated in likewise fashion. My sense is that his primary purpose here is to see what makes us tick, and it seems that he actually agrees with Dr. Paul's views to a certain extent. If, despite our best efforts, Dr. Paul is not elected President in 2012, and America's financial situation subsequently continues to deteriorate, Shazad strikes me as someone who very well might become a Liberty Movement supporter in 2014 or 2016.

Shazad, please jump in if you feel that I am misrepresenting you in some fashion.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

At this point, I think we have set a Daily Paul record...

... for most comments (and especially for highest word count) for a thread with an obscure title and a net of only 14 upvotes!

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

Shazad isn't a Romney supporter

Even he is intelligent enough to know that if Tricky Mitt gets the nomination we will have another four years of Obama. Keep this miscreant busy, we're helping the economy by allowing him to earn a living posting his drivel here.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

He said he was a Romney supporter!

But yeah, if he's on this site, he must have some concerns. He knows he can't influence Paul people to back Romney!

I have been in an ongoing dialogue with Shazad...

He is a supporter of Gov. Romney.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

My point was

in all probability support for Romney is support for Obama winning another four years. Don't let the trees obscure the forest.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

I agree with you...

While the GOP Establishment has been promoting Gov. Romney as the most electable Republican, there are good reasons to be sceptical:

The Mormon factor: There are still voters out there who do not know about Gov. Romney's faith. The Pro-Obama superPAC community (aided by the left-leaning media) will do its best to make sure that, by November of this year, everyone in America knows. While there will be some blowback onto the President (who will, of course, protest that he can't control whatever superPAC is responsible), it will likely be a net negative for Romney.

Bain Capital: After an initially close race against Romney back in 1994, Ted Kennedy was able to win going away by running ads hammering Bain Capital for buying up and then liquidating companies, laying off workers in the process. The Obama campaign (again, aided by media allies) will borrow this playbook. Gov. Romney can talk about "net/net" job creation all day, but if the "vulture capitalism" issue didn't help Romney in the Republican primary, why would it help him in the general election?

Flip-flopper: While Americans often like moderate candidates, they tend not to like candidates whose positions seem to be only a matter of expedience.

Dog on the roof: There are a lot of dog lovers out there...

Shazad, do you have any comments on my analysis?

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

sure, here are some comments

Romney does have some negatives that decrease his chances of being elected. That's one reason that I was waiting to see who else entered the race before going full out for Romney. It's always tough to defeat a sitting President, and it won't be easy this time around. I still consider Obama to be the favorite going into this election. If Mitt is the nominee, I see his chances somewhere around 40%.

Mormon factor: Yes, this will be a net negative, but I don't think it will be huge. This has been a subject in the news for quite a long time now, and fewer and fewer people are going to be surprised by it. His "Mormonness" is already being factored in by most. If the Obama campaign tries to insinuate that Romney is going to be controlled by Mormon leaders in Salt Lake City, they're going to have an incredibly hard time providing evidence based on anything Romney has done in his past. They may go to a fear-based campaign in this respect, but there will be pushback. It will be interesting to see how Romney approaches this issue. One thing he rarely does is talk about his time as a regional church leader, where he spent massive numbers of hours per week (20-30) in an unpaid service role while simultaneously running a company and raising a family. Though people may disagree with the cause, if they knew more about his actual responsibilities in that role, they would see an image of Romney that is very much the opposite of what Obama will try to paint him as (ruthless, uncaring, etc). If Mormonism is going to be a key discussion point in the campaign, Romney should use some of this to his advantage.

Bain Capital really only hurt Romney in South Carolina when it first came up, but he was able to flip the narrative on that quite quickly, and in my opinion it hurt Gingrich quite a bit to try to attack Romney on that issue. Gingrich hasn't recovered. Voters won't be surprised by this. They're already saying they trust Romney more than Obama on the economy. Romney would love for this to be a key issue in the election. There are many ways he can respond.

Flip-flopping could hurt, but maybe not much. Obama is already starting to try to paint Romney as on the far right. Obama wants to be the one to occupy the center in the minds of voters, and emphasizing Romney's moderate views or lack of strong ideology can hurt that.

If a dog on the roof is the best dirt they have on Romney from his past, then Romney will be just fine.

You are right that these things overall can hurt somewhat. If not for some of these factors, maybe it could be a 50-50 shot in this election. Maybe it could be better. There wasn't a superman candidate this time that was going to come in and give the Republicans a 90% chance of winning. I know you guys are convinced that Ron Paul would win, but I think Obama would beat him in a landslide. At this point in history, the Liberty Movement is still too small of a force and there are still too many people that don't consider Ron Paul to be a serious candidate. He has only been getting about 10-11% of the vote in the primaries so far. There's just no easy way to flip that around to an electoral majority in a general election. Despite all of Romney's flaws, when you're just thinking about electability, there's a broad consensus except among Paul supporters that he would have the best chance of beating Obama. That doesn't mean his chances are huge - just that his chances are better than anyone else's.

America is going down. Too much debt. Trust in dollar worldwide

is downhill. The military complex is deep in the tax payers pockets.

The economy is really bad and Romney cant win against Obama in the polls while the honest Dr. Paul is drawing same or even better numbers (without any media coverage)?

Romney is one of the weakest candidates ever! No one rallys for him! A few hundred paid supporters here and there. He loses conventions against a candidate who is blocked from media coverage..

And with all this baggage? Obama will destroy him in the debates!
Its a long time until the convention and the general election and Mitt Romney is nowhere to be seen.
Why? Cause whenever he speaks he is in for a flip cause he doesnt even know himself where he stands for today!

Watch some videos that are all over daily paul Shazad, take a deep breath and hear what your heart tells you.

Shazad, concerning Dr. Paul...

Your analysis hypothesizes an Obama/Paul fall matchup, but doesn't consider the impact of what would need to happen for such a matchup to actually take place. As you yourself have noted elsewhere, Dr. Paul won't be the GOP nominee unless the trajectory of the race changes. As I see it, something like the following would have to occur:

In today's five primaries, Dr. Paul finishes second across the board. The media trumpets a sweep by Gov. Romney; Romney, choosing to focus exclusively on President Obama, cancels all remaining primary-oriented advertising and campaign activities and comprehensively recasts his rhetoric toward the middle. Conservative activists realize that Paul is the only remaining non-Romney alternative and begin to gravitate toward him. Local Santorum delegates around the country decide that, at their upcoming conventions, they will join the Paul "Conservative" slate rather than the Romney "Unity" slate.

In low-turnout, no-advertising primaries over the next month, Dr. Paul consistently wins 25% or more of the vote, while support for Santorum and Gingrich declines to single digits. Paul continues to draw thousands at campaign rallies, continues to best Romney at conventions (with Santorum delegate support), and continues to run ads in Texas. Upon seeing Paul forces dominate the Oklahoma State Convention, Sen. Tom Coburn switches his endorsement from Romney to Paul, declaring support for Paul's longtime pro-life position and fidelity to the Constitution. As the Texas Primary nears, Gov. Rick Perry, not wanting the embarrassment of having his endorsed candidate finishing a distant third, persuades Speaker Gingrich to leave the race. In a rambling exit speech, Gingrich declines to endorse, but snidely notes that, "frankly, Congressman Paul is the only remaining candidate in this race who doesn't change his positions every five minutes."

May 29, 2012: Dr. Paul scores an upset win over Gov. Romney in the Texas Primary. The media notes this, but assures everyone that Romney will still be the GOP nominee. Romney, seeing the result as a home-state aberration, decides that running anti-Paul ads would be viewed as an admission of weakness and instead continues to focus only on Obama. A May 30 moneybomb raises $5 million for Paul, who spends the funds on last-minute ads in California. Rasmussen resumes nationwide primary polling, which reveals surging Paul support that cuts Romney's lead to the low double digits; the media ignores this, but does concede that Paul has now surpassed Sen. Santorum in the delegate count.

June 05, 2012: Dr. Paul pulls off a narrow, come-from-behind victory in the California Primary. The media, making up for lost time, returns to covering the primary campaign with a vengeance, producing a spate of pro-Paul, anti-Romney reports. Real Clear Politics resurrects its GOP Primary polling average, which shows Dr. Paul roaring into a nationwide lead over a fading Gov. Romney. Romney's superPAC belatedly begins targeting Paul, but to no avail, as State Conventions throughout the months of June and July are swept by joint Paul/Santorum slates. Sen. Santorum himself formally drops out and releases all his delegates, declaring, "I am a conservative, not a libertarian... but, you know, maybe a libertarian is better than an Etch-A-Sketch."

August 27-30, 2012: Republican National Convention. In the weeks leading up to the Convention, Gov. Romney repeatedly touts his Establishment support and insists that he has sufficient delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot, despite Dr. Paul's now solid double-digit primary polling lead. As the Convention gets underway, however, Platform and procedural votes show that the majority of delegates are actually pro-Paul. The eyes of the nation are glued to their television sets on August 29, as the first ballot roll-call vote proceeds; the final result is Romney 1123, Paul 836, with 327 abstentions. As the second and third ballots occur, Romney remains stuck at 1123, while Paul picks up support as delegates become unbound per their individual state rules. A motion is then made to unbind all convention delegates; the motion passes 1163-1123. Party insider delegates, seeing that the writing is on the wall, switch sides, and Paul wins the nomination on the fourth ballot by a margin of 1329-957. During his acceptance speech, Paul asks delegates to nominate Sen. Coburn for Vice President; the subsequent vote is unanimous, as Romney graciously asks the party to unite behind the Paul/Coburn ticket.

Epilogue: Shortly after the Convention, Dr. Paul announces that, should he be elected, he will appoint Gov. Romney to be a special trade envoy with the specific mission of encouraging other nations to eliminate barriers against American goods. Romney signals his enthusiasm by declaring, "I have always felt that protectionism is the wrong way to go. Obama and his Labor buddies have held America's prosperity hostage for far too long. In a Paul Presidency, we will open foreign markets and create more jobs here at home."

* * *

The purpose of my post is not to say that this will happen, but that this, or something similar, must happen for Dr. Paul to become the GOP nominee. Shazad, wouldn't the above scenario substantially alter the way the party, and the country, view Dr. Paul? His problem has always been that many Republican voters have been loath to support him (admittedly, a bad problem to have in a GOP primary); he tends to poll as well with Independents, and far better with Democrats, than any of his primary opponents. As things stand now, he and Gov. Romney are currently polling comparably against President Obama:


Shazad, please consider what I wrote and tell me what you think.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

I think given that scenario....

I think given that scenario, then maybe he'd have a shot. Of course, you know what I think about the plausibility of such a scenario. But if Paul were to somehow start winning several primaries, including the biggest ones, took large numbers of key endorsements from Romney (of major political figures who currently endorse Romney), gained a strong nationwide lead in polls, went into a convention with a reasonable split on delegates, won after a couple ballots, and then the party leaders including Romney endorsed him, then he could have a decent shot against Obama. Obama would still have a relatively easy time painting him as a fringe candidate, but he'd have a chance.

A lot would depend on how Paul goes about getting to that brokered convention. It seems like there are a number of people on this site who believe that Paul is going to lose the primaries (due to election fraud, of course) but get majorities of the delegations in the those states, then unbind the state delegations in their state conventions. Those that were successful would vote for Paul in Tampa, and those that were unsuccessful would just abstain. If such a strategy somehow (even though it won't, but I'll pretend it could) were successful in getting Paul the nomination without him actually winning several contests and taking the lead in national polls, the backlash against Paul in the Republican party would be massive. He would lose to Obama in a historic landslide.

To put it more succinctly, if he were to somehow gain the nomination without actually securing massive increases in his popular support within the party (going from the current 10% up above 50% or at least above Romney), things would not end well for any of us.

As a side note, when looking at the RCP averages of Paul/Romney vs Obama and comparing the 5 polls that have been taken of both candidates, you have:

Fox News - 3/10-12 - Paul -12, Romney -4
Reason/Rupe - 3/10-20 - Paul -10, Romney -6
McClatchy/Marist - 3/20-22 - Paul -10, Romney -2
PPP - 4/12-15 - Paul -3, Romney -3
Rasmussen - 4/21-4/23 - Paul -5, Romney +4

Yes, there have been other polls taken of Romney, but the same polls haven't been taken of Paul so it's harder to compare.

My scenario may be unlikely, Shazad...

... but your initial post about Dr. Paul being crushed by President Obama in a general election necessarily presumes that Paul become the nominee somehow. Since you do not subscribe to the "lose the primaries but win the delegates" theory that you impute to Paul supporters, what would be your scenario by which Paul would become the nominee? Would it be one where his overall level of primary support remains at 11%, or would it require him to obtain a groundswell (even though largely based on "buyer's remorse" from those in states that have already voted)?

Events have already diverged from my scenario, in that Dr. Paul did not finish second across the board yesterday. However, he did finish ahead of Sen. Santorum everywhere except in Santorum's home state of Pennsylvania, and ahead of Speaker Gingrich everywhere except in Gingrich's "camp out" state of Delaware. Additionally, it appears that, rather than dropping out a month from now (as my scenario projects), Gingrich may be leaving the race very soon:


While Santorum's suspension was, in my opinion, unhelpful for Paul in that it made the prospect an open convention extremely unlikely, a Gingrich departure at this point will increase the likelihood that disaffected conservatives will rally around Paul. I therefore see my scenario as being no more a longshot than any other, unless and until someone comes forward with a more plausible path to a Paul nomination.

P.S.: I concede that Rasmussen is a respected pollster, and that a new poll showing Romney outperforming Paul by 9 points is significant. Last week's PPP poll, however, showed Paul even with Romney, and the polls from March, in my opinion, carry little weight. Finally, I belatedly notice now that a link in my previous post is broken (sorry about that). Here is the link:


A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

you make a good point

You have a good point and I understand what you're saying. For Paul to face Obama something would have to happen to make him the nominee, and that would influence how conservatives thought about him, which would affect how he'd fare in the general.

I agree that there's a little inconsistency in me saying that Paul can't win with a strategy primarily based on stealth delegates and losing primaries, then arguing that if he's the nominee, conservatives will be mad at him for his stealth delegate strategy. But I'm mainly just trying to say that I don't think such a strategy could work, but IF somehow it magically did (since so many here think it can work), backlash would be immense. It's mainly just me playing make believe with what would happen if that scenario (which I consider implausible) did come to pass.

I think for Paul to win the general, winning the nomination would have to be based on his true support level increasing massively. I don't think a massive decline in Romney's support would, by itself, be enough (though that would also be necessary). Paul would have to be more than a not Mitt Romney. I don't think his support is anywhere close to where it would need to be, and I don't see how it could possibly change enough in such a short amount of time. If it did, then he'd have a chance, but I think that's just as implausible as the stealth delegate strategy, so my making projections based on that could likewise be considered inconsistent. Does that make a little more sense? I probably didn't explain that well.

Santorum dropping out did hurt Paul. Paul really needed other people to be taking delegates from Romney, and Santorum had some degree of success at that. I think it may make it easier for Paul to pick up delegates in some of the conventions of the pro-Santorum caucus states (which he already has), it didn't and won't help much with the primaries. When looking at national polls taken before and after Santorum departed the race and looking where Santorum's votes went, it appears that around 70-75% of them went to Romney's camp, and 10-15% went to each Gingrich and Paul. Now, there are surely some respondents who now say they won't vote in the primary, so each candidate's share is a little smaller than what those numbers show. But it's quite clear that the percentages of support have swung strongly toward Romney.

Now as to Gingrich, I'm just not aware of any kind of evidence that his voters are going to go to Paul instead of Romney. They may just stay home. It seems extremely likely that Gingrich is going to endorse Romney at this point. He's made comments about supporting the nominee and last night he's said he expects it to be Romney. It will probably be a lukewarm endorsement, but he's going to get behind Romney. Santorum is going to be meeting with Romney's camp next week then Romney himself the following week. He all but endorsed Romney last night on Piers Morgan and a reporter who was in the room says that off camera Santorum admitted he's going to endorse Romney.

Going forward, their names will still be on ballots as far as I'm aware. It won't be a pure Romney vs Paul choice. And even if it was I see it more likely that their voters support Romney than Paul, if they vote at all.

Ultimately, I just see no way that Paul can stop this nomination. IF he did, then maybe your path is the most likely. But I don't see any remotely likely path for him. If your scenario happened, then Paul could have a good shot in the general. If one of the other unlikely scenarios happened, then he'd have little to no shot in the general.

Thank you, Shazad

I agree that Gov. Romney would be an underdog (but not a longshot) in the fall against President Obama. Speaking of the President, I analyze him in my latest response to you here:


While the post is very long, please give it a read and let me know what you think. Thanks.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

Yeah, I noticed!

Very civil convo you two have! Good to see no nasty immature name calling & such. He did say he was a Romney supporter. Seems like a nice guy in general. Believes the same things I used to, as I was a neo-con. But in general, he hasn't acted horrible. He just listens to those who back establishment candidates. Doesn't understand some things yet. My uncle backs Romney & listens to the same people as Shazad. He is getting closer to the reality every day! He likes Paul, but not foreign policy. Hasn't studied all sides of it yet...lets his choice speakers make up his mind. Shazad is the same. We need an excellent foreign policy forum going!

Thank you for your encouraging response to our dialogue!

I find it somewhat interesting that, in addition to Shazad being controversial (which is to be expected, given his interloper status and his sometimes biting wit), my dialogue with Shazad is also controversial. Maybe this fact could help form the basis for a decent sociological study about the culture of an online Ron Paul forum...

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

Andrew Jetton is in cahoots with Shazaad

Allow them to speak, allow people to make their own decisions on what they say and why.

It is people like Shazaad and Jetton that are sinking the Romney ship. Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves.

Yikes! Hanging myself would be tragic indeed...

Actually, Shazad supports Gov. Romney, while I support Dr. Paul. We are in cahoots to have a friendly discussion, nothing more.

For reasons why I do not support Gov. Romney, please read the following two posts:


For evidence that I actually am a Paul supporter, please see the thread I maintain here:


As to why I want to have a friendly discussion with Shazad... well, I have found him interesting to converse with. At his best, he is thoughtful and fair-minded. (At his worst, he needlessly riles up the forum, but I already scolded him for that.) Also, please read my post here:


I can understand how reading some of my posts in isolation would give the mistaken impression that I am a Romney supporter, since the dialogue between Shazad and I is scattered through what is now a large number of posts. I can only suggest that you try to read the entire dialogue to gain a sense of the larger context. You probably should start here, since this is the original post that Shazad responded to:


Hope this clears everything up. Thank you.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

it would be cool if I was

it would be cool if I was getting paid