Posted on 01/05/2008 11:43:05 AM PST by citizen
Watch out, my best friend in high school was LDS, and now I am. :o)
How big is the LDS community where you are?
I agree about Mitt. I’m one of the handful of Utah Mormons not supporting him...but if he miraculously gets the nomination, I’ll vote for him over whoever the Dems put up.
About 7-8%. But what they DO have in large percent is conservatives. Nobody will be dismissing THIS vote as a bunch of northern liberals like they will New Hampshire.
I’d put people from WY up against people from any other state anytime. Great people, Great State!
If so this country is in deep trouble.
Right, I’m just saying that if most of the state is Republican to begin with, and the LDS population in WY is only 10%, then the LDS influence in the Republican Partyy in WY won’t be *huge.* Significant, but still a minority.
Romney now has 15 delegates (9 from IA and 6 from WY)
Huckabee is still stuck on 13 delegates (all from IA)
Thompson has 6 delegates (5 from Iowa and 1 from WY)
McCain has 5 delegates (all from IA)
Paul has 4 delegates (all from IA)
Hunter has 1 delegate (from WY)
Giuliani has 1 delegate (from IA)
(NH is a proportional primary...which means that the 12 delegates are split proportionally. Even if McCain wins NH, he’ll still have fewer total delegates than Romney and Huckabee.)
Probably a mis-report eariler.
The delegate count really isn’t a good measure of the margin of support for each candidate, since each delegate is picked at a convention that is winner-take-all. Romney could end up with 75% of the delegates, but as the original report noted, he had about 51% support at the conventions.
I suppose he could also end up with less than 50% of the delegates, if at all the conventions where he doesn’t have 50%, all the Thompson and Hunter supporters decided to support each other.
I live in Riverton, Wyoming.
I can only count to ten in the winter. :-)
If so this country is in deep trouble.
And it is. In deep. deep trouble.
I guess Byron missed the article yesterday that pointed out that while Romney’s platform IS about change, the way he’s been presenting it didn’t exude that message of change — and that in order to communicate that more effectively, Romney really needed to start saying it.
So it seems that, if Romney is now saying it, it’s because the Iowa result showed that the message needed to be spoken more clearly.
It’s never “transparent” to see where your campaign isn’t communicating effectively, and try to fix it.
That’s like saying it’s “transparent” that Fred realised he could win in Iowa so he suddenly showed up with a bus and a tour. :-)
That is my take too. From what I have seen Fred has the right views and he is getting nowhere. I’m LDS and Mitt troubles me because of his social positions in the past which in my view were anti-LDS.
I fear for our country.
Currently Fred is at 13% with 3 delegates with 95% of the vote in
Or if your core values don't appeal to the core of your party, or if you're caught in a shabby lie, or the winds shift ever so slghtly, or whatever:
CHANGE! CHANGE! CHANGE!
I agree with your analysis citizen. Romney is not perfect but I like the guy and his platform is strongly conservative on the things that matter to me this year.
Right now, I like Romney much more than Huckabee, Guiliani and McCain. And, in contrast to Fred (whom I like the most), he looks like he has an open road to win the nomination.
I also think that Romney can win the general. I think youth is going to be very important this time around.
Why didn’t you say so! That explains everything!!!
How’s the water, by the way? You are downstream you know. :^)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1948374/posts?page=16#16
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.