Issues In the Wyoming Election. A Series. Issue No. 5. Dare we speak of demographics and Wyoming politics?

Women casting votes, for the first time in the United States, in a national election.  Wyoming Territory.  Wyoming was the first state to grant women the full franchise.  Are Wyoming's women a political demographic today?  Well, in some sense they must be, but it doesn't seem to really reflect itself in the polls in a discernible fashion.

I started this thread back in February.  And then I determined not to post it, because its' too easily misunderstood.

Indeed, as I ponder putting it up (or not) it occurs to me that its way, way to easy to be misunderstood on so many levels.  For one thing, even mentioning demographic information opens a person up to charge of bias.  Simply noting a demographic trend isn't bias, but some folks sure see it that way.  This post certainly isn't intended to do that at all.

Anyhow, I abandoned the thread, but then the primary election occurred, and along with it was the surprising late campaign surge of megabucks outsider Foster Friess, who ended up taking a selection of Wyoming counties. And that sort of raises this issue once again.  Even at that, tracking the declining days of World War One (which will see declining posts here afterwards, as the multiple daily posts will go away at that time, even if the blog doesn't), also put this on the shelf.  And the election grew really quiet.

But it's heating up a little now.  At least I'm getting flyers in the mail once again.

All this makes reading this a bit awkward, as some of it was written prior to the primary and it's now out of context.  I'll try to note that where it occurs.

So I start once again with the original title of this thread, which is a question.

Dare we speak of demographics and Wyoming politics?

We don't.

But perhaps we should.

Or maybe its best we shouldn't, as its almost certain to be misunderstood. And frankly, its rather difficult to write cogently about.

Much to my regret, we're entering the political season already and have, at this time, at least four serious candidates. . . well two serious candidates and Rex Ramell plus Taylor Haynes, contending for the Governorship. I wish they'd all have waited, but it seems the rush is on. (Note, written prior to the primary)

And in that rush what we have so far is one conventional candidate, the Democratic candidate Mary Throne, and three candidates tacking for the extreme right.  One of those candidates, gadfly Idahoan veterinarian Rex Rammell is taking shots at another one for not being extreme enough, branding himself "Wyoming's Trump", by which he means Idaho's rejected Trump, presumably (go home Rex, you're annoying).  Only one Republican is in the middle, and he's largely in the middle by comparison.  He's otherwise be regarded as conservative, or at least he would have been up until recent years. (Note, written prior to the primary).

But this brings up an interesting topic, given the initial extremism in the GOP camp (again, note that this was written prior to the primary).

Wyoming has some interesting political demographics. . . but we pretend it doesn't.  We only hint at some of them. . . and we ignore others even if they exist.  We do this partially because our demographic situation does not match that of the larger country, and in part barbecue its easier to ignore them than discuss them.

But perhaps it should acknowledge that it does.   Maybe we should take a look at them.

And, in my revised version of this, perhaps there's some evidence that demographics are now playing a role in the election in a way that they didn't previously.  It would figure, after all, that they would, in a year which has been to date, pretty extreme.

The Demographic Stage

To start off with this, there's some interesting facts we have to acknowledge.  Indeed, savvy outsiders acknowledge them even if Wyomingites don't.  I've heard, for example, pretty good demographic analysis coming from airline passenger seats as people fly into town. . . but not by people who are really from here.

No place is free from its own history.  Part of that history is the culture of the people who came into the state at some point, no matter when that might be.

And that might explain, right now, why part of the extreme right of the GOP is fighting about has more to do with the Wyoming of 1857-58 and the Wyoming of 1889 to 1893 than it does with contemporary Wyoming, even if we don't recognize it.  And the failure to grasp that might explain why the GOP keeps falling on its face in this area.

Okay, so what do I mean by all of this?

The Dakota Territory in 1861, which included most of Wyoming, as had Nebraska Territory, and Idaho Territory. This map reveals more about contemporary Wyoming that we might otherwise suspect.  Wikipedia Creative Commons

Well let's start off with who the people are who are here. Only about half of Wyoming's population, at any one time, is made up of people who were born here.  But not all people who have come in are the same by any means.  Of the people who moved here, quite a few of them are made up of sort of a regional population exchange. That is, about 50% of Wyomingites are natives.  50% are not.  But of the 50% who are not, a fairly high percentage of them are from North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Montana (I don't run into people from Idaho very often, but my guess is that on the western edge of the state you do).  Basically, that means that while a lot of Wyomingites aren't from Wyoming, they are from what had been part of one big territory in the 1860s, or neighboring territories, so they're actually in large part from an actual geographic region.

That matters as while we are so acclimated to conceiving of our states as natural regions, they aren't in someways, while they are in others.  If we take the Rocky Mountain and Northern Plains region as a natural region, which it is geographically, culturally and historically, you get a different picture.  People born in Nebraska or North Dakota, for example, might not be Wyomingites in the "born here" sense, but we're all Northern Plainers.  Recently I've been working a lot in Colorado and have found, interestingly enough, that people who were born in Denver and grew up there, including professional people, sometimes go to great lengths to inform a person that they are natives, and not imports.  Indeed, we're all from a region that was once part of the same political entity to a large degree.

Denver's Coors Stadium, September 28, 2018.  A lot of Wyomingites follow Denver sports fanatically, and a lot of Coloradans come up to Wyoming for recreation.  Makes sense. It's all part of the same greater region.

Not that we're all exactly the same, that's not true of any demographic.

But that does mean that we share an awful lot.

And one of the things we share is that we're not New Yorkers, Texans or Californians.*

Now that may sound rather peevish, but its true.  And that's why politicians that claim to be from "the West" can come into this region and say something downright offensive.  Indeed, that's why, particularly from natives, somebody like Foster Friess coming in and claiming to have grown up on a ranch is guaranteed to offend us.  And that' also why imports to the region, although we'll often elect them to office, very often have no real grasp on the local culture and views at all. They're not from here and they learn, instead, what they think Westerners want, which is probably more often than not what Texans want.  We're not Texans.  And we're not Midwesterners or Southerners either.

Port Arthur Texas' public library. That's not our library and we're not in Port Arthur.  Some politicians last go around seemed not to realize that.

And, as we'll see, issues that are important to rural Southerners or people from San Antonio, or whatever, aren't necessarily important to us.

Okay, so who are we then?

Well, taking a look again at Wyoming in general, Wyoming has basically been settled by about eight groups, or at least has eight demographic groups, it seems to me; those being:  1) Native Americans, 2) Homesteaders and Agriculturalist (who are divided strongly into two groups, ranchers and farmers, which are not the same), 2) Blue Collar Workers, 4) Entrepreneurs, 5) Mormon migrants, 6) Catholic migrants, 7) Government Employees and 8) Transients.

Those Eight Groups

Already I can see people's hackles going up.

Now, starting off with all of this, I'll note that even in these categories not everyone share the same view by any means. But I think these categories are pretty supportable.  Others would omit some, others would add some.

Okay, let's break this down a bit more.  After all, what do you mean by these categories, you may ask?

One thing we can and should note, is that these groups are mixed.  That is, even if they are distinct groups, a person can be in more than one of them and almost everyone in the two religious categories I've noted is.  That is, you can be a Catholic blue collar worker, or a Mormon rancher.  A lot of blue collar workers here are transients and have no intention of staying whatsoever.  All that's pretty obvious, but it does complicate this story.

So let's take a look at these groups a bit closer.

Native Americans

Well, the first one is pretty self evident.  Wyoming was occupied first by Native Americans. Simple enough.  The State, acknowledging this, notes on one of its websites:

There is evidence of more than 12,000 years of prehistoric occupation in Wyoming. Among these groups were Clovis, 12,000 years ago, Folsom, 10,000 years ago, and Eden Valley, 8,000 years ago. The latter were the big game hunters of the Early period. Following these, and remaining until about 500 A.D., were many groups with a mixed hunting and gathering economy. These were followed by the predecessors of the historic Indians.

On the crest of Medicine Mountain, 40 miles east of Lovell, Wyoming, is located the Medicine Wheel which has 28 spokes and a circumference of 245 feet. This was an ancient shrine built of stone by the hands of some forgotten tribe. A Crow chief has been reputed as saying, "It was built before the light came by people who had no iron." This prehistoric relic still remains one of Wyoming's unsolved puzzles.

Southwest of Lusk, covering an area of 400 square miles, are the remains of prehistoric stone quarries known as the "Spanish Diggings." Here is mute evidence of strenuous labor performed by many prehistoric groups at different times. Quartzite, jasper and agate were mined. Artifacts of this Wyoming material have been found as far away as the Ohio and Mississippi Valleys.

The historic Indians in Wyoming were nomadic tribes known as the Plains Indians. They were the Arapaho, Arikara, Bannock, Blackfeet, Cheyenne, Crow, Gros Ventre, Kiowa, Nez Perce, Sheep Eater, Sioux, Shoshone and Ute tribes.* Of all of these tribes, the Cheyenne and Sioux were the last of the Indians to be controlled and placed on reservations.

Of those tribes, two, the Shoshone and Arapaho retain a major presence in Wyoming and share the Wind River Reservation.  The reservation is unique in that it was the only Western reservation in which the original occupants, the Shoshone, asked for it to be created, rather than  having it imposed on them.  The Arapaho's presence is also unique in that they asked to come on to it, albeit on a temporary basis that later became permanent.

Now, when people speak of contemporary Indians in Wyoming, they usually stop at the Shoshone and Arapaho, but a person really can't and be accurate.  The Crow Reservation in Montanan borders Wyoming and members of the Crow tribe continue to have an influence in Wyoming today.  Southeastern Montana includes a Cheyenne reservation that is not without cultural influence in Wyoming and the major Pine Ridge Sioux Reservation in South Dakota has a major regional cultural influence.  So Native Americans, as a cultural and demographic influencer, are more significant than some might suppose.

As a rule, the Democratic Party is strong among native peoples and perhaps for good reason.  One of the byproducts of the Reservation System was economic devastation and, therefore, whatever the original concepts may have been, and there were an entire string of them, the Federal Government has had an ongoing role on the Reservations that remains a necessary one.  The state has had very little role or has even been hostile to the Tribes from time to time.  This means that, generally Native Americans in Wyoming form one of the rare Democratic demographics in the state, but one that's significant enough that locally, in Fremont County, it matters.  Indeed, as we'll see, Fremont County used to be solidly Democratic due to another reason, but the Reservation was part of that.  The residents of the Reservation are concentrated enough that they usually reliably return a Democratic to Cheyenne from the Reservation and in a lot of elections can throw a significant number of votes towards Democratic candidates.  In a year like the current one, I'd guess that going into the general election Mary Throne and Gary Trauner are guaranteed to take a significant number of votes from the Reservation.  And the demographic on the Reservation is not small.

And in the just held GOP primary, Mark Gordon came in first handily, with Friess behind him.  Hageman came in third, and Galeotos rounded out the bottom.  Pretty predictable results for that primary.

Like a lot of demographic features of Wyoming's election map, this is pretty much ignored. But it's a real factor.  It will play out in the general election.  My guess is that Throne will do well in Fremont County, but that she won't take the county.  Likewise, I'd suspect the same for Trauner.  The county will send a Democrat to the legislature.

The Gub'ment

European Americans started coming in, in numbers that had to be acknowledge, in the 1840s.  The first presence was really military and transients, but even early on there were some agricultural interests showing up by the 1840s. That brings us the second group noted, Homesteaders and Agriculturalist as well as the last one, Government Employees.

Let's start with the last, that being  the one that's so commonly picked on.

Well, actually let's not.  Let's start with a group we fondly recall, but which we didn't list above.

The very first Europeans, culturally, in Wyoming were trappers and the first of them were really Quebecois, culturally.

French fur trapper and his Native American wife.  The French view of natives was considerably different than English Americans and they intermarried fairly readily.  In spite of the criticism they've taken in recent years, this was also true of the Spanish.  In both instances it likely reflects the influence of the Catholic Church which regarded the native inhabitants as equal in every fashion to Europeans.  In both the heavily French regions and the heavily Spanish regions this intermarriage gave rise to a new culture of people.  In the case of Wyoming, however, this early European influence, while leaving a rich historic legacy, didn't leave much of a population and is recalled today principally in geographic names.

The next groups were trappers out of the United States, although they were often French in culture, and agents of the United States.  Indeed, the first significant governmental presence in Wyoming was military, although its not often recalled hat way. The Corps of Discovery, i.e., the expedition of Lewis and Clark, was a military mission.

In our romantic concept of the state, we rarely think to acknowledge that Wyoming, like most of the Western states, but perhaps more than many of them, had heavy Federal influence in it as soon as it interested more European Americans than just fur trappers.  The first exploration was by the Army.  The first really significant settlements of any type were built by trappers, to be sure, as outposts and stores, but as soon as the Oregon Trail became well traveled in the 1840s, the Army started to move right in and in fact took over some of those establishments by purchase, something that continued on for a good twenty years or more.  Ft. Laramie had been Ft. William at first, until the Army bought it in the 1840s and greatly expanded it.  In Natrona County, Platte Bridge Station and Richard's Bridge had been civilian posts prior to being military ones.

This isn't a history of the settlement of Wyoming, so I'll more or less stop there but to note that Governmental employees have been a really common feature of Wyoming demographics since the 1840s.  Soldiers, Airmen, even Sailors, and employees of various agencies have been with us all along.  I have one neighbor who works for the Federal government right now and one cousin, in my neighborhood, who does.  I basically did at one time when I was employed, off and on, as a full time National Guardsmen.

And of course the government isn't just made up of the Federal Government, but the state and local governments as well.

Something that Wyomingites don't seem to generally realize is that Wyoming has one of the highest ratios of government worker to private citizen in the United States.  It's much higher than any of our neighboring states.  We have a lot of government workers for the size of our state.  And not matter what we might like to think about that, that's not going to go away and a lot of it is necessary.

Indeed, a lot of it is so necessary that one of the things that people who oppose the transfer of public lands to the state point out is that if that occurred it would practically bankrupt the state as so many additional task would be added to the existing ones.

Does this have an impact in elections?  I think it does, but very subtly as a rule.  While conservative politicians in Wyoming like to decry the government, during actual elections people tend to turn a blind eye to a lot of it.  Most politicians won't come out for actively whacking education, for example, even though every teacher is a government employee.   While the Tea Party elements in the state will claim that the State should take over the Federal lands, nobody is going to claim that the State should take over highway funding.  Oh no they are not. Truth be known, Wyoming has a love hate relationship with the government essentially viewing it the way that university students do their parents. . .they want freedom. . . but they want the bucks as well and are quick to come home if things go wrong.

Having said all of that, in the recent primary the Wyoming Education Association, a teachers union, unseated a Republican legislator in the primary.  Clearly, voters don't hate the government as much as Tea Partiers like to imagine they do.

In the GOP primary, moreover, its notable that Gordon took 40% of the vote in the state's capitol, beating out, in that county, second place finisher Hageman prettily handily.  Hageman's votes were probably part and parcel of the almost the same thing, but in the form of anti government votes and native daughter votes as her law practice is headquartered there.  Gordon's easy win in Laramie County where people generally don't hate the government, and where the Federal government has some really significant facilities, is probably no accident.

Agriculture

This, oddly enough, takes us to the agricultural group (which I'm also part of).

Farming showed up in Wyoming before ranching did, due to an historical oddity.  Masons came up from New Mexico to work on the cement structures at Ft. Laramie and stayed on. They were New Mexican natives and farmers by trade, as well as masons, and after they were done working on the form they settled the nearby area known as Mexican Hills and went into what we'd now call "truck farming".  Cattle ranching appeared about two decades later.  Farming and ranching have had a strong influence ever since and was the dominant economic and political force, in various and sometimes internally conflicting manners, from organized territorial days at least up until World War One, at which time petroleum, also always present, became the dominant economic force.

I'll break the history of this down just a bit more in a moment, but we can note here that even early on ranching was split between smaller homesteaders and larger interests, with some of those larger interests being funded from outside the state.  That gets us into the third and fourth groups. As ranching rose, it employed a fair number of men who did not own anything but were simply servants of their employers.  And we saw people who came in to exploit a business opportunity but were otherwise not necessarily drawn by the land.  When oil started to become a factor in the 1890s, and as mining came in as well, these two groups all increased.  Like labor and capital everywhere, their interests are not always aligned.

Getting back to Agriculture, however, the interests of farmers and ranchers are not the same and that has always been the case.  And that had a big impact on the recent election.

People tend to think of agriculture as one block, and at one time it actually was.  And when it was, it tended to have a pretty strong anti government bias.

In the case of ranching, this dates back all the way to the 19th Century to some extent, but it really became focused with the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act in 1932.  That Taylor Grazing Act actually saved the ranchers from desperate Depression era homesteaders, but they resented it as it took away the public lands from any future acquisition.  Ironically, it saved the public lands for real ranchers from desperate homesteaders who were carving it up so quickly at the time, and wrecking it, that one Wyoming Supreme Court decision of the era actually failed to render an opinion on an land issue as it was impossible to tell the ownership of the land in a timely fashion.

Be that as it may, the act was resented enormously by ranchers in the West who really basically felt that they owned the public land and a better course of action would have been for the Federal government just to give it to them.  This was really unrealistic and indeed had the Act not passed, many ranches would have been outright destroyed by desperate homesteaders of the period.  Certainly many were much reduced in size.  The irony of this is that ranchers of that period, indeed, the real ranchers of today, were very much the descendants of late 19th Century homesteaders themselves and mostly not of the "large ranchers" of the mid 19th Century.

Indeed, one of the real peculiarities of all of this is that the entire story basically repeats itself to a large degree. Wyoming ranching really got started in the 1870s and by the late 1870s it was part of a boom in Western ranching that saw a lot of big money and foreign money interests come into the state.  That ultimately lead to a very pronounced conflict as small start ups, often cowboys from the larger ranches, took advantage of the Homestead Act to file claims on small units and start small ranches.  That lead to the Johnson County War of the 1890s, which the large ranchers were on the downside of, and ultimately the smaller ranchers prevailed.  For a variety of reasons, however, over the next fifty years the homesteads tended to consolidate leaving Wyoming with quite large ranches which are usually made up of numerous smaller former homesteads.

Anyhow, recently the ranches have been under tremendous economic pressure in terms of land prices and it's been clear that ranchers, if they are real ranchers, can't afford to expand very easily. This has made it difficult for younger ranchers to stay in the business.  What that has also done, but it hadn't been noticed much, is to covert the younger ranching demographic into pro public lands folks.

That's hugely significant as what that means is that the old drum beat about "taking back the public lands" doesn't find a sympathetic ear with younger ranchers and its starting not to with older ones.  Politicians don't seem to have noticed this much however and even those who track Wyoming politics don't seem to.  But that's what I'm hearing.

Things are different for farmers however. Farmers, with rare exception, don't farm the public lands. Farmers own their own lands, and farm ground doesn't have the playground appeal to it that ranch land does.  I.e., people sitting out of state with a lot of money rarely decide that they want to use their surplus cash to become "Wyoming Farmers", so they aren't a threat to real Wyoming farmers. The opposite is true for ranchers.

So ranchers have slowly come around to supporting the Federal government keeping the public lands. They know that if the state acquires them, the state will sell them. Farmers still see the Federal government, rightly or wrongly, as being in their way.

This played out in the last election to a fairly significant degree.  If you look at the election map once again, you see that Gordon took all of the sagebrush, i.e., ranching counties, except for a patch in the southwest part of the state that went to Friess (more on that just below).  The only exception is Campbell County, but the dominant industry there by far is the extractive one (and more on that below).

Hageman did well only in the farming belt of the state. That's it, plus Campbell County. And that makes sense.  In that region they're not depending on the Federal lands for anything. Where people do, she didn't sell well at all.

Religious Demographics

Latter Day Saints (Mormon) church in Farson.

The first religious group, is somewhat obvious.  Mormons, members of the Latter Day Saints, first came into Wyoming as their religion migrated to the Salt Lake Valley.  But even in the migration period they simply did not just pass through.  During the thick of the migration they established posts of various kinds here an there to aid in their co-religious trek.  After the Salt Lake Valley was well established, moreover, they spread out into some neighboring regions, those being New Mexico (and even northern Mexico) and nearby Idaho at first, but back into Wyoming prior to World War One.

Catholics I've already addressed a bit, but Catholicism, as already noted, has had a presence in the state dating back to the 1700s.  The presence became permanent in the 1840s with Indian conversions and the migration of Mexican, New Mexican and Irish migrants into the state.  By the late 1800s this also started to include Italian and Slavic migrants to mining regions, who were interestingly joined by Welsh migrants who worked in the same industries.  Irish immigrants became well represented in ranching both as ranchers and as ranch hands, with Irish cowboys, along with Mexican cowboys, being common enough types to have been reduced in later films to stock characters.  Less well known is that in the sheep industry the Irish dominated for a time as ranchers, and Irish sheepherders and Mexican sheepherders were so common as to nearly define the occupation.

Neither Catholics nor Mormons were, however, ever a majority in Wyoming overall.  Distinctly different from each other in settlement, Catholics were a minority everywhere they went. Mormons, however, often formed a local majority where they settled and they still are in many of those locations.  Up until well into the 20th Century the "main line" Christian Protestant denominations were very influential in most localities with the Episcopal Church being the most socially predominant in many locations.  Strong anti Catholic bias was a major factor in much of Wyoming until the mid 20th Century which both mean that Catholic influence was somewhat arrested socially due to that and was certainly hindered economically, a factor that was increased by the fact that the Masons were a major institution at the time and Catholics are self precluded from joining the Masons and were always looked down upon in social circles in any event.  While Mormon settlement habits meant that they tended to often be a local majority where they settled somewhat abated the impact of prejudice they felt on a daily basis, it certainly cannot be claimed that bias did not exist in regards to them as well.  The point here is, however, that while Catholics and Mormons today form statistically and demographically significant minorities, for hte most part the larger Protestant bodies that once existed have declined significantly and no longer occupy the economic and demographic positions they once did.

So what's this have to do with anything?

Well, quite a lot.

Now, most Wyomingites, we must note, are not Mormons and they are not Indians.  Indians make up about  2.5% of the Wyoming population.  Not much.  People with Indian heritage, however, make up about 5% of Wyoming's population, so all together we're looking at about 7.5% of the population.  Still not much.

11.6% of Wyomingites are Mormon's, which would seem to be a fairly small percentage of the population but isn't in context.  The second largest are the Catholics, who are at 11.4%, or in other words they're statistically identical.**  Wyoming is, and always has been, an American anomaly, probably due to the highly transient nature of its population, in that only 41% of Wyomingites closely identify with a religion, and that's not a change that came about over time but one that has always been there.  Most Wyomingites are Christian in some fashion and of those who identify with a denomination the majority are various Protestant denominations but no other faith of any kind represents even up to 10% of the population.  The Episcopal Church, which used to be a national and regional powerhouse, has declined down to 1.3%, and that does reflect a nationwide trend.  Therefore, while a majority of Wyomingites are Protestant generally, of people who really identify with a single faith, the Mormon Church is the largest single faith followed very closely by the Catholic Church, both of which are growing although not for the same reason.  The Catholic Church likely actually has a higher percentage, probably fairly significantly higher, when illegal aliens are included.

Okay, so how does this play out.

In the last election, really for the first time by my recollection, we saw candidates attempt to emphasize their religious faith. But those doing that were not Mormons or Catholics, but it seemed like they were Evangelical Protestants.  At least that was the case with Freiss.  Hageman hinted at a Christian faith but never identified it.  Geleotos noted features of his platform which were suggested to be based in his faith, but he never made that faith, Greek Orthodox, apparent (and indeed a lot of people wound't have really known what that was if he had).  That means that those who were pitching towards a strong Christian base were basically pitching in the wrong place.

Indeed, just prior to the election being held I saw a "Christians For Freiss" car in my neighborhood with Colorado plates. What's that do?  Probably not much.

But, having said that, there is an interesting trend going on here that suggests that religious affiliation is playing a bit of a role for perhaps the first time. . . or at least for the first time since the issue of Prohibition was in play.***

If we look back at the map, we see that Freiss did well in counties that have a large Mormon demographic.  It's hard not to notice actually. Why?  

Here Freiss emphasis on his faith in such an open manner may have sold well.  The Latter Day Saints arose during that period of time called the Second Great Awakening and while the LDS church is highly distinct in its theology, it does share some views fairly strongly with Evangelical Christian churches that gained adherents in that period.  It's hard to describe, but there's a certain emphasis on a certain type of personal morality that is emphasized in the Mormon faith and often quite common among its members.  This is often noted by non Mormons and its in fact the basis of both admiration and criticism of them.  This is not to say that the personal fielty and sanctity of devout members of other faiths doesn't exist, but it can be different depending upon the faith and its certainly different among the Apostolic faiths and those closely based on them.

An additional factor that may be at work here is that Mormons tend to emphasize civility in a way that others do not.  It tends to be a trait of the demographic.  And it's been noted taht as a demographic they react poorly to candidates that are not civil.  This is not to suggest that Gordon was not civil, but Friess was certainly highly civil, always being polite and courteous to the other candidates.  Hageman came across as highly uncivil.

So while those counties are in the "sagebrush belt" that otherwise went to Gordon, they went for Friess.

Before we move on from this topic, one small oddity that might be worth noting is that early on the "take the public lands" movement was fairly strong in these same counties. This seems to have completely passed in the same counties in the recent election however. Anyhow, the one candidate still running who is radically in that camp is Rex Rammell, who is a Mormon.  Rammell is going to pull hardly any votes anywhere in the state this fall, and most of those who do vote for him are going to be disgruntled Hageman voters, but it's worth noting for another reason. The real hotbed of the grab the Federal lands movement has been Utah.

At least one Utah politician took a real pounding recently for holding those views, so they aren't universally popular there by any means. But they are strongest there.  What exactly is the source of that isn't clear to me, but I wonder if an element of it might be historical.  The Mormons, as a demographic, are sort of unique in being the only religion in the United States to come into direct conflict with the Federal government.  Catholics were very heavily persecuted in the first half of the country's  history and were outright persecuted in the Colonial era, but because of the diverstiy of the Catholic body of faithful, that's not really a terribly strong memory among Catholics. But the fact that the Federal government legislated against one tenant of the early Mormon faith and evne sent an armed expedition into the West to enforce Federal policies against them has not been forgotten.  Given this, I wonder if there isn't a slight residual distrust of the Federal government in certain ways that might be unique to the demographic.

Anyhow, in the recent election, Freiss campaign sounded a lot like he was running for a seat from Alabama or something.  It didn't sell well in most places, but did in at least one, probably for a completely surprising reason.  And Friess, where he did do well, did not do well by a huge margin by any means. With a few more votes in those counties they would have gone for Gordon.

Blue Collar Workers

Wyomingites associate themselves with cowboys but there are a lot more blue collar workers in Wyoming that anything else, at least if we consider oilfield and other extractive industry workers blue collar.  I don't mean unskilled labor. Some of this labor is unskilled but not all of it is by any means.  A lot of it is pretty skilled.

Anyhow, I note this as this makes Wyoming a real exception to the rule in the United States.  I hate the term "post modern", as I don't think it's possible to be "post modern", but the United States is "post industrial".

The United States in which I was born was an industrial titan.  And the United States still has a lot of industry. But we aren't the globally dominating industrial entity we once were, for a vareity of reasons, including the fact that we intentionally exported industry, wisely or foolishly.  But Wyoming is an exception.

All over the country there are a lot of industrial and blue collar jobs that go unfilled.  Mike Roe has made this a bit of a personal campaign.  But in Wyoming a lot of young people plan on going right into the oilfield (and up until recently mining) industries and remain there for their entire lives.  Whether or not this is a long term viable plan at this point may be another thing, but it's certainly been a feature of life in Wyoming forever.

This means that unusually Wyoming has a large, blue collar, middle class.

It also means that this middle class is tightly tied to the industry that provides jobs to it.

This has certainly been a major feature of recent campaigns and this one was no exception. Candidates are absolutely loath to suggest that the economy and the industry is evolving, even though they are, such that the long term viability of this sector may be imperiled.  Harriet Hageman absolutely denied it.  

This has an impact on election and it certainly has an impact on local political beliefs.  It's part of the reason the GOP is so strong here, as the GOP is seen as supporting the oil and gas and mining industries.  And in common conversation nearly anyone here has experienced the blend of economc and political beliefs that informs a lot of voters on everything in their world view.  

But surprisingly it didn't have the impact that people presumed it might, which says a lot for the actual deeply held views of common people.  In the election, only Campbell Count and maybe Weston County seem have been influenced in this fashion, both of which featured strong polling for Hageman.  Campbell County in fact went for Hageman, where she barely beat out Friess.  Weston was the other way around.  Gordon came in third in both counties.

That Friess did well in both counties is revealing as it might explain in part why he also pulled down enough votes to take the southwestern counties, which we've also discussed.  She also came in second in Lincoln and Uinta Counties.

Transients

Wyoming has an enormous transient population, which is once again due to the oil and gas industry.  I don't state this to be insulting, it's simply a fact.

Indeed, the airplane observer I noted above noted this, noting that the residents of the state practically fit into two camps, those from here and staying and those not from here and leaving.  That's not completely true, but it's at least partially true.

Transients are interesting in that I think they provide part of the background noise to Wyoming elections and occasionally influence them.  Indeed, the recent hard right turn in the primaries is partially due to this, in my view.  

A high percentage of the transient population comes out of Oklahoma and Texas. Folks from any region bring their political views with them, and they're no exception. Oklahoma and Texas have a certain brand of conservative voter that Wyoming generally does not, but when there's a lot of Texans and Oklahomans here, some register to vote and they begin to influence politics.

Indeed, for long time or lifetime Wyoming residents some of the features of Wyoming politics of the last decade have been absolutely baffling and this may provide part of the explanation.  The whole Cindy Hill saga seemed to be imported from a very rural Oklahoma school district, for example, rather than something we thought up on our own, even though that's not true.  

Be that as it may, the truth is that most of our transient population plans on returning home and a lot of them do. For that reason, I suspect that a lot of them don't vote and beyond that some probably vote back home where they are from.  So candidates pitching to them probably draw attention, but it's misleading.

Entrepreneurs

Wyoming has always, from day one, attracted a lot of people seeking to make their fortunes here and it still does.  This class makes up a demographic at any one time, including those who have made their money elsewhere and then retired here.

The views of this group of people tend not to really match those of Wyomingites from the state or elsewhere except that they generally are highly pro business.  In the recent election Friess, who is a member of this class, did well in Park and Big Horn Counties, counties that feature a fair number of these voters.  Dave Dodson, who was running against John Barrasso, took Teton County, the only county he took, which also features a fair number of such voters and of which he is also a member of (Trauner out of Teton County is as well).

In some elections members of this class have done highly well, in others not so much.  Galeotos styled his campaign pitching in a way towards their views, but obviously didn't do well, so in this election, their impact appears to have been marginal at best.

What about ethic demographics?

Any reader of this, if there is any, must be surely wondering about ethnic demographics by this point, as that's what is normally meant by a political demographic to some degree.  Oh sure, pollsters talk about the "Evangelical Vote" or the "Catholic Vote", etc., but what about the Hispanic Vote?

Well, good question, but Wyoming is sort of oddly unique in this fashion as well.

Now, to some extent we have discussed this already, in that we discussed religion in Wyoming's politics.  And some of that is ethnic in a way, even if we don't tend to think of it that way, as religions can be an ethnic identifier.  Indeed, in this instance that's what tends to separate, I think, the minority Catholic vote from the minority Mormon vote.  The Mormon vote is more solid as a block as Mormons are more of an identifiable ethnicity, in a loose sort of way, while Catholics are quite diverse even if they tend to descend more from some nationalities than others.****

But do we have ethnic blocks here?

Well, yes we certainly have one, and I've discussed that above.  The Native Americans in the state, who fit into two different ethnic groups by culture, as already noted.  They are in fact a distinct ethnic group and they tend to be largely Democratic.  We've discussed that group already. Are there any others?

Well, surprisingly not really. . . or not yet.

Part of this has to due with the Western culture which truly tends to act as a solvent.  In much of the United States there were strongly nationally demographic regions within states and within cities which preserved long after the initial immigrants arrived.  I"ve heard, as an example, a fellow who came from Rhode Island express amazement to find that in the West to say "I'm Italian", as in Italian American, meant almost nothing at all, if in fact nothing at all.  People will identify with a distant national origin, but it simply doesn't mean what it does in other regions.  To say, for example, "I'm Irish" doesn't mean that you are from an Irish family living in an Irish neighborhood that goes to an Irish church.  It more likely means you had an Irish ancestor or a collection of them. That's about it in 2018.

The exceptions today would be, potentially, African Americans and Hispanic Americans, but even here what we'd expect to find we really don't.

African Americans are an identifiable voting demographic in much of the US but not in Wyoming.  That's in part because the African American population here is small, but its also in part because the African American minority has been in the state as long as the European American minority.  Given this, there's an African American minority that's an Afro-Wyomingite minority and fits into the larger scene.

Black politicians have been a feature of the state's politics since the 19th Century. Wyoming had integrated juries as early as the first decade of the century and its therefore no surprise that it'd have fairly integrated politics.  A 19th Century coroner in Natrona County was a black Civil War veteran. . . something that appears to have been very little noted at any one time.  Laramie County has had a couple of black legislators of the Byrd family who have been very prominent in politics.

About the only time that African Americans really made an appearance as an identifiable political block was in Cheyenne about a century ago in reaction to newspaper reporting there, which was uniformly racist. They protested their treatment, justifiably.  If we extend that out a bit, the protests of the Black Fourteen at the University of Wyoming might provide another notable example.  But the examples are fairly concentrated.

Indeed, as the flip side of that, the state's small African American demographic contributes to local races in an almost unnoticed fashion. The City of Casper, for example, has a black council member and its simply basically not noted.  It doesn't seem noteworthy, really.

The other demographic group that we'd normally think of in this context is the Hispanic demographic, which is fairly large in the state and which has been in the state for a really long time.  Indeed, the current Hispanic population is the product of probably four different periods of immigration into the state.

Hispanics are identifiable as a demographic group in a way that the state's African American population really isn't.  While they've had a presence in the state since the 1840s, they have tended to live in identifiable communities and retain certain cultural features that other resident groups have not.  This would seemingly make them a likely candidate to be an identifiable voting block, and maybe it very quietly is, but if it is, it's quiet.

I can't think of a single instance of a candidate attempting to aim a message towards Hispanic voters. I'm sure there are Hispanic candidates in some local offices, indeed I can think of one in Casper and I can think of others in Casper who have held office in the past, but that really flies under the radar and it's never really mentioned.  I wonder if that will continue.  Hispanics here are not really all of one group, given their entry into the state's demographics over time, and the most recent group has had a vested interest in staying somewhat quiet. But I'd think that likely to change.

So there you have it.

But we don't speak much on it.

And frankly, because of the state's small population, we really don't need to.  It'd serve more to divide than to unite.  But in an election year like this one, with a primary like we just had, it may have had an impact and politicians would have been wise to keep themselves informed on it, if they were aware of it at all.

_________________________________________________________________________________

*Indeed, these are all groups that native Wyomingites hold in deep suspicion even though they don't realize it. To say that "I'm from California" is to brand the speaker with lasting contempt in certain circles.  People from Texas often get only barely more than that, and New Yorkers certainly do not.  There are real reasons for all of this even though it tends to mystify the speaker.

*The state's list omits the Metis, but it shouldn't. The Metis, of course, aren't really Indians per se, but they are a very early Indian influenced group that formed its own distinct culture.  A mix of Indian peoples and the French in Canada, they formed a strong agrarian culture in the prairie regions of Canada that at one time rose up in armed rebellion.  During the 19th Century they ranged in hunting expeditions as far south as Wyoming and according to at least one very knowledgeable Canadian historian there's reason to believe that there some Metis in the Sioux camp at Little Big Horn when it was attacked by the 7th Cavalry in 1876.

**Historically, Catholicism is the longest represented non animist religion in the state, as it was the religion of the French fur trappers.  This is something that tends to be discounted by historians in a way as the trappers were wild men and therefore the degree of their adherence to religion might be regarded as suspect, but it seems fairly clear that it was greater than might be supposed with at least some. That lack of understanding of that is something that probably comes about due to a general lack of knowledge on French fur trappers and their religion in general.  Anyhow, at some point after their arrival Catholic priests did arrive in the region and its usually noted that Pierre DeSmet, a Belgian priest, was the first of them.  I wonder, however, if that's correct as at least one glyph I've seen fairly clearly depicts what I think is a Catholic Mass.  Some individual Indians or bands of Indians were converts to Catholicism surprisingly early.

These early Catholics can't be said to have left a huge permanent influence on the state, but later ones did in ways that are now somewhat forgotten. With the arrival of Hispanic immigrants starting in the 1840s, and then Irish ones in the 1860s, a more permanent establishment was created.

***Religion played more of a role in the repeat of prohibition and what followed than in enacting it.

Contrary to what people imagine, Wyoming was all for prohibition and indeed it was Wyoming's votes that pushed it over the top.  But like the rest of the country it grew disenchanted with it quickly.  When it became obvious that it would be repealed, leaders of the Mormon community and the Catholic community became significant direct forces in crafting what was to follow. That is, they were directly consulted.

The consultation was not in order to keep prohibition in place.  Nobody wanted to attempt that. Rather, it was to prevent the destructive unregulated saloon trade from coming back in. Wyoming's system of liquor regulation dates to that period and was designed with that in mind.

****Even if that is true, however, its tended to very much wane in some ways.  A person can claim to be an "Irish Catholic", for example, if they have Irish heritage and are Catholic, but chances aren't bad that they're not of 100% Irish extraction and moreover they're more likely to really be an American Catholic.  The exception here, as to many other things, may be members of the Hispanic demographic in Catholic churches who are largely of immediate Mexican extraction.

The 2018 Wyoming Election. Volume Four

Yep, on to volume four.  Volume three reached the point where a single update took up an entire first page, so it was time to add a new volume.

 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. From a photograph take four years ago today. 

I have no update, however, at the time that I posted this (I teed it up on July 7) as I updated the last edition the morning of July 7. What I will note is that at this point, people getting the race are basically in it, and the primary races are now well in play. The most contested race, that for Governor, is most up in the air on the Republican side of the race after early predictions that it would be a Gordon walk away. There are at least three Democrats running, but Mary Throne will win the Democratic nomination and given her good showing so far, stands a chance of taking the Governor's office, although she has an uphill battle.

Most of the other seats are being contested, of course.  But only the Senate race for the GOP nomination features a lot of noise, if you will.  Well funded Dodson is making a lot of noise in that race, and he's not a wholly unattractive candidate based on what he's saying, but he has an uphill battle against incumbent John Barasso.  Trauner hasn't really started campaigning yet on the Democratic side and has little reason to do so until the primary is over.  The GOP challenger for Cheney's seat is eclectic but not well funded and stands little chance.  Democrats vying to run against her are nearly completely silent and likewise stand little chance.

July 9, 2018

Gubernatorial Primary Debates to be Live Streamed & Broadcast on Wyoming Public Radio & WYPBS

Interesting format, two GOP debates on the same day, devided into top contenders and not so top contenders:

Republican candidates running for the office of Wyoming Governor will be participating in a series of public debates Thursday, July 12, 2018 in the auditorium of the Wyoming National Guard Joint Forces Readiness Center in Cheyenne.

There will be two one-hour debates. The first debate will begin at 7 p.m.; the second debate will begin at 8 p.m. Candidates have been placed in either the first or second debate based on results of an independent poll conducted by the University of Wyoming Survey Research Center. The top three polling candidates, which will debate at 7 p.m., are Sam Galeotos, Mark Gordon and Harriet Hageman. The remaining three candidates will debate at 8 p.m. They are Bill Dahlin, Foster Friess and Taylor Haynes

July 12, 2018

The Tribune reports, in connection with the poll which was part of the debate noted above, that the Republican race is too close to call.

Reading the article on this carefully, what's clear is that Galeotos and Gordon are basically within striking distance of each other, something which indicates that the early predictions of the race being Gordon's "too lose" were either wrong or Gordon is doing a poor job of campaigning. . . or Galeotos a really good one.  Hageman is rounding up the bottom but still close enough she can't be ignored.

Over all, the big problem, or opportunity, for all of them is that 35% of the the GOP voters indicate they're undecided.

And no wonder.  So far the GOP candidates have been so afraid of the extreme right wing minority in the GOP that they're all running campaigns that are an anathema to large sections of casual GOP voters.  Hageman's campaign is at least honest in her extremism.

So what did the poll show?  Here's what the poll results were, in part:

The poll, conducted over two days from June 18-20, put Galeotos slightly ahead of Gordon when respondents were asked about name recognition. It gave Gordon a more significant lead when respondents were asked who they would vote for if they had to choose the next day. In that hypothetical scenario, Gordon led the field with 19 percent of the votes from the 596 survey respondents. Galeotos took 14 percent.

Not a good showing for either candidate by long measure.

And what about Hageman?

Hageman trailed the two men in the “vote tomorrow” question, with only 11 percent of respondents saying they would cast their vote for her at that time. Hageman is seen as likely to split more conservative votes with perennial candidate and professed constitutionalist Haynes, who got 10 percent of the responses.

That's not great, for Hageman, actually.  She's regarded as one of the top three by the Public Television folks, but when we assemble that she's basically neck and neck with Haynes in this category, and Haynes is the far edge of an extremist.     Dahlin bottomed out in this category at 1% and unless every other candidate in the debate states they hate puppies, love Hillary Clinton, and are in favor of lower wages, he might as well drop out.  Interestingly, mega bucks candidate Foster Freiss who has blanketed the airways and back pages of newspapers is in the bottom three with Haynes and Dahlin.

Looked at another way, what this tells us right now is that Gordon and Galeotos are vying for the majority of GOP votes and they'll undoubtedly take the lion's share of the undecided 35%.  The problem is that they're set to pull a Cheney by doing that as that's pretty much what gave us Congressman Liz.  That position would have gone to one of the other two solid GOP candidates but they destroyed each other at the polls.  It's unlikely, but not impossible, that Gordon and Galeotos will repeat this, in which case they'll launch Hageman into position.

Hageman, for her part, is the most extreme of the top three, the way that this debate is set up, but from the looks of it she shares that position basically neck and neck with Haynes.  This shows that about 20% of the dedicated GOP voters are in the far right camp right now, a number that's higher than I would have guessed.  Haynes and Hageman do in fact appear to be likely to destroy each other, in spite of Haynes basically not campaigning.  Haynes might not be campaigning at all if the complaint about his being a Colorado resident pans out, leaving the entire extreme block for Hageman.

On Hageman, an interesting shift that's afoot is the rise of voters, a lot of whom are in the GOP, that will not voter for her under any circumstance due to her hostility to state lands.  For the first time in a long time I'm hearing Republican voters who are openly declaring that they'll vote for Throne if Hageman is the nominee.  Three solid GOP voters I know have all taken that position, including one who was invited to a Hageman event and angrily declined to go.  People who assume that Hageman will be the next Governor if she's nominated may be in for a surprise.

Shifting to the Democrats, there are now four candidates but Throne is the only one anyone hears about. This is unfortunate for the Democrats nonetheless as the Democratic Party in the state has a history of political suicide.  The best thing the new Democratic candidates could have done for their party is to refuse to run, but hope springs eternal.

The additional candidates are Ken Casner, formerly a candidate for House District 47, Michael Allen Green, about whom I know nothing, and Rex Wilde, former failed candidate for the US Senate who lost to Charlie Hardy.  If you loose to Hardy, you ought to stay home for good.  Indeed, Throne is the only candidate with any real hope here and the others are just, frankly, being spoilers who are running. . . but aren't.

I heard Throne speak the other day, purely by accident, in a forum in which she was open for questions.  Her problem in this race is going to be, in my view, that she doesn't have a dynamic personal presence.  Maybe that's unfair as this was the only time I think I've met her, but none the less that's my impression.  She's much more honest when asked a question than most politicians I've seen, which is very much to her credit, but she doesn't present as well as might be hoped.

In contrast, while I haven't seen any of the GOP candidates speak so far, if they're television personas are any indication they're really good at shoveling what is basically crap, but sounding good at it. Gordon and Galeotos, whom I want to like, have so far ran campaigns that don't impress me. Galeotos, for example, has a television advertisement on right now in which he declares that if elected he'll help President Trump overturn Obamacare.  That's 100% pure BS.  The Governor of Wyoming has no role in that whatsoever.

But that's an example of how the two leading GOP candidates right now have ended up neck and neck and why 35% of the GOP voters are undecided. That quiet 35% is likely thinking they don't want to have the Feds transfer the public lands to the state, and then shortly on to private hands, and they know the Governor of Wyoming can't do anything about things like Obamacare.  Chances are that if a candidate was honest and said that, he'd pull ahead.

That he might end up being a she, and might end up being a Democrat, if this keeps up.

July 13, 2018

July 21, 2018

It was only a matter of time.

If you watch the debate that's linked in above, you'll see Harriet Hageman go after Mark Gordon for contributions to the Sierra Club and you'll also see her go after Sam Galeotos for making money from other people's money, or words to that effect, in the context of something to do with green energy (I frankly didn't really completely follow the comment).

When she did that, I cringed.  Not because I'm a Hageman supporter. . .  her positions on public lands take her off the table for me.  No, because she's a lawyer, which makes her very exposed on those sorts of statements.

While lawyers don't think of it that way, making money on other people's money is the way that most people think of what we do, in a way, to start with. It's not like we make saddles or fix broken cars, or work in a field that has a visible product, the way other people do.  I'm not saying that this is a correct perception, it's just a perception.  Additionally, Ms. Hageman has campaigned in part on her record as a lawyer.

Lawyers are advocates for a client, but very few lawyers have the luck to represent clients in court that are 100% aligned with their political views.  Indeed, any careful thinking person, and I'm certain that Hageman is highly intelligent and a thinking person, will never find anyone on earth who is 100% aligned with their views.  It's simply impossible.  While it is something that really baffles people who are not in the law, lawyers are not bothered by the thought that the people they represent aren't thinking exactly the same thing they are.  Lawyers believe in the system, not necessarily the individual cause of somebody, although having said that its frequently the case that they do indeed believe in the cause.

I note all of that as I thought that when she made those comments she was really opening herself up to criticism. It turns out that I was right.

Ms. Hageman, it turns out, was hired by an entity calling itself "The Wolf Coalition" to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over wolf management.  I know nothing about The Wolf Coalition whatsoever.  According to an item posted on Field & Stream some years ago:

The "Wolf Coalition" is a group of Wyoming sportsmen, business associations, and insurance companies whose goal is to de-list the non-native Canadian gray wolf introduced into our beloved mountains by the USFW back in the nineties. Consequently all original criteria has been met or exceeded insofar as number of breeding pairs and packs. The feds will not accept Wyoming's action plan. These alien creatures are devouring our game herds in spite of the bogus statistics presented nationally by the employees of the USFW. Consequently the "Wolf Coalition" attorneys announced on April 2 that they intend to sue the U.S. Secretary of Interior, the USFW and it national director as well as the Rocky Mountain Region director. Wyoming is sick of wolves, do you want these 120 plus pound animals feeding on big game in your neck of the woods?

So it doesn't appear to be some sort of radical environmental group.

I didn't see the flack that Hageman was taking for representing them, but I did read her reaction, which was:

I understand that there have been concerns expressed regarding my involvement with the wolf lawsuit, and my view of wolf management in Wyoming. I want to set the record straight in case there is any question about my commitment in that regard.I was first hired by the “Wolf Coalition” in 2002 to file suit against the Fish and Wildlife Service over its failure to properly manage the Canadian gray wolf population that it had introduced into Yellowstone National Park in the mid-1990’s. That Coalition was made up of 28 different organizations, including sportsmen groups, outfitters and guides, County Commissioners, ag groups, and conservation districts, among others. The point of our lawsuit was to establish that the wolf population exceeded the recovery goals as of 2002; that Wyoming had developed an appropriate wolf management plan to protect that recovered population; and that the FWS was required to approve it, delist the wolf from the ESA, and turn management over to the State. We continued that fight over the next 15 years, with the Wolf Coalition being one of the most important and consistent advocates for our livestock industry, outfitting industry, including Wyoming Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, hunters, Counties, conservation districts, and small business owners whose livelihoods have been so damaged by the introduction of this predator. As importantly, we were the primary voice at the table throughout this time for protecting our other wildlife resources such as our elk, moose, and deer populations.In February, 2017 we finally succeeded in convincing the Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. that Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan met all of the requirements of the ESA. This was a major victory for Wyoming, and allows us to implement management techniques that are unavailable anywhere else in the Country. For example, Wyoming is the only State where wolves are considered predators in the majority of the State – meaning that we can use more robust and effective control techniques (aerial hunting, may be shot on sight in certain geographic areas, etc.). Wyoming is also the only State where the National Park Service is responsible for maintaining and protecting a portion of our population within the National Parks. Finally, Wyoming is now only required to maintain a limited number of wolves – thereby allowing us to control the population through hunting seasons (within the trophy game area), and throughout the year (within the predator area). This win, in other words, will finally allow Wyoming to start controlling wolf numbers in this State, thereby making it possible to rebuild those game herds that have been so decimated by the uncontrolled and previously ever-expanding gray wolf population.
As Governor, I have every intention of asserting Wyoming’s sovereignty over our wildlife, and of aggressively implementing those control techniques that are effective at constraining our wolf population to the recovery numbers. Under my administration we will no longer tolerate an ever-expanding wolf population. We will instead focus upon protecting all of our wildlife resources, and protecting our livestock producers from suffering the consequences of those bad policies for which Washington, D.C. is notorious.
I have dedicated the last 20+ years of my career to protecting our legacy industries in Wyoming. I have fought to protect private property rights, the livestock industry, the sportsmen industry, outfitters and guides, and local governments. I have worked tirelessly – often-times all alone – to push back against federal overreach, and to hold the federal government accountable for the mismanagement of the federal lands and for its failure to follow the endangered species act. I have refused to buckle under as the EPA has sought to take our water. I have traveled the Country warning of the dangers of an out-of-control federal government. I AM THE ONLY CANDIDATE WITH THIS HISTORY, and with my record of success on these issues. So the next time that someone whispers in your ear about me, claiming that I want to give people access to private lands, that I have worked to give Wyoming’s water away to other states, or that I haven’t fought hard enough or long enough on battling the wolf mess, you can now look them in the eye and say with absolute confidence: “THAT MY FRIEND, IS HOGWASH.”
- Harriet Hageman

Just based on the snipped first set out above, I'd have to say that Hageman's reaction is understandable.  It seems her position was mischaracterized.  But again, how this could occur is also understandable.  She went after Gordon in the debate for contributing to The Sierra Club.  The Sierra Club may not have the same views that everyone in The Wolf Coalition does, but I'd be more than one or two of the members of that coalition also were members of the Sierra Club.

Indeed, I've found over the years that there's a pretty big overlap between conservationist and conservative views in application.  This was the focus of a disappointing episode of a Wyoming podcast that deals with outdoor issues which Gordon was on, which noted that there's an intersection, locally, between farmers, ranchers, sportsmen, etc.  It's only when you really start to get to the margins of these topics do people actually begin to hold greatly disparate views.  So, an organization like The Sierra Club or The Nature Conservancy is not the same thing as Greenpeace, and so on.

This is also why, quite frankly, that some individuals that I know are now supporting alternatives to incumbents and even going to the Democratic Party this year.  One long time friend of mine who is a died in the wool supporter of the Second Amendment and who is very conservative, to say the least, is supporting Dodson against Barasso due in part to Barasso's views on the public land.  One lifelong competitive marksman and hunter who is a friend of mine is going for Throne in the Governor's race.  Things like this should be a bit of a wake up call.

If they are, one of the things that people need to be awake to is that going after another candidate on topics like this really expose a person where they probably don't want to be.  Lawyers represent parties and people all the time in various causes as a really democratic nation needs a system in which anybody and any cause (as long as the cause has some arguable legal merit) should be able to be presented.  That doesn't mean that the lawyer in the case should have to pass a personal belief test to do that.  And lawyers should be careful about sniping at business people about where they make their money, as after we are all officers of the court, a state system, and essentially do that in a fashion.   And while organizations that people donate money to do indicate a person's personal belief, we need to be careful about believing that there are not positions in the middle.

July 25, 1918

In what at least Wyoming PBS regards as the second string Gubernatorial candidates, there's some interesting news going on.

Taylor Haynes problems regarding his ability to run appear to be growing worse, if news reports are any indication.  The question of his residency over the past five years has been turned over to the authorities who are looking into it.  My guess is that there's at least a 50% chance that he'll be ruled to be disqualified from the race and his candidacy will be administratively terminated.

If so, that will be a benefit to Harriet Hageman. In spite of a much more active campaign, the far libertarian right of the GOP is split on Hageman and Haynes.  Neither one appears to be in position to win the primary but the level of their support is surprising.  The fact that both of them are in the race is splitting that vote, to the benefit of Galeotos and Gordon.  If Haynes drops out, that will be a bit of a problem for the two G candidates.

Hageman, at least according to word on the streets, lost support due to her performance in the last debate.  I wondered.  I thought her concluding statement was very poor and showed an aggressive pre planned attack that was obviously prepared prior to the debate.  A closing can't be done that way, it has to be dynamic and capable of adjusting.  Her's didn't and was mean.  Apparently a lot of people didn't like it much. Additionally, her straight jacket approach to the economy in which she basically refuses to look at any other economic options other than the traditional ones appears to have left people cold as well.  My guess is that she might actually be pulling lower than Haynes now, who is consistently extreme.  Hageman seems to have come across that way in the debate and so more center right voters are abandoning her, according to the back street vox populi rumors.

The reported news this morning is that Foster Freiss, who is pulling far to the rear in this election season in spite of spending a ton on his campaign, will be touring the state with Rick Santorum in a "Faith and Family" tour.  This, I'm afraid, shows the degree to which Freiss is truly clueless.

Rick Santorum may be a big political name elsewhere, but here he's just some random Pennsylvanian and Pennsylvania is, to a lot of Wyomingites, a random East Coast state (although one that Senator Barasso is from).  Santorum isn't going to pull any votes in for Freiss at all and most Wyomingites are likely to react with a "who?" reaction.

Santorum may be a great guy (I have no idea) but he has no connection with Wyoming at all.  He is well known in conservative circles as a bonafide conservative and he and Freiss are both strongly pro life in their views.  Santorum and Freiss are also both very religious but their religious views are not the same overall.  Freiss describes himself as a "born again Christian" while Santorum is a devout Catholic.  Religious views in this context are perhaps worth noting as Wyoming is an odd state in these regards in that religion has never figured very prominently in state politics as a rule, with a couple of odd historical examples (and there's an interesting religious angle to one of the issues in the current campaign that runs under the current, but which I haven't posted on yet and might not).  Generally Wyoming candidates tend to note their religious affiliation but they rarely go much beyond that, unlike other regions of the country which will see outright religious discussions of a confessional nature  The largest religious affiliations in the state are the combined Protestant faiths with Catholicism and Mormanism being strongly represented minorities.  There has been at least one, and I think two, Catholic Governors in the past, Mike Sullivan, and who became a Catholic following his time as Governor. But there's never been a Gubernatorial candidate in Wyoming who actually campaigned on religious faith.  That Freiss is sort of intending on doing that again shows that he doesn't really seem to know the political culture of the state.

Speaking of culture, a recent report reveals that Teton County Wyoming again is the state with the highest income disparity in the US, having a lot of super wealthy people and a lot of really poor people.  Native Wyomingites have looked on Teton County with a degree of disdain for quite some time as the super rich are felt to have ruined the county, but this throws an interesting angle into the election.  Friess, Dodson, Trauner, Christensen and Cheney are all Teton County residents.  Of those, Freiss, Dodson, Trauner and Cheney all relocated from somewhere else, and Friess, Dodson and Cheney fit into the general class of the wealthy relocators that at least native Wyomingites tend to not appreciate much.  Cheney managed to get over the political bar only because the other two candidates defeated each other and opened the door to her and there will definitely be Republicans who vote against her in this election on that basis, amongst others, even though she'll win the primary.  Dodson and Freiss have to overcome this burden and are frankly unlikely to do so, even setting aside the other problems their campaigns are faced with.

July 27, 2018

At Casper event, Friess, Santorum blast Obamacare, support bringing back high-risk pools

So declares a headline in the Casper Star Tribune regarding a Friess/Santorum appearance yesterday in Casper, part of their "Faith and Family" tour.

The problem is that the Governor of Wyoming has diddly to do with national health care.

It's really odd now national politics that the Governor is without power to do anything about has crept into the Gubernatorial primary. It's not that some national issues don't have a state reflection.  Abortion certainly does as should Roe v. Wade be modified the Governor's position on legislation really matters.  Likewise, a candidates stance on Federal lands really matters even though it would take Federal action to change anything in regards to them as it would also require state action (taking in Federal lands, in addiction to being a bad, anti public, position, is unconstitutional under the State constitution).  But "Obamacare"?

It isn't going to matter for the Governor unless Congress repeals it. And they're not going to.  If they were, they would have.  They were never going to.  At the very most, they'll modify it at some point, and the Governor won't have much if any impact on that either.

On the same score, Donald Trump has made a major appearance in the Galeotos campaign for some inexplicable reason.

Okay, granted, it's not wholly in explicable.  It's likely some campaign staffers calculation that Donald Trump is wildly popular in Wyoming (which I think a misreading of the tea leaves) and by linking the conventionally conservative Galeotos with the populist Trump, Galeotos will pick up voters from the far right.  Maybe, but he's losing votes from the center.

I've heard two individuals closely following the race who have been so repelled by Galeotos' campaign literature and television spots about his getting in office to help Trump achieve his goals that they've dropped him like a hot rock.  He ought to take head.

People following the race felt that Galeotos did well in the recent debate and following it picked up votes from Hageman supporters who dropped here after he poor debate performance (which seems to have been loved only by her diehard supporters) and here Molotov Cocktail closing.  Maybe that will continue for Galeotos but if he's now loosing voters to Gordon, the only place that some of his supporters have to go (as Dahlin is still largely an unknown) his embracing of Trump may have proven to be an error.

If so, part of that might be because the news of the past couple of weeks is rapidly converting the Russian Election Meddling story from a disturbing oddity into something that's beginning to look like Trump's Watergate.  Indeed, it's starting to look worse.

Trump has been controversial and unpopular since day one.  Indeed, it tends to be forgotten that he went into office as a hugely unpopular President who won, in part, because Hillary Clinton was even more unpopular.  The election at the end of the day turned out to be, in many voters mind, sort of a distasteful contest between a school yard vulgarian bully and that radical feminist class room snot.  Not much of a choice.  That's simplifying things in the extreme, but to many it was viewed that way.  If the news doesn't turn around shortly Trump  may be facing criminal charges and the nation a Constitutional crisis.

And this in spite of the fact that Trump, even to those who don't care for him, has some acknowledged and unacknowledged good results to his credit. The economy actually is growing faster than at any point since 2014 and in spite of a sudden retroactive effort on tariffs (which got all out of whack over a fifty years period).  Trump's judicial picks really have been good (probably due to Mitch McConnell).  And so on.  But after two years in office under a Republican controlled Congress asserting, as Galeotos has, that his getting in will help Trump carry through with the rest of Trump's agenda is more than a little silly and I strongly suspect that Galeotos doesn't believe a word of it.  Nobody who is familiar with politics would.  It's discrediting a campaign that was getting a lot of credit.

Back to something that the Governor's views can in fact impact, the Wyoming Wildlife Federation is going to sponsor a Gubernatorial debate in Casper:

I'd really like to go to this, but I'm scheduled to be out of town. I'm seriously considering altering my schedule so I can make it.

July 28, 2018

A couple of things this morning, those being Taylor Haynes diminishing chances of running in the Fall and Sam Galeotos' economic ideas.

Let's start with Galeotos who is one of the two front runners.

I criticized Galeotos the other day for his embracing of Trump in his campaign, which I think is deceptive. As noted, there's not much a Wyoming Governor can do to "help Trump" and frankly the ads come really close to fitting into the blame it on Obama rhetoric that's now past the statue of limitations in my view. The Chief Executive of Wyoming isn't in a position to help the Chief Executive of the United States do anything.  Maybe its more the other way around.

Anyhow, a person I know who attended a Galeotos even the other day was really impressed with Galeotos economic discussion, which centers on technological data centers in a way that I can't even grasp but which he does.  Galeotos knows a lot about high tech and is, in these discussions, apparently emphasizing how Wyoming is ideally suited to take advantage of a data center explosion that's coming due to the amount of energy the state can generate.

That's actually fresh thinking of a type that we don't hear much about in this race.  This was touched on only briefly in the recent debates and in a way which I also didn't understand, but it is a message that Galeotos is apparently trying to put across.

A simpler to understand message is that he feels the state grossly under-funds tourism efforts, and compares us poorly to other states in that regard.  All the candidates seem really hesitant to endorse spending any money on anything, but here Galeotos is.  He apparently cites a figure that for every dollar spent in tourism efforts ten are generated.  So here too, in spite of his current Trump based media campaign, he has some fresh thinking that sets him apart from the other Republicans.  Shoot, on that he almost sounds like a Democrat, which I'm sure that people like Hageman would point out.  Hageman, when asked about tourism boosting efforts a while back, commented that she wondered why we didn't do something like that for coal.

Hageman is splitting the far right/libertarian vote, as we've noted, with Haynes.  Right now, because Haynes and Hageman are so close in percentages, they'll stand to effectively take each other out. That may well change:

This doesn't look good for Haynes at all and my prediction is that this will kill off his campaign, but not before we read a lot of commentary about how this effort by the state is a conspiracy.

Haynes has no chance of winning in this election in any event, but this will have an impact.  The impact will be to boost the chances of Hageman, although I suspect that more than a few disgruntled Haynes voters will go to really extreme candidate Rex Rammel, who is running as a third party candidate.  I don't feel sorry for Haynes for this, as it really does seem like he may have been taking the residency requirements a bit too broadly.

August 1, 2018

The Casper Star Tribune published its voters guide in today's issue.

It's always worth picking up, even if it is frustrating as the candidates largely just answer questions posed to them by the Tribune and those questions, a standard set, tend to wholly omit issues that I'm concerned about and following.

For local and lessor known races, however, it may be about as good as a person will get.

In other news, President Trump Twitter endorsed John Barrasso.   It was a pretty short endorsement noting that Barrasso didn't need his help but he hoped he'd win.  Dodson quickly countered that this showed that Barrasso was concerned about his primary prospects.

Apparently there's no polling data on that race, so people don't really have any data to go on regarding who is where in the polls.  It's widely expected that Barrasso will win, but Dodson has been running a pretty vigorous and very well funded campaign.

August 2, 2018

Apparently there were debates at Casper College last night that involved the Gubernatorial and the Senatorial candidates.  I somehow missed that this was going to occur and ended up reading about it in the Tribune this morning.

This is frustrating in that I would like to have watched it on the computer (it was live streamed) or on television, if was televised. Wyoming Public Media participated in it, so I hope it was.

A link to sections, but only sections, of the debate appears on Wyoming Public Radio's Facebook page.  Hopefully more will be posted later.

From what I read, the GOP candidates, apparently now knowing that they're risking it by maintaining otherwise, all say the Federal lands will remain in Federal hands, save for Taylor Haynes.  Right now, if I was to predict it, I think Haynes will likely be out of the race next week when the Court holds a hearing on his eligibility to run, given his residency.  As I haven't actually listened to the debate yet, I'd hold off making too many assumptions about that as a person really needs to hear what they have to say. Certainly Hageman wasn't a friend to Federal oversight of the lands earlier, but stopped short of the transfer position that had been maintained by Haynes.

It sounds like the conclusion of the debates was again fiery with Hageman going after all of her opponents, claiming Freiss was a "jet setter" and that Gordon wasn't qualified due to donations he had made to Democratic candidates.  Gordon defended himself and Freiss apparently did not.  On this, it might be pointed out that never supporting any Democrat would suggest that a person has a mind framed only by political allegiance which would make a person fairly incapable of working with anyone, but if that was pointed out, I don't know.  Anyhow, Hageman, who is behind in the polls, is taking the gasoline on the fire approach to closing statements.  In actual policy points, it seems like all of the GOP candidates took consistently conservative positions.

The Democrats also debated, and were more civil, but at this point Democratic appearances only serve two points, 1) to make it obvious that Throne will will the Democratic primary; and 2) to lessen Throne's chances of winning by associating her with the gadfly element of the Democratic Party represented by the aptly named Rex Wilde.  It could be argued that Taylor Haynes and Harriet Hageman serve the same purpose in the GOP as Wilde does in the Democratic Party but as the political culture of the state is so heavily Republican that does not tend to occur.  At least the fact that the Democrats are debating means that Throne remains in the news.

In the GOP Senatorial race (only Truaner is really running on the Democratic side so there's no point in a Democratic debate) Barrasso, citing important Senate work that had come up (it really had) bowed out and remained in D. C., leaving the floor to the other four candidates, of which only Dodson is a real candidate.  Dodson seems to have absolutely dominated the discussion, not surprisingly, and used it to beat up on Barrasso. Barrasso should have showed up.

August 4, 2018

First Judicial District Courthouse in Cheyenne.

Yesterday, August 3, the District Court in Cheyenne denied a petition for an interlocutory order seeking to bump Haynes out of the election based on his residency, which is in question.

Perhaps I didn't read it carefully, but it seems to me that at least the press accounts I read of this prior to the hearing were inaccurate and gave the impression that his residency was set to be tried on the merits. That's not what was the case. This was just a petition to stop him from running until the trial was held, which is some time off.

The Attorney General expressed surprise by the Court's ruling, but I'm not.  Courts generally try to stay out of political affairs as a matter of judicial discretion and prudence.  Moreover, most Courts here would in fact read the tea leaves and factor that in.  Haynes isn't going to win on August 21 and then the case will be moot. The Court will never have to decide the matter on the merits.

It was the correct decision by the Court.

August 5, 2018

Donald Trump, Jr. has an article in the Casper Star Tribune endorsing Foster Freiss for Governor.

It's pretty obvious that a lot of Wyoming candidates are hoping that a perceived Wyoming Likes Trump feeling in the state is going to rub off on them.  Maybe they're right, but frankly I have my real doubts.

One thing that candidates taking that view ought to recall is that Trump was not a popular candidate, nationwide, when he was elected in the first place, which of course doesn't mean that he wasn't, or isn't, popular here.  Another thing they may wish to keep in mind is that there's been a lot of water under, and over, that bridge since then and they may be gambling incorrectly.

Indeed, I have a neighbor in my neighborhood who was a real Trump fan that has all Democrat signs up right now. . . .

And that neighbor may be indicative of something else.  They're Texans.  Given the nature of the state's economy there's fewer imports in the state now than there was in 2016 when Trump was elected. Are native and long term Wyoming residents are pro Trump as the oil population was?

Somebody who feels that answer is "no", apparently, is the state's Democratic Party which was featured in the every election year repeat article of the Tribune where they express high hopes about winning some seats this election.  With Mary Throne I'd say their hope is real and it might not be delusional as to Gary Trauner, but the expression of the concept that Wyoming may be part, even a little part, of a "red wave", as the headline muses, is delusional.  It won't be.

Which brings me to my repeat election year rant about the terms red and blue.

Everywhere else in the world red stands for the political left.

 

Logo of the British Labour Party, the heavily left leaning major British political party.

Everywhere.

The current logo of the French Socialist Party, a union between the old French Socialist Party which used the red rose as its symbol, and the French Green Party.

And I do mean everywhere.

The log of the German Social Democratic Party, one of the oldest and most significant leftist parties in the world.

Including North America.

The logo of Canada's ruling party, the left of center Liberals.

By the same token, blue is associated with right wing political parties, sometimes extreme ones.

Logo of the Austrian Freedom Party, a right wing Austrian party.  I'm not certain what the inclusion of a red vowell means, but blue is the primary color here.

Indeed, the  Spanish fascists wore blue shirts, and an Irish fascist movement prior to World War Two also did that and was nicknamed "the blue shirts". Spain's contribution to the Eastern Front during World War Two was the Blue Division.

Which isn't to say that all right wing parties using blue are extreme.

 

Logo of Canadian Conservative Party.

But thanks to a stupid color choice by the media several elections ago, we are now stuck with this bizarre out of whack of color scheme here in the U.S.

August 8, 2018

I'm frankly of the view that politics in general has become exceedingly odd ever since the 2008 election which resulted in Barack Obama becoming President.  Not because of Obama, but because the reaction to his election was so strong.  It seemed to revive a lot of old feelings that we hadn't seen in a long time.

During his eight years in office that feeling grew stronger, even though throughout much of his Presidency he was fairly ineffectual and fairly far from being any kid of a radical.  That changed in his last two years in which he really did lurch to the left, by which time there was little detriment to his doing so.  Following that we had the 2016 election which gave us Donald Trump in a really odd election and politics have just stayed odd ever since.

It's almost hard to look back on prior elections and feel that they even occurred in the same country.

This started spreading into Wyoming 2008 but it's really in full flower now, and for the first time in my memory we're seeing some really odd campaigning including some truly negative campaigning.

Harriet Hageman, aware that Mark Gordon is in the presumed lead in the Gubernatorial race, has been going after him in every debate with the argument that he's a closet liberal and has done heinous things like support the Sierra Club.  Some organization that clearly backs here is now sending around mail flyers to that point, including the point that he was born in New York and grew up, the flyer claims, back East (I think he was sent to an Eastern prep school).  On that latter point, it's interesting that Republicans would aim that at one of their own as it would also take, in this race, every single member of our Congressional representation (Senate and House) out of consideration for election.

It also strikes the wrong message with a lot of Wyomingites and, at least by my observation, among those just looking at voting for the first time, who are not yet burdened with the concept that their own lines of work define moral goodness, it's doing the polar opposite.  I heard one conservative Wyoming young voter ask "Why does Hageman hate the Earth?"  I'm sure that person isn't alone in that view, and among sportsmen there's a real red flag up now regarding Hageman.  Without knowing for sure, I suspect her chances are declining.

Not according to the Laramie Boomerang, however.

In a recent poll by the Boomerang Hageman came out on top over the other candidates, although she still polled less than 50%.  Indeed, what that call in poll revealed is what we might call the Cheney Effect, where two other front runners, Galeotos and Gordon are splitting the majority of the GOP vote and the third choice might therefore slip in.  That's exactly what allowed Cheney to win the 2016 GOP primary.  The difference here is that the Democrats are running a fairly strong candidate on their own right, Mary Trauner, who might then pull off getting in against the odds.

On getting in against the odds, but not against the current of history, this reminds me that this past week I saw a letter to the editor in which the pro Hageman writer compared Hageman to "Nellie Taylor[sic] Ross" apparently due to gender alone.  Students of history might recall that Ross, who served only one term after having been elected to fill the term that her husband had previously been elected to, was not from Wyoming, was a Democrat, and went on to have a position in the Franklin Roosevelt administration.

Nellie Tayloe Ross in later years, on her farm in Maryland, at which time she was the Director of Mints under Frankly Roosevelt.  I doubt that she and Hageman would have seen eye to eye on very much . . .if anything.

Anyhow, raising the Ross banner is a little odd, in context, as that flag would seem to be flown higher for Throne.

On raising banners, Gordon is now pitching to outdoorsmen, which is smart.  Unlike most of the local politicians who do this, moreover, he actually looks comfortable and genuine in the part, which says something.  He's now saying he'll fight to keep public lands in public hands, which is an evolution in his previously really vague statements which left him room to maneuver.  He still has that room, but not as much as before.  Wyomingites are overwhelmingly opposed to transferring the public lands and it would seem that the candidates are beginning to actually realize that.

I’m a lifelong sportsman. I’m a lifelong sportsman. As a habitat provider myself, I’m an active advocate for landowners, sportsmen and wildlife. It is critical to me that we enhance access to our public land and protect private property rights. As Governor, I’ll maintain a strong commitment to multiple-use land management. I’ll be a fierce advocate for Wyoming sportsmen, recreationists and all those who enjoy the wildlife, waters and scenic vistas of our own backyard: Fighting to keep public lands in public hands & protect multiple-use management Maintaining & enhancing access for hunters, anglers and recreationists Working to responsibly grow Wyoming’s outdoor recreation economy Defender of Second Amendment Advocate for grizzly hunt & responsible wildlife management   Gordon campaign flyer aimed at sportsmen.

Whatever they are realizing, recent materials arriving here at the door would also suggest that at least Galeotos has realized that embracing Trump is maybe not such a good idea, while Foster Freiss seems to be assuming the opposite.  Indeed, Freiss' advertisements read as if he's running for some Southern state, as they emphasize not only his conservatism but how appealing he thinks he is to Evangelical voters.  I have a dormant post on this that I should revive, but frankly there is not Evangelical voting block in Wyoming.  There are plenty of Protestants to be sure, but the role of religion and even the story of religion in Wyoming is distinctly different from most of the United States.  If a person was going to aim for voters who decide about candidates who are strongly informed by their religion here, you'd pitch to Catholics and Mormons, both of which are minority faiths in the state but both of which are well represented in the population and who do have large blocks that decide on social issues based on their religious views.  Pitching to Evangelicals on the other hand, while it will influence some, is not going to make enough of a difference to do all that much.  That tends to show that Freiss really doesn't grasp the state he's running to administer.

August 10, 2018

Last night Casper College hosted a debate sponsored by the Wyoming Wildlife Federation of the Gubernatorial candidates.

I really wanted to go to this, but at the time that this kicked off I was between Sheridan and Buffalo, so that was a no go.  I was encouraged when I therefore logged on to Facebook this morning and saw that a video of the debate was on the site.

To be followed by immediate discouragement.

This is the third of the various debates that have shown up on the net (one was a county commissioner's debate) in which the audio quality is 100% crap.  It's a lot easier to sit through bad video than audio.  Indeed, bad audio makes something like this nearly useless.

And this is an important topic.

Comments, I'll note, on this video support by view.  People were upset by the lousy audio.  They should have been.  A lot more people can view this on the net, and wanted to, than can attend in person. What was started as a really valuable service in terms of this debate has been pretty much wasted unless this can be addressed in some fashion, and this isn't the only instance of this.

On other news, for two days running I've received campaign mail from an organization styling itself "Protecting Our Constitution".  This one was more extreme than the last and makes the tenous connection that; 1) Mark Gordon was a member of the Sierra Club; and 2) the Sierra Club (it asserts) is taking some role in the current hearing hearings on the Kavanaugh nomination (it asserts) and 3) Planned Parenthood is taking some role (it asserts) so, therefore, Mark Gordon supports Planned Parenthood.

The logic train is really derailed on that one.

I don't have a clue who "Protecting Our Constitution" is, but they're really acting like bullies.  I suspect that they're accidentally helping Gordon as its hard not to sympathize with him having to put up with a bunch of stupidity of this type and its focusing attention on him that might otherwise be split between him and Galeotos.

August 15, 2018

Mark Gordon received former U.S. Senator Al Simpson's folksy endorsement in today's Casper Star Tribune.

How much that helps Gordon I can't say, but it sure can't hurt him.  Simpson is generally well liked and in his retirement he's been particularly willing to say some blunt things, albeit in a generally friendly, if oddly put, way.

In his endorsement he takes some wide swings at Gordon's opponents, dismissing Galeotos and Freiss as well meaning businessmen with no governing experience.  Harriet Hageman drew his folksy ire, and earned a nickname of "Hang-em Harriet".

Gordon has also picked up from the Wyoming Hunters & Anglers Alliance. This is the endorsement that, I think, I confused with the Wyoming Wildlife Federation the other day.  In fact the WWF doesn't do political endorsements due to its IRS status (501c3).  But the WH&AA does, and they came out for Gordon.  The organization is one of the sportsmen's groups that opposed any transfer of public lands and that figures in their endorsement.  Assuming its the same one I read the other day, it doesn't find Gordon perfect, but it does find him to be better than his competitors.

I suspect an endorsement like that has some teeth to it and reflects a building trend.  Sportsmen and outdoor folks were energized by last year's effort at public land grabbing by the legislature and have remained active.  Unfortunately, the GOP fielded no candidates at all that were really great on this issue, although Gordon has really been coming around, and it has two candidates that are really bad on this issue, with out, Taylor Haynes, simply off the charts (Haynes is one of those individuals who subscribed to an incorrect view of the Constitution in this area, a view that's infected a certain hard right element in the GOP in spite of the view being flatly wrong).  Those concerned about public lands have been really watching this race as a result and this may have an impact on the race.

Indeed, not only might it have an impact on the primary, but it will have one in the general election if Hageman manages to pull off a victory.  If she does, it will because Gordon and Galeotos are splitting the majority of votes against her, if you choose to look at it that way.  Indeed, at this point Dahlin and Friess really ought to drop out of the race as they're doing nothing other than to serve as spoilers in aid of a candidate they really don't share any views with. Anyhow, if that did occur, Throne will be the default candidate in the general election for those with strong views on the public lands.

August 16, 2018

Friess in the lead (or just bad polling)? 

According to a Tribune telephone poll, Foster Friess has pulled ahead in the final days of the campaign and is now in the lead, barely, with 21% of the votes.  Gordon is right behind him, within the margin of error, with 20%.  Harriet Hageman, whom the Tribune calls a "natural resources lawyer" has jumped up to 16.2%, riding a wave of late season nasty campaigning.  Galeotos has fallen way down to 9.5%.  Haynes is down to 5.7% and Dahlin is at the bottom with a completely hopeless 2.2%.

20% remain undecided.

Or are they?

I think I may actually have been called on this poll, but I hung up.  Yes I did.

Assuming it was the same poll, it was automated, and I don't speak to machines, so I didn't bother to answer.  I suspect anymore with a lot of these polls that approach is pretty common.  So we go un-polled.

Indeed, I quit responding to a poll that would call here regularly for awhile that had a real human being behind it as it was somewhat slanted and I don't like slanted polls.  I don't know that this one is, but the outfit that took it does apparently have reputation for being hard right. . . .but accurate.

This is the second poll in a couple of weeks that showed a big jump for Hageman, but the first, from the Laramie Boomerang, was just a call in.  Hageman was pulling twice the percentage in that one compared to this one. In this one, she's up about 6 points from where she was earlier in a Tribune poll, however.

Assuming this is accurate, which I'd frankly question, the big story might be the huge percentage of undecided voters.  Statistically, literally anyone could win in this race.  However, we know that Dahlin and Haynes will not.  Indeed, at this point, all Haynes is doing is acting as a spoiler for Hageman and all Dahlin is doing is taking up a tiny percentage of voters who should be going to somebody other than Hageman, likely Galeotos.

But if Galeotos has actually fallen to 9.5% (and if he's like most serious candidates, he has internal polling data and knows where he is.  If his own data confirms that, he likely ought to serious consider pulling out.  Almost all of his voters would go to Gordon and that that addition would almost certainly put Gordon over the top.

That might seem like a lot to ask a candidate, but in this really odd election year there are some seriously strange political winds.  I think it safe to say that Gordon, Galeotos and Friess all have a much different vision of the future of Wyoming than Hageman and Haynes.  If they're serious about their convictions, certain losers at this point ought to do a service to their views and bow out.  Otherwise they risk creating a Cheney result in which the least popular major contender wins because the two more popular ones split the vote.

In other news, Harriet Hageman, who went after Galeotos for taking government contracts turns out to have taken government contracts.

Former Wyoming Attorney General Pat Crank, a Republican who served in that capacity under Democrat Dave Freudenthal, came out noting that.  I'm not sure that Crank has a dog in this fight but he's made some correct statements about Hageman having taken a couple of legal projects with the state early in her career.  Hageman is trying to distinguish them noting that such legal work is not out of the norm for lawyers.

Nope, it's not.  But that's the entire point.  I already noted it, but a lawyer going after a businessmen for taking anything from the state is flat out weird.  We're licensed officers from the state to start with so we've taken our entire career from the state.  When I heard her make those statements I thought her vulnerable to that sort of criticism, and she turns out to be more vulnerable than I'd supposed.

August 17, 2018

The Wyoming Sportsmen for Public Lands has ranked the political candidates running this year.  Their post, which appears at least on Facebook, is as follows:

WE RANK THE GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATES AND RECOMMEND A "VOTING STRATEGY" FOR NEXT TUESDAY! After considering candidate statements submitted to us directly as well as information from other sources including newspaper interviews, written surveys, public appearances, and television advertisements we have ranked Democrat Mary Throne and Republican Mark Gordon as the gubernatorial candidates most favorable to public lands (see rankings below along with a short explanation).

The best case scenario for public land advocates would be for Ms. Throne and Mr. Gordon to advance to the November election. That would almost guarantee the new governor of Wyoming will be someone who is public lands friendly.

Unlike the Democratic race where Mary Throne, is almost certain to win Tuesday's primary, there's a lot competition in the GOP race. And a victory for one of the lower ranked GOP candidates could be catastrophic for public lands.

To help assure a friendly GOP face in the November election, we urge Democrats and Independents to consider voting Republican next Tuesday. We have checked with the Elections Office, and have confirmed it is possible to change party affiliation on primary election day and then switch back to your preferred party shortly thereafter. Changing party for the primary will enable you to vote for Mark Gordon with the additional benefit of being able to vote for Rod Miller and Dave Dodson who are strong public land advocates. PLEASE CONSIDER TEMPORARILY SWITCHING PARTIES! If you don't, there is good chance one of the unacceptable GOP gubernatorial candidates will advance to the November election.

Here are our rankings:

#1. MARY THRONE (D): Ms. Throne stands solidly against federal land transfer. She also understands the importance of federal lands in promoting a tourism economy. Perhaps most importantly, as a Democrat, she wouldn't be obliged to conform to the regressive GOP platform on federal lands.

#2. MARK GORDON (R): Mr. Gordon is the GOP candidate that best represents those who care about federal lands. He seems to understand that with careful planning we can have economic development and at the same time protect the wildlife, tourism, historic and scenic values our federal lands offer. We think he is the most sportsmen friendly GOP candidate.

#3. SAM GALEOTOS (R): Mr. Galeotos' intense focus on business and economic development may not bode well for federal lands. Some of his comments suggest he might not strike a good balance between conservation and development. For example, his TV commercials have repeatedly emphasized economic development while chastising EPA and BLM.

#4. FOSTER FRIESS (R): Mr. Friess supports the Federal Land Freedom Act currently being considered by Congress. That bill, if it passes, would essentially transfer federal lands minerals management to the states which would not be good for outdoor recreation. Furthermore it would exempt states from following the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Exemption from the Administrative Procedure Act would likely reduce opportunity for public comment.

#5. HARRIET HAGEMAN (R): Ms. Hageman is proposing to transfer management of one million acres of federal land to the state as an "incremental" approach to resolving land management issues. One million acres is roughly equivalent to the size of Medicine Bow National Forest. And the word "incremental" suggests she may want to transfer more at a later date.

#6. TAYLOR HAYNES (R): Mr. Haynes is an all out transfer advocate. Claiming highly questionable constitutional authority, he proposes transferring most of our 30 million acres of federal land to the State of Wyoming. He has even suggested that eventually that might include Yellowstone National Park.

#7: REX RAMMELL (I): It was a toss up between Mr. Haynes and Mr. Rammell as to who should be ranked last. Since they are both aggressive federal land transfer proponents, both are equally unacceptable.

In looking at their rankings, on this issue, I'd have to agree with their assessment.

One of the really interesting aspects of this post is that the group made this statement in it.

To help assure a friendly GOP face in the November election, we urge Democrats and Independents to consider voting Republican next Tuesday. We have checked with the Elections Office, and have confirmed it is possible to change party affiliation on primary election day and then switch back to your preferred party shortly thereafter. Changing party for the primary will enable you to vote for Mark Gordon with the additional benefit of being able to vote for Rod Miller and Dave Dodson who are strong public land advocates. PLEASE CONSIDER TEMPORARILY SWITCHING PARTIES! If you don't, there is good chance one of the unacceptable GOP gubernatorial candidates will advance to the November election.

That's the sort of thing that just sends diehard Republicans screaming into the aisles, but frankly that's a solid argument and makes perfect sense.  It's also perfectly fair. And apparently there's two groups running pleas of this type on Facebook now, with the other group urging the same thing on broader lines.

The reason that this is fair is that the entire primary system is incredibly stupid and has given us the institutional two party system which is also incredibly stupid.

Wyoming's primaries, like most in most places, are blended between real elections designed to narrow down the candidates for an office, and party elections that serve only the respective parties. When Wyomingites go to the polls next Tuesday they'll be voting for non partisan positions in some instances, and simply narrowing the field for the general election in the fall, and for members of a political party so that party can choose its candidate who will compete in November.  It makes no sense whatsoever to spend the public dime on a party election.

Political parties don't actually need to choose their candidates to run a person in a general election.  Indeed, the third parties, i.e., those parties too small and therefore poor to feed at the public trough in this fashion, don't. They just pick a candidate by their own means and run them.  But the Democrats and Republicans, being the big parties, make use of the primary system.

A person could argue that there's good and bad to this.  If candidates were simply chosen by the parties by their own devices the public would have less say, for example, in who a party ran for office, and that would be bad.  But at the same time we have to be honest that if its just thrown open to the voters then anyone must and should have a right to decide what party they're in at any one time.

Indeed, in recent years in Wyoming its been right wing Republicans who have really complained about this, but its well known that it works both ways, depending upon where you are.  And the death of the Democratic Party as a really viable party in Wyoming, and its repeated botched efforts at resuscitating it here due to the party always going fruity left when ever it starts to revive, has meant that the GOP has nearly become the only party (although frankly I think Mary Throne has a pretty good chance of pulling a Mike Sullivan this year).  That being the case, people who want a say it what happens have every right to register Republican and frankly maybe they ought to.  The Democrats are a lot more to blame for not being able to keep registered voters in their party than the GOP is, due to their slipping into the political grave over the past couple of decades, and that means that what would have been moderate Democrats probably only really have a home in the GOP.  Most of those who complain about this are hard right Republicans who have no real claim to their own party's traditional center and can be blamed just as much for seizing it away from the traditional GOP base.  Indeed, while I'm skeptical it will occur, there is a lot of speculation out there this year that nationally the GOP may be headed for the political emergency room due to it falling into disfavor with many over the past two years.

Anyhow, people who still register as Democrats most years in Wyoming are, I suspect; 1) people who just moved here and registered as Democrats from where they came from; 2) people who started registering as Democrats when they were young and have just stuck with it, even if it no longer reflects their politics; 3) people who are shocked by how hard right some elements of the GOP have become in the past decade and don't want to associate themselves with that and; 4) a few real Democrats.

Save perhaps for the fourth category (and I wouldn't even "save" that), registering as Republicans at the polls on Tuesday makes perfect sense and is perfectly fair.

This is, of course, even more the case for Independents.  Independents in Wyoming are basically the center and in prior years would have largely been Republicans.  They were driven out of both parties as they grew disgusted with the extremes.  Arguing for them to register as Republicans in the primary gives them a chance to participate in an election that was set up to be open and narrowing in the first place, on the public dime, and in actuality operates to return the GOP more to the center right where it traditionally has been.

I'm sure there will be some howling over this. But if either party doesn't like it, then they should require their candidates to be certified in a convention to run, and this wouldn't happen.  But then, some of the extremism we've seen in recent years likely wouldn't happen either.

 August 17, 2018, part two.

Senator John Barrasso has come out with a television advertisement featuring President Theodore Roosevelt and praising his "cowboy courage".

I suppose its the historian in me, but I'm often just floored that current Republicans will pay homage and try to draw some vicarious glory from Theodore Roosevelt.

Don't get me wrong, I love Theodore Roosevelt.  He was one of the greatest Presidents we ever had, and beyond that, he was a great man.

But Republicans who think he would have been impressed with a lot of the current GOP are flat out, out to lunch.

Indeed, Roosevelt battled with the conservative elements of his own party at the time. And I frankly doubt that he'd be too impressed with the GOP today.

Roosevelt was not a conservative.  And I'm saying that as a person who isn't a died in the wool liberal (I'm highly conservative on some things, somewhat liberal on others, in the middle on others).  By the end of his days, he was beyond being a liberal, he was a radical.  He proposed Federal intervention in the economy on an ongoing and continual basis at a level that's far, far beyond anything the Untied States has ever approach.  He championed liberal causes. . . rights for women, civil service exams, rights for blacks, well before it was popular.

And he was a diehard conservationist.

TR would have found John Barrasso's insertion into the last Republican platform of language transferring the Federal domain to the states a horror.  Indeed, Roosevelt withdrew land from homestead entry for conservation purposes with aggressive abandon.  I suspect that Roosevelt would have had unique Rooseveltian biting words for both Liz Cheney and John Barrasso, had he lived at the same time.

Now, before this goes to far, TR woudn't have been too impressed with the modern Democratic Party either, which nationally looks more and more like a Parlor Pink Trostskyite Tea Society, which is why that its probably setting itself up for failure in the Fall.

And I do think that we moderns ought to look at back at Roosevelt both with admiration and for guidance.  Indeed, it can be argued that he was the last truly great President we had (although his cousin Franklin Roosevelt, for all his failings, deserves that consideration as well).  And certainly most of us moderns could stand to consider The Strenuous Life as something we ought to live.  I think Roosevelt would be disappointed in us, and indeed I suspect that he is, looking down at us from his Final Reward.

But cite to him simply because he was a rancher and outdoorsman?

Hmmm.. . . if you are going to do that, well, perhaps following his example in numerous ways might be in order?

August 18, 2018

The Star Tribune endorsed Dave Dodson for the U.S. Senate in the primary race.

I don't know how much attention, if any, people pay to newspaper endorsements anymore.  At one time, they certainly did.  Indeed, some newspapers actually named themselves after political parties at one time.  For example, there was a Laramie Republican paper that competed with the Laramie Boomerang.

Be that as it may, the Tribune, even if it isn't what it once was, is still the largest paper in the state and its determination to endorse Dodson is really remarkable.

Dodson, to his credit, has run a really good campaign.  Sounding like a rich gadfly at first, he put out a lengthy item on his economic views, as the Tribune has noted.  And the Tribune, in a much more soft spoken way, basically agreed with Dodson that Barrasso, while he deserves accolades for his background, has focused more on his career in the GOP than on the concerns of the state.

It'l be really interesting to see how Dodson does on Tuesday.  Over time, quite a few sportsmen have come around to viewing him favorably, even if many of them won't vote for him.  Some definitely will, perhaps a lot will.  Earlier this week one of the news channels interviewed both Dodson and Barrasso.  I didn't see Dodson's interview, which was first, but it sounded like he had answers for Barrasso's attacks on him, which have mostly been that Dodson contributed money to Democratic candidates (Dodson apparently stated that a partner did it in their name).  Barrasso was very halting in his interview and was obviously way off his game, sounding flat footed and nervous.  He came around to the stock answer that Dodson had supported President Obama and what about "Obamacare", which by this point, two years into the Trump Administration, is pretty much a dead political letter. What about Obamacare, Senator Barrasso?  The Republicans are in charge. . . .

All of this makes Barrasso seem pretty vulnerable, but we'll see.  The charge that he hasn't done much is starting to stick and he's seen by many as an enemy of public lands.

Where the campaign hasn't gone very far, so far, is on social issues. Dodson hasn't committed on where he stands on life and death, pregnancy and the like and he appears to be avoiding it.  If he was wise, he'd come in right where Barrasso is, or perhaps a little to the right. \

August 19, 2018

And today, the Tribune endorsed Sam Galeotos.

This is frankly a surprise because, if poll results are correct, Galeotos' campaign has been flagging.  He was doing really well earlier, neck and neck with Gordon, but according to the last poll the Tribune reported, he'd slipped into fourth place recently.  Of course, that's not reason not to endorse him, but if we assume that reporting to be correct, that would mean that there's a real risk that Galeotos will serve to pull a Cheney in this race and boost Hageman over the bar (which in turn might put Throne over the bar in the Fall).

The Tribune endorsed him as he seems, in their view, the most realistic on the economy. And they may well be right.  He made at least one unfortunate campaign gaff, in my view, in trying to tack himself to Trump, which Friess has also done.  Friess, however, is shooting for a different set of voters than Galeotos.  Doing that may have very well cost Galeotos support in some quarters, with that supporting going over to Gordon.

August 21, 2018

And even on this election day we have an update, this being the final one for this edition.

The same sportsman's group that endorsed Gordon above came out yesterday with an endorsement for Kristi Racines for State Auditor.

The organization noted that as the State Auditor she'll sit on the board that makes decisions regarding public lands and that she's been a public lands supporter.  She's also a fourth generation Wyomingite who hunts and fishes.  Significant for the job, she's also an accountant.

Her competitor is Nathan Winters who is a legislator but who in his private life is a Baptist minister.  His qualifications seem limited to that.  As a legislator he apparently voted for a bill that favored land transfers to the state, according to the organization noted above.

This would seem, therefore, to set a pretty clear contrast between Racines and Winters.

In other news, Charles Hardy dropped out of the Senatorial race and endorsed Dodson.

Hardy's race had been so low volume that I'd actually forgotten that he was running. The real contest has been between Dodson and Barrasso and it's become that, a real contest.  Dodson, in spite of having a huge uphill battle, has picked up a lot of support, it seems, and now is really challenging Barrasso who has come out with a set of advertisements recently basically accusing Dodson of being a Democrat in disguise, which Dodson has countered.

One hopes that this was Hardy's final race.  He's run again and again and his switch to the Republican Party from the Democratic only tends to amplify the pathetic character of his repeat efforts.  As a really aged candidate and fairly liberal one he also, at this point, tends to amplify an aspect of American politics that is chaffing at various levels.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Related Threads:

Issues In the Wyoming Election. A Series. Issue No. 1 (e). The Economy again. . . what if we really don't want it to change?

The 2018 Wyoming Election. Volume Three

Issues In The Wyoming Election: An issue that won't be there. The Courts

Issues In The Wyoming Election. A Series. Issue(s) No. 2: The Social Issues.

Issues In the Wyoming Election. A Series. Issue No. 1 (d). The Economy again. . . Tourism. The fragile leg of the stool

Issues In the Wyoming Election. A Series. Issue No. 1 (c). The Economy again. . . Agriculture

Issues In the Wyoming Election. A Series. Issue No. 1(b). The Economy again. . . dare we say it. . . Government (shush). And, what's up with Wyoming's GOP hating the Federal Government?

Issues In the Wyoming Election. A Series. Issue No. 1 (a). The Economy again. . . the extractive industries

Issues In the Wyoming Election. A Series. Issue No. 1. The Economy  

The 2018 Wyoming Election. Volume Two

The 2018 Wyoming Election