The 2026 Election, 20th Edition. The 2026 Wyoming Primary Results.

 

August 18, 2026

Today is primary election day.

Quite a few of us have already voted of course, myself in cluded.

Early voting in Wyoming’s primary election trails historic 2022 contest, clerks say

Wyoming’s primary election live: The consequences of today’s election

This will bed a consequential day.  After the polls close, most of the races in Wyoming will have been determined.

The polls, for that matter, just opened.

August 19, 2026

Results are in.

Like most elections, it's a mixed bag. Some good results, and in this instance, some really awful ones.

Governor:

Erick Barlow trounced his opposition including Trump endorsed Megen Degenfelder.  A win for Wyoming and a loss for Trump and a major loss for the Wyoming Freedom Caucus.  The GOP/WFC endorsed Bien came in a career ending third.

A very good result.  Barlow was the only good candidate, and stands to be a better Governor than Governor Gordon.

Senate:

Harriet Hageman, in spite of holding views on public lands and being fairly nasty publicly, handily beat out her competition.  She'll face Democrat James Byrd whom is likely to lose, but who would win this contest in any normal situation.

A very bad result.

Wyoming will regret this choice, and almost immediately, if it sticks and Byrd doesn't win, which he's not likely to in spite of being the clearly better candidate.

House:

Chuck Gray took a minority of overall votes but more than anyone else to squeak by with 25.4% of the vote./  Friess came in second with 20% and Christensen just behind him.

How anyone could vote for Gray is a complete mystery.  75% of Wyoming Republican voters didn't.

He'll face Lisa Kinney who will lose.  Gray will be our horrific complete Trump sycophantic Congressman.  He'll be the worst Congressman in the state's history.

A very bad result.  My guess is that he might be a one term Congressman, bucking the normal Wyoming trend. 

Secretary of State

Robert Short won beating out WFC Rachel Williams.  Wiliams was the titular head of the WFC, and her career is now over.

He'll face Bryan McCarthy, who will lose.

A very good result.

Superintendent of Public Instruction

Harsham easily beat his opponents and will win in the fall.

He'll face Ana Cordova, which is surprising.  She's likely a good candidate, but will lose.

Local races.

Really interesting results locally. The night was a disaster for the well funded Freedom Caucus.

Freedom Caucus candidates in Natrona County were trounced.  Bob Ide was sent packing, which was a great result.  Tony Locke was booted.  Jayme Lien was booted.  Jeanette Ward lost big to Elissa Campbell in her bid to recapture her seat.  Allemand retained his seat by only eight votes, which is pathetic and surprising.

Major Freedom Caucuser John Bear is out, a huge defeat for the WFC.

Elsewhere, Ogden Driscoll kicked out Freedom Caucus member Neiman

Melissa Butcher kicked out WFC member Ken Pendergraft.

Eve Brennan booted Daniel Singh, a WFC member.

Conservative Republican Albert Sommers is back in the House.

All in all the Wyoming Freedom Caucus lost at least fourteen seats in the legislature with two of its main figures, Ide and Bear, going down in defeat.  Reps. Steve Johnson, Tony Locke, Ocean Andrew, Ken Pendergraft, Marlene Brady, Jayme Lien, Nina Webber, Mark Jennings, Gary Brown, Daniel Singh, Ann Lucas, Robert Wharff and Darin McCann, Chip Neimann and Sen. Bob Ide, all lost.

A very good result.

In the Natrona County Commissioner GOP race, where six candidates advance, ancient Dallas Laird took the highest number of votes, which is franky bizarre.  The other candidates advancing aren't too surprising.

An interesting night, and a bit difficult to explain.  At the statewide level, the voters made a hard correction towards the center, where as for Congress, they sent two people who don't represent Wyoming's views, and one who is a pathetic sycophantic liar.

Of course, the general is yet to come, but it's very difficult to imagine Lisa Kinney, who is ancient, beating screaming whiner Chuck Gray, even though 75% of Wyomigites voted against Gray.  It's not impossible to imagine Byrd defeating Hageman, but it'll be hard.

August 20, 2026

The impact of Tuesday's primary in Wyoming is still being widely discussed.  The rejection of the WFC was on the historic level.

They are not all taking it well.

As earlier noted, they're back out of control of the House having suffered an election massacre and have reduced influence in the Senate.  Their members are pouting and declaring that they'll come back, which they will not, and that they have had a positive impact on Wyoming, which they haven't.

Some news articles:

In Wyoming’s G.O.P. Primaries, an Emphatic Rebuke of the Hard Right

Nine of 10 Republican candidates tied to ‘Checkgate’ lost in Wyoming’s primary

In stunning upset, Wyoming Freedom Caucus loses most of its House seats, backslides in Senate

Near-Total Massacre For Freedom Caucus In Wyoming Primary

Wyoming Freedom Caucus Says It’s Not Dead After Devastating Primary Losses

It's dead.

The Great Wyoming Freedom Caucus Massacre — By The Numbers

Freedom Caucus Champion John Bear Upended By Political Newcomer In Campbell County

Majority Floor Leader & Founding Member Of Freedom Caucus Scott Heiner Ousted

Freedom Caucus Leader Ken Pendergraft Ousted From Sheridan County Senate Seat

Rock Springs Fire Chief James Wamsley Knocks Down CheckGate's Darin McCann

UW Professor Cameron Wright Defeats Incumbent Ocean Andrew in Laramie's HD 46

Ogden Driskill Beats Chip Neiman, Says It's A "Solid Rejection Of Freedom Caucus"

On the Freedom Caucus, right now it's defeated members seem to largely be a state of shock, but as noted, there's some angry defiance there.  The WFC posted this:

The broadside is more than a little ironic.  The WRC liked to defend its extremism by claiming that the voters had elected them and it was the will of the people.  Now, the will of the people has shown them the door, and they're saying they're not leaving.

As a movement, they will be.

And much of what they did in the legislature, which was darned little, will pass like a fart in a windstorm.

It's a shame, frankly, that most of the carpetbaggers who represented the face of the movement won't be packing up and moving back to where they acquired their extremism.  This election should have informed them that the Wyoming they live in isn't the imaginary one that they thought they did.  The far right tends to be delusional, but a defeat of this magnitude is such that a delusion will be hard to maintain.

Still, one of the first Freedom Caucusers in the legislature, who lost her position two years ago and lost again this week, Jeanette Ward, commented that it was "curious" that she lost as it didn't reflect her canvassing results which shows that people who answer doors are a lot more politie to visiting politicians than I am.

On the Freedom Caucus/MAGA hard right, it turns out that fifty Republican Sheridan County voters tried to change how votes were counted by getting the county to conceded that its electronic voting was out of date and revert to the really out of date hand counting, giving the county less than a week to accede to their demands.  Almost all of the signatories to the letter signed it on August 9 and were members of Cowboy Church of the Big Horns, which was founded by Mark Jennings, who was running for House District 30.

I have another thread I'm working on regarding the association of the Evangelical hard right with the conspiratorial thinking of MAGA/hard right/WFC, but this provides an example.  The church proclaims itself to be "Nondenominational Bible-based Worship" which means it is denominational and a member of a minoritarian view of Christianity that's common in the US.

The incoming legislature will return to sanity.  Before we get there, however, we have the outgoing legislature holding hearings on proposed legislation now, and will all the way until the new legislature convenes.  The Freedom Caucus influence in those has been felt, but by the same token its been muted as they never controlled the Senate.  This probably kills off Freedom Caucus bills for the 2027 legislature, although it may also mean that they'll work to stall any bills contrary to their desires as well.

The next session is a budget session.

Tempering the general rejoicing over the death of the Freedom Caucus has been the bad news on the primary victories of Gray and Hageman.

On the costs of that:

Primary Election Winners: Curt Meier Got The Best Deal Per Vote, Chuck Gray The Worst

Distress over Gray's victory is widespread.  He only took 25% of the vote and a lot of Wyomingites are not happy about his winning the primary. There's already serious discussion of a write in campaign for Kevin Christensen.

Some disaffected Republicans are indicating that they'll vote for Democratic nominee Lisa Kinney.  I'm sure some will, but Kinney is a weak candidate and stands very little chance of beating Gray.  Christensen would stand a real chance.  It'll be interesting to see how this develops.  Suffice it to say a large number of Republicans are unhappy with Gray's candidacy and its pretty clear but for the vote splitting he would have gone down with the rest of the Freedom Caucus.

Hageman would not have.

Hageman took 65% of the GOP votes in the primary, which is not only stunning, it's mysterious.  Sam Mead seemed to be a good candidate, but he took 28%, well below expectation.

Hageman took 70% of the vote in the general election for House two years ago, riding on a Trump endorsement and the sudden outbreak of far right hatred of Liz Cheney.  A disadvantage that Cheney had which is often missed is not only that she stood up for what was right, but she had been a plurality candidate in her first run for the House, like Gray, and she was a carpetbagger, like Gray.  Indeed, I was very much opposed to her early on and only came to respect her as she grew into her office in her last two terms.  Be that as it may, she was an import branded by the GOP as a Wyomingite and only got in as the vote was split between two other good candidates originally.

Again, note the similarities to Gray there.

Anyhow, Hageman has been a horrible Congressman, supporting anti public lands positions in the GOP while being anti science.  That she did so well is really hard to explain.

She's facing James Byrd in the general.election.

Byrd is a Democrat from a Democratic family, but his platform reads like that of a Republican.  In his campaign website he states:

James Byrd is a native son of Wyoming, a man who has spent his life working on the front lines of our state. With a distinguished career spanning business leadership and public service, James brings a deep understanding of the challenges facing our families. His platform is built on the core values of transparency, economic resilience, and the unwavering protection of Wyoming’s unique heritage.

James has proven his ability to deliver results under pressure. He is running for the United States Senate to act as a fierce advocate for our energy independence, rural education, and veteran support services. His vision for the future is as bold as the Wyoming landscape itself, focused on creating a legacy of prosperity for generations to come. Join James in fighting for the heart and soul of Wyoming.

Any Republican could have stated the same thing on his website.

Not only that, but Byrd has strong Wyoming credentials.  Hageman is a fourth generation Wyomingite, but Byrd is a fifth generation son of the state, which is phenomenal.  He was a geophysicist who worked for the Compagnie Générale de Géophysique and British Petroleum Amoco before going into high tech in the 1980s.  He served in the legislature up until 2018.

Operating against him is that he's a Democrat. That shouldn't matter, but in Wyoming it will. . . or perhaps we might say might.  Hageman can't take him on, really, on anything else in regard to his declared positions which means that Hageman will resort to ignoring him at first, and then accuse him of being from the far left, which he isn't.  As a last ditch fall back she'll claim that electing Byrd will help flip the Senate to the Democrats which would be betraying the Dear Leader.

Hageman is going to have to handle her disdain for public lands and science.  Byrd will have to handle the Democrats general positions on social issues.  He'd be well advised to surprise Hageman by saying he's opposed to abortion (I don't know that he is) and to transgenderism (and I don't know his position on that).  That might upset some true hardcore Democrats but it would leave Hageman floundering on inflation, disdain of public lands, an illegal war in the Middle East and that she's genuinely not likeable.

That should give Republicans a reason to cross over and vote for him frankly. And some will.  Hageman, as noted, drew 70% of the vote in the last election, when pro Trumpism and anti Cheneyism were at peak levels.  Now that Wyomingites have returned to conventional conservatism Hageman will not do as well.  But overcoming her simply being a Republican will be hard to do.

In other races, former Democratic U.S. Representative Mary Peltola  of Alaska will advance to the general election for U.S. Senate in Alaska in that state's unique election system.  She'll facie incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan and two other candidates, one of whom might be another Dan Sullivan.

Alaska's system is unique in that it uses ranked choices.  So, you can vote for your favorite and second favorite.  If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and voters that ranked that candidate first have their vote counted for their next choice.  Peltola has a really good chance of winning.

Her campaign is using the catchphrase The fight for "Fish, Family, Freedom" which is a really good one.  I wish some Wyoming candidate stood for that.  Chuck Gray's, as far as we can tell, is "drill baby drill but oppose any industry which it seems that Wyomingites might be against while kissing Donald Trump's ass."  Hageman's comes across as "Shut up, I"m smarter than you and a Republican".

Peltola booted back an effort by Kamala Harris to supporter her, which was wise, but also shows her political savvy.

In Florida DSA member Angie Nixon, who had just joined the DSA recently and then didn't campaign on its issues, defeated the much better-funded former national security official Alexander Vindman, for the Democratic Senatorial ticket reflecting a turn to the left in Florida, the state that Trump claims to be his home state.  She'll face Republican Senator Ashley Moody in November in a special election for the final two years of former Senator Marco Rubio’s term.  Trump backed African American Republican Byron Donalds won the GOP nomination to succeed term-limited Governor Ron DeSantis.  He'll face former Republican turned Democrat David Jolly.  Other Florida races are difficult to gauge as the legislature redrew Florida's election map in an effort to wipe out their Democrats in the House of Representatives.  Suffice it to say, if the Democrats are in control in 2028, preventing this short of gerrymandering will be a priority for them.

On a really minor note, Stephanie Kessler, long associated with conservation efforts in the state and Fremont County, was elected to the Fremont County Commission.

And with this, which was focused on this week's' primaries, we'll end this edition and go on to a new one.

August 21, 2026

Addressing one of the WFC's favorite bogeymen:

No, Closet Democrats Didn't Nominate Republican Barlow For Gov., Politicos Say

It's really the WFC, which is a Dixiecrat group, that are not real Republicans.

An interesting one:

Libertarian Party Nominates Republican Cale Case And Democrat Karlee Provenza

And also Bob Ide, defeated WFC member.

There would seem to be very little in common between those three candidates, but apparently the Libertarians see otherwise.  Case and Ide are Republicans (Ide's a Dixiecrat), Provenza a well known Albany County Democrat.  

Apparently the law doesn't allow for a party to be nominated by two parties, although the fact that the Libertarians are a third party means they can pretty much do it and nothing will happen to them.  The names won't appear for both parties on the ballots, however and in Ide's case, unless he changes parties, it won't appear at all.

Anyhow, the law precluding that is likely unconstitutional.  I doubt anyone will challenge it right now, but it is.  This practice, fwiw, is not uncommon in some states and it used to be quite common in the US.

August 22, 2026.

Barlow reports that following his election to the Governor's office (yes, I know a Democrat is running, but he might as well not be) he visited with  Megan Degenfelder, received a “nice message and text” from Curt Blake, but has heard from Brenth Bien.

Figures, somehow.

Sometimes money doesn't work:

PAC That Spent $550K Helping Freedom Caucus Had 87% Failure Rate

On past crimes:

One Wyoming lawmaker with criminal history loses reelection bid. Another ekes out a victory.

Alleman's reelection is really a blight on his district.

Not too surprisingly, election post mortems are being written:

Rod Miller: Tuesday Night Massacre And Life In Post-Freedom Caucus Wyoming

The Wyoming Freedom Caucus can blame itself for its resounding defeat

In more ways than one:

Campaign Signs Are Classified As Trash By All Of Wyoming's Municipalities

In California, Progressive California state Sen. Aisha Wahab won a special election to serve the remainder of Rep. Eric Swalwell’s term in the US Congress.  She defeated a centrist AIPAC backed Democrat.

This is a developing story in the upcoming 2027 general election.  A lot of people are really sick of unquestioned US support for Israel and a major backlash to it is forming.

August 23, 2026

Lien asked for a recount which was held yesterday, confirming that she lost.

August 24, 2026

Albany County went for Harriet Hageman, but not Chuck Gray

In all races other than the Republican primary for U.S. House, Albany County tracked the state vote. Moderate Republican candidates won by greater margins in Albany County.

FWIW Teton County overwhelmingly voted for Christensen.

And this concludes this primary results edition.

Last edition:

The 2026 Election, 20th Edition. Primary Voting Commences Edition. Vote like your future and that of your state depends on it, because it does, part four.

Labels: 2020s, 2026, 2026 Election, Check Gate, Chuck Gray, Eric Barlow, Kevin Christensen, Politics, Robert Short, Samuel Mead, Steve Friess, Steve Harshman, Wyoming, Wyoming Freedom Caucus

This is why we can't have nice things. "You can't vote for a third party". Oh yes, you can.

This view is precisely why American democracy is so screwed up

No Labels, no fables, no third-party betrayals

All Americans who believe in democracy must unite behind Joe Biden.

Robert Reich is here to tell you, along with every other Democratic pundit, that if you aren't voting for Joe Biden, you are a traitor to democracy.  Indeed, he states:

Let me be absolutely clear. Third-party groups such as No Labels and the Green Party are in effect front groups for Trump in 2024, and should be treated as such.

That's BS.

Let's be frank, the Democratic Party's love of democracy was rediscovered during the insurrection.  At that point, it suddenly realized that anti-democratic forces are bad.  Prior to that, and even now, what it really is for is rule by Liberal Ivy League Educated Judges. 

The Democrats regard voters as besotted fools.  They have for years, with it really becoming apparent following 1973's Roe v. Wade decision. They still feel that way. They hate the thought that courts can't descend from wooden walls and tell the peasantry what to think.

One of the things that they hate the most about recent years is that the Supreme Court has torn down some totally defective prior decision and told the people that they'll just have to figure things out for themselves. The Court, for example, hasn't "taken away" a non-existent "right to abortion". There was never one. The Court could have decided, on natural law principles, that abortion is contrary to the laws of nature on an existential basis and declared a right to life, but it didn't do that, in spite of all the howling.  It just said that people, through their state legislatures, have to figure this out for themselves.

The Democrats hate that thought, and for good reason.  It means that in many places, if left to their own devices, people would decide all sorts of things that Democrats regard as individualistic rights aren't. And the reason is plain. The driving force of the Democratic Party essentially believes that if you regard yourself as a feline asexual Bhutanese princess, you should be able to force everyone else to agree with you.  Most people just don't think that way, however.  

That doesn't mean that Trump should be elected, either. The GOP has abandoned democracy in favor of authoritarianism, and that always leads to disaster.  The dirty little secret as to why Trump has so much support in the rank and file of the GOP isn't because most Republicans believe the election was stolen, no matter what they say, but rather than they've grown so disgusted with the Democratic Party and establishment Republicans that they no longer regard Democrats or establishment Republicans as legitimate, and therefore don't think they should count.  Indeed, we have gotten to where we are at as the Democrats regard voters as unwashed vulgarians who should merely be entertained with the thought their votes mean something, the country club Republicans regard the electorate as mindless consumers whose opinions don't count, and a certain section of that electorate just has  had enough of it. 

In other words, the Democrats viewed the electorate as too stupid to influence anything, and the Republicans viewed them as Walmart customers only.

That this may mean the end of American democracy is both parties' fault.

That either of those parties would now have the gall to suggest that parties that actually reflect people's views shouldn't be voted for is maddening.  If we'd had parties that actually reflected people's views all along, we wouldn't be here now.  And the thought that the diversity of political opinion can be summed up with two choices is flatly bizarre.

The argument, by either party, that "you must vote for us or else it's Trump" is an argument of last resort.  The challenge for the Democrats isn't to present Biden as the only choice to Trump, but to give the voters somebody they feel comfortable with. Somebody who isn't 80 years old and hasn't gone so far to the left.  The challenge for Republicans, which may be a party that is now too far gone, is to give us somebody who will really do conservative, but not fascist, things rather than just say they will.

And frankly, the challenge for American democracy is to make a choice between Republicans and Democrats much, much less important. Why aren't there members of the Green Party and the American Solidarity Party in Congress?   Why do the Paul's run as Republicans when they're really Libertarians?  Why does Bernie Sanders "caucus" with the Democrats when he should be looking for a Socialist to join him? These are questions that shouldn't have to be asked.

The Libertarian Party on child gender "reassignment".

This is really remarkable:

Libertarian Party

@LPNational

·

Follow

We categorically oppose all sex reassignment surgeries for children. It's child abuse, and no child can consent to such a thing.

1:58 PM · Dec 21, 2022

The Libertarian Party, which we don't usually associate with calls for regulation, here is taking a stand for nature.

They are correct.  Allowing gender "reassignment" surgery for minors is irreversible in its effects, permanently damaging, normally regretted, and child abuse.

The fact that it's allowed at all is insane.

Why won't Harriet Hageman debate?

Wyoming doesn't need a coward. Wyoming needs a leader, Wyoming needs a voice, Wyoming needs people who are able to stand up to anybody and anyone.

Lynette Gray Bull.

The candidates for Wyoming's lone seat to the Congress, less Harriet Hageman, debated last night.

October 14, 2022

A debate of candidates for the U.S. House, save for Harriet Hageman, occurred last night.

Hageman was castigated by the other candidates for her failure to appear, which is either rude, arrogant, or cowardly.  At least one candidate called her actions cowardly.

Hageman needs to be heard from on her failure to debate, and not with the excuse that she has other more effective means of communicating with Wyomingites. So far, more or less, her campaign has been limited to the fact that she supports now subpoenaed Donald J. Trump no matter what, whereas Liz Cheney has the courage of her convictions.  Other than having united herself to Trump no matter what, there's nothing really known to distinguish her from Cheney, but the voters really haven't heard much from her otherwise in a widespread way.  Public forum's she's attended to date have been principally populated with Hageman Fans/Cheney Haters, so that does not suffice.

How do we answer the question posed in the title of this post?

Well, the short answer is because Harriet Hageman has said "no" to a debate, but that obviously doesn't suffice.

Lawyers, which Hageman is, generally are regarded as liking to debate, or at least being comfortable with it.  Indeed, a common unthinking reply to "why should I become a lawyer" or "why did you become a lawyer" is 1) well I like to debate, and to get paid for debating, or the related 2) well I like to argue, and to get paid for arguing. . .   In truth, lots of lawyers like to do neither, but Hageman has boosted herself in her campaign by portraying herself as a wild vigilante jurist gunning down the horrible agents of Federal repression.

Harriet Hageman stopping agents of the United States Fish & Wildlife Service.

Truth be known, as a native Wyomingite, a lot of the big evil enemies she cites as having been taken on by her in her role as Litigator of the Golden West are agencies I like.  I have a hard time hating, for example, the United States Fish & Wildlife Service.  And the two times I've encountered her in a legal setting since 1990 didn't involve the Federal Government at all, although one did involve the super wealthy, who happened to be her client.  But I digress.

My point is, here, that abstaining from debating requires some sort of reason, and the reasons are few.

Before we look at those reason, we should consider something.

Hageman hasn't campaigned on any issues at all.

Her campaign was based solely on attacking Liz Cheney for voting to impeach Donald Trump and then going on to be his opponent in Congress.  Cheney stood on principles and on that, Hageman used the opportunity to advance herself, and successfully, so far.

In the process, for months she was actually very reluctant, unlike her opponents in the House race, to say that Trump won the election, which he didn't.  When pressed, she took refuge in having "questions".

Missed in that response is that it's a lawyer witness answer.  It's the classic Clintonesque "It depends on what the meaning of is, is."  It's a hair-splitting dodge.  Literally every single person on Earth can claim to have questions about the election as life is uncertain, and a person can harbor doubts about literally anything human's do, which doesn't mean they're reasonable.  A person can have questions if the sun will explode today, if you will die of a heart attack tonight, if your Welsh Corgi will suddenly remember he descends from wolves and rip your throat out, or whatever.

Bulldog editor, or perhaps as he would have preferred Irish Wolf Hound editor, of the Tribune in its glory days, Phil McCauley.  Photo linked in from his 2009 obituary.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, there isn't the Fifth Estate muscle to really run that to ground. The Tribune in the days of Phil McCauley would have harassed her on that to the point of tears, but that didn't of course occur.  She had "questions".

Well, anyhow, only at the bitter end, after being endorsed by Trump, and pressed at a Casper Politics In The Park did she relent to fully selling her soul and saying the election had been stolen.  She handily beat Cheney on that topic alone, with her enthusiastic supporters believing that she believes what they believe, thereby feeding into their beliefs for her personal advantage.

One is reminded of the classic line from A Man For All Seasons when Richard perjures himself:

Sir Thomas More: Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?

She's been really quiet since the Primary.

This assumes, of course, that she knows the truth, which frankly is my assumption.

Since that time, and after the primary election, she received a letter from forty-one Wyoming lawyers asking her to stop lying about the election being stolen.  Quixotically branded the "Wyoming 41" by the Democratic primary candidate Steve Helling, who ran as a pro Trump Democrat (his campaign made next to no sense and received next to no support), they asked her, in a private letter, to quit lying.  Her reply was practically unhinged, accusing them of being part of a nationwide plot to discredit Trumpite candidates by holding them to their oaths.  The Wyoming 41 denied that, and frankly the accusation was absurd, and in turn wrote her back, this time with 52 signators on the letter.¹   She didn't reply to that one.

And she's not replying much to anyone else in any really visible fashion.

Her current quietness may simply because she knows she's almost certain to be elected, and she just doesn't want to bother.  But if that's the case, what would it hurt. Sure, she may very well have no need to debate, but if that's the case, debating can't possibly hurt her.

Or maybe it can.

Lynette Gray Bull is a very effective speaker and preformed very well against Cheney two years ago.  At that time, she received 25% of the vote, and she'll receive more this time.  It's difficult to imagine her adding another 25% to defeat Hageman, but maybe Hageman is worried that in a debate that will bring the difference between the two into sharp focus, she might.^2 3

Since the primary, the January 6 committee has resumed and Trump is going to receive a subpoena to go to the Committee. That will appear on prime-time television, and he'll look like a strange liar.  He's going to resist going, of course.  Maybe being Trump's anointed will have just as much cache a month from now as it now does, but it's not guaranteed.  

But beyond that, maybe Hageman's real career history and the issues that raises would also come up.  She's been an enemy by her own statements of the things most Wyomingites love.  An ally only of development and use, she's unlikely to be seen as a friend of hunters, fishermen and people who just love the outdoors.  A product of southeastern Wyoming, which has generally been a hard core "it's my property stay off" portion of the state, she may well fear what that would mean.

She has the social issues of course, with Gray Bull being much to the left of her, and presumably outside the main from where most Wyomingites are, but she might also recall, given her age, a Wyoming which really wasn't very conservative on those issues.  Maybe being pro gun doesn't mean much in a state where the Democrats are also pro gun.  Maybe the remaining social issues like abortion and gender issues don't have as much cache with rank and file voters as presumed.  Maybe just raising those issues, in a public forum, on a stage in which the one candidate has children and the other doesn't, where one candidate is young, and the other isn't, and where both affect Native items in their dress, but one is indigenous, and the other isn't, creates problems she doesn't care to have come up.

And maybe she's not confident in her in own debating skills in front of an audience that isn't canned against a debater who has no choice but to debate, and who is good at it.

Anyway it's looked at, it's inexcusable.  Hageman should debate.

Footnotes:

1. The fifty-two signatures actually reflects more than 52 lawyers actually supporting the overall effort, as some of the original "Wyoming 41" didn't sign the second time as their noted public roles with various institutions was causing those institutions to receive complaints. 

2.  If Grey Bull doesn't pull in 33% this time, I'd be surprised.  That would really be only a modest increase in her toll.  Imagining 35%, or even 40%, isn't unreasonable.

3.  Hageman has given Grey Bull a gift in that Grey Bull can now accuse Hageman of being an outright coward and Hageman can do little about it.  Calling somebody out for a verbal duel can't really be adequately responded to except by engaging in a verbal duel, at which point your prior decline amounts to an admission of sorts.