I’ve been here since 8AM and I have to admit I’m running low on energy and attention span. 
Unfortunately, the first questioning session of the top 10 consisted of rather general questions that lent themselves to repetitive statements from each and every candidate. By the time that round was over, even the candidates I liked were annoying me — by no fault of their own! Other Republicans I’ve talked to agree that the last questioning session was disappointingly vague and repetitive. I know when Fremont County had to replace State Senator Peck, they went through that entire process in just a few hours of one evening. And as one Republican said, they really separated the wheat from the chaff. Not so here.
My opinions on who I like (and who I don’t like) haven’t really changed all day and have actually just been reinforced. My favorites are still Micheli and Sansonetti. Barrasso has come out strong, as have Kruse and Asay. Moore is pretty mediocre to me and same for Lummis. Simpson is really coming off as a too-smooth slimy defense lawyer - and I’m glad - because that’s what he is! Luthi has just seemed really weak… he’s a very nice guy, but not Senator material, in my not so humble opinion. 
Matt Mead is doing alright, but he’s still not pro-life enough for me and I don’t think he’s strong enough to beat Micheli and company.
Either way, what’s done is done and without further ado, it looks like Mr. Parady is ready to make an announcement…
The Top 5 are…
- Sansonetti
- Barrasso
- Micheli
- Lummis
- Luthi and Mead tied - Results of the run-off will be posted as soon as they are counted.
Votes: Asay 14, Barrasso 59, Kruse 30, Lummis 37, Luthi 31, Mead 31, Micheli 40, Moore 25, Sansonetti 60, Simpson 28.
UPDATE: Mead has beat Luthi with 42 to 29 votes.
Sphere: Related Content
Hi tieki rae: (still doing a good job I see)
“Matt Mead is doing alright, but he’s still not pro-life enough for me and I don’t think he’s strong enough to beat Micheli and company.”
Would he vote against a Republican President’s nomination for SCOTUS that was expected to be a constructions judge (i.e. anti Roe v Wade)?
Would he vote in favor of a Democratic President’s nomination for SCOTUS that was expected to be a revisionist judge (i.e pro Roe v Wade)?
Otherwise his personal views are irrelevant in that he has no other power in the universe of the abortion debate.
Steve - I’m not really sure about Mead’s stance on judges. I do think he’s a strict constructionist, so we’d probably be fine on the SCOTUS, but it would be incredibly important in the Senate. Consider the partial-birth abortion ban and other similar pieces of legislation. If they weren’t so spineless, they could be incredibly effective. Either way, Mead didn’t make it to the top 3 so we don’t have to worry.
I’m for Micheli. Sansonetti and I share closer views (according to Tieki/Sunflower Desert analysis… I’ve found no information on the story outside the ‘Wyoming Gal Syndicate’), but Micheli has the cooler name. That’s got to count for something.
Could you tell the uninformed (me, for example) why a Democrat Governor would appoint a Republican Senator? Is it Wyoming law that they have to replace from the original party?
Kevin - you should check out my updated posts.
But yes, it is WY law that the late Senator’s party nominate three candidates for consideration by the Governor and the Governor will make the final decision as to which of the three will take office.
I’ve got you and Sunflower Desert on RSS, so don’t see your updates :(… Thanks for the info, and wow, that’s a good law!