Cinhil wrote: I want to point out that regardless of personal opinion it is inappropriate to bring religion into the picture when discussing politics.
I generally agree. But there are times when it does matter. Hatch does have some support based on his past service an LDS Bishop. I believe there are also LDS cultural issues that favor incumbents over challengers. I call it the "support and sustain" mentality. We saw a lot more of it last Saturday than we did two years ago. Delegates were quite happy to support the chairman in most everything he did. Don't get me wrong, Wright did a great job. But anyone who has attended conventions over the years sees the difference between a group of delegates who are willing to exercise authority over their employees, vs those who are going to support and sustain their "leaders". Of course LDS membership does not dictate this. I fully expect that the TEA party types 2 years ago were just as likely to be LDS as the group of senior citizens this year. But there are some differences in political views and culture.
I am LDS but that has never led me to vote for anyone whether they were Catholic, Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness or a Mooney.
Fully agreed. In fact, I tend to be a bit harder on candidates I know to be LDS as I figure they share some common, core moral beliefs and if they are not solid on those issues, I have less tolerance than if I could convince myself their differences arose from sincere religious or moral beliefs.
I am not going to state one way or the other as to how I voted in the race with Lillenquist and Hatch but I will say I voted the way my Precinct desired. If I were on the wrong end of that vote I would be educating myself even further concerning them both and if required I would change that vote in the primary election. That said, as I have said here before, I vote according to the will of my precinct as well as educate myself on every candidate before convention. The Primary Election, if one is to be held as will be this year, is my opportunity to vote as I would regardless of any previous vote. I feel this is the appropriate manner to do what I was elected to do - represent the will of my precinct.
I will disagree with you here. If your job were to merely represent the (mostly uninformed) will of your precinct, there is no good reason for the caucus/convention process. Simply hold an open primary and let your precinct express its will directly. The job of a delegate is to become informed and to then cast his votes for the best candidates. One might take the view of wanting to vote the way you believe your precinct would vote IF
the precinct were to be as well informed as the delegate is. But becomming informed should naturally change our positions in many cases.
As an example, I knew almost nothing about Mia Love or Lijenquist before caucus night. After becoming informed of their records and positions, both had my second round vote in their respective races. I assure you, that come convention day, the vast majority of voters in my precinct, even the majority who attended caucus meeting, did not know a thing about Kirkham or Skokas. Most could not have picked Herrod out of a lineup if their lives depended on it.
Furthermore, while the individual secret ballot has some real advantages, I always kind of laugh when delegates are not comfortable sharing their votes. Delegates are not voting for themselves. They are representing their precincts. As far as I'm concerned, keeping delegates' votes secret makes about as much sense as letting your city council members or State legislators cast votes in secret.
Here are my vote and reasons in brief (I am a State delegate for the Utah GOP):
Hough and Mickelsen for national committee man/woman. Both have done a great job according to those I trust who are in the know of such things and I'm comfortable returning both for another turn. At least one challenger, Lord, did a terrible job the one time she held the position, and has actually attacked the party with a frivolous lawsuit.
Governor: First round vote for Sumsion. Second round vote for Philpot. Herbert simply has lead out. I know and like Philpot personally and he has a good record, but I believe Sumsion would have been better. I think a primary against a conservative challenger might have been good for Herbert and the State. For naught as Herbert won the nomination.
AG: Swallow. He has a solid record. Reyes speaks a little better and shows well and says all the right things. But some research has revealed he may not be saying what he has done in the past. He seems to support "diversity" and may well have played a significant roll in undermining efforts for Utah to discourage illegal aliens from coming here. I support Swallow in the primary and general elections.
US Senate: Herrod on first round, Lijenquist on second round. Herrod is solid conservative. Lijenquist is not nearly so conservative, but has a good record on fiscal matters which is where he focused. Hatch has not been a leader on anything good in longer than I can remember. He gives far too much deference to democrat presidents appointing liberal judges. He almost single handedly put Gingsberg on the bench when the Senate could have and should have pushed Clinton for a Kennedy-like moderate instead. At the very least, Hatch needed a primary.
4th CD: Wimmer in first round; solid conservative record, solid on RKBA. Love in the second round even though Wimmer was still in. I'm tired of GOP primary candidates beating each other up while Matheson skates to victory. Either Wimmer, Love, or Sandstrom would be a huge imprisonment over Matheson. So I voted against a primary.
Auditor: Dougal. Current auditor is responsible for not raising enough hugh and cry about the DABC issues. Time for a change. I support Douggal in the primary and general.