Mea culpa -- I didn't do my research. I assumed that the caucus was open to Republican voters in general (by registration or self-identification), like the Iowa caucus. I thought Paul had a chance because normal Wyomingans (Wyomingians? Wyomingites?) supposedly fall more toward the libertarian side of the political spectrum. Turns out that this "caucus" is merely a vote of
Do the Wyoming results mean anything in the big picture? Not really. While neither Iowa nor New Hampshire can be considered snapshots of the American electorate, at least they're snapshots of their own electorates. Wyoming isn't even that. It's just a party-insider log roll, and whatever dissident elements exist in the Wyoming GOP machine apparently decided on a meaningless banzai charge for Duncan Hunter (one delegate) rather than for more credible "anti-establishmentarians" like Paul, Huckabee or McCain.
The Wyoming result does show that Rudy Giuliani has lost not only his mo with real voters (as Iowa demonstrated), but his darling status with the party elite as well. If Giuliani drops out before New Hampshire and throws his support to McCain, he might be able to get a sinecure. I doubt if he can draw the veep slot for it since he's obviously falling to tail-end Charlie anyway, but maybe some token secretaryship with good graft opportunities. Right up his alley.
[N.B. I'm sure some of you are asking yourself if Kn@ppster is going soft on Ron Paul. The answer? No, not really ... but I do hope he can break through the GOP's pro-big-government party machinery, appeal directly to those GOP voters who favor the smaller government their party promises but never delivers, and hasten the demise of the GOP -- which is, at this point, beyond being able to lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.]