Donald Trump won Wyoming by 46 points in 2024. If conservatives can’t elect the governor they want in the reddest state in the country, it’s fair to ask what the movement is trying to accomplish.
Tuesday’s gubernatorial election has brought that question into focus. Eric Barlow, a former speaker of the Wyoming House whom many grassroots conservatives see as a Republican in name more than principle, won the August primary with roughly 45% of the vote. The remaining votes were split largely between state Superintendent Megan Degenfelder, who had Trump’s endorsement, and Brent Bien, who was backed by the state Republican Party. Barlow is now the GOP nominee.
Consider what would happen in Massachusetts if a candidate opposed to abortion, same-sex marriage, and the climate agenda emerged from a divided Democratic primary. The left’s donors, activists, and party leaders wouldn’t simply fall in line. They would argue over what the party stands for. In Wyoming, though, too many conservatives act as if the Republican label ends the discussion.
This isn’t a swing state where voters may have to settle for the less objectionable option. Wyoming went for Trump by 46 points. A Republican nominee here should be unmistakably conservative, not someone inviting comparisons to Lisa Murkowski.
Barlow’s record gives voters reason to wonder what his governorship would look like. He supported expanding Medicaid under Obamacare, voting for a 2021 bill that passed the Wyoming House but later failed in the Senate. He had also worked on expansion proposals before that. For voters who spent years calling for Obamacare to be repealed, that history matters. A primary win shouldn’t erase it.
His approach to energy raises similar concerns. In congressional testimony in 2003, Barlow argued that the country needed to move away from nonrenewable energy and described fossil fuels as a “transition and not reliance.” Wyoming is the nation’s top coal-producing state. It seems reasonable for voters to take that position seriously.
There are further disagreements about which bills Barlow supported or held back as House speaker. Those debates should be settled by looking at the votes, not trading slogans. But one point is clear: Wyoming’s Republican Party chairman says the party will not endorse its own nominee for governor. Barlow declined to take part in the party’s vetting process, calling it “improper.”
Why, then, should conservative voters automatically support him?
They have another option. Rebecca Bextel, a longtime conservative activist and donor, is running for governor on the Constitution Party ticket. She supports limited government, immigration enforcement, property rights, and gun rights, and opposes abortion. Her campaign gives voters a way to object to the Republican nominee without casting a ballot for the Democrat.
The familiar warning about “splitting the vote” came quickly. In a genuinely competitive state, that would be a serious concern. But in 2022, Wyoming’s Democratic gubernatorial candidate received just 15.8% of the vote. That doesn’t make a three-way race without risk; it does make the automatic spoiler argument less convincing than it might be elsewhere.
Still, where are the major conservative political groups? Where are the donors who pour money into electing candidates only to watch them abandon the movement’s priorities? Bextel can offer voters another name on the ballot, but she can’t create the institutional support that conservative organizations say they exist to provide.
Representative Harriet Hageman, who supported Degenfelder in the primary and is now running for the Senate, endorsed Barlow near the end of the campaign. Senators John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis also backed the Republican ticket. That’s the familiar establishment response: contest the primary, then insist the party label settles the matter.
Tucker Carlson, despite my disagreements with him, was willing to interview Bextel. Many conservative figures and organizations with far greater resources have been noticeably quiet. They shouldn’t be surprised if activists turn to the few people willing to challenge Republican orthodoxy—and start paying attention to them on other issues, too.
What’s the point of spending donor money on primaries if conservatives aren’t allowed to hold the winner accountable afterward? Primary voters select a nominee; they don’t get to dictate every other voter’s conscience. A party label can be a useful shorthand, but it’s no guarantee. If success means only keeping Republicans in office, the party might survive while the principles behind it disappear.
Here’s the irony: In a state where Democrats rarely win statewide races, Republicans themselves can be the biggest obstacle to a plainly conservative agenda. A politician can deliver policies associated with Democrats without Democrats having to take the political blame.
At some point, conservatives have to stop treating loyalty to a party as the same thing as loyalty to their cause. If we can’t stand up for our principles in Wyoming, of all places, what are we fighting for?
