Perhaps many were voting because of his success with the Olympics or the fact that he led a successful business. Some probably even remember his father's candidacy and hope his political leaning will rub off on his son. As an adopted Utahn, many are cheering a hometown hero, an individual who provided a significant benefit to Utah regardless of religion.

I agree that it would be an interesting experiment to remove the names and to let delegates choose the candidates based on political philosophy and past experience.

I find it encouraging and exciting that despite the overwhelming support given to Mitt Romney, Dr. Ron Paul came in second place. It gives me hope that so many Utah Republicans still believe in the Constitution and the free market. I choose to see the bright side obviously, rather than the obviously negative aspect, which is that so many LDS Republicans are going for Romney simply because he's LDS and Republican. Would they so eagerly vote for Harry Reid? Not likely. I would love to see a poll where the delegates voted on the candidates without names, but solely on their record. I'd like to think that Dr. Paul would win, hands down. But maybe I have too much faith in the majority of Utah Republicans. (BTW, I am active LDS myself, and a registered Republican, in case anyone cares)

More than Mr. Romney's religion (which I agree is a key factor) I think many Utahns remember what he did for the Olympics, Salt Lake City, and Utah. After the Olympics he could have run for any office and won in a landslide - his religion at that point was icing on the cake.

To your point, I believe that were the names removed Dr. Paul would win in Utah - a scary thought. A strict constitutionalist he is - a president he is not.

I think of course that Mitt's actions during the Olympics certainly play a role in the favorable opinions of Utahans towards him.

That said, being a good businessman/manager, as evidenced by his success in his professional life and the Olympics, does not meant that he has the correct understanding of the proper role of government and the Constitution as understood by the Founders.

Why is Dr. Paul, who you admit is a strict constitutionalist, somehow not qualified to be President? On what grounds? If his being such a strict constitutionalist (not to mention being unfailingly honest and consistent, two characteristics almost never put in the same sentence as "politician") does NOT qualify him to be President, what in heaven's name DOES qualify someone, whether it is Mitt or anyone else?

P.S. as prima facie evidence of Mitt not getting it, I offer his foray into socialized medicine (mandatory health insurance, etc.) as Governor of Massachusetts. And BTW, just because it got bipartisan support there, doesn't make it a good idea.

It's about time we started remembering that our elected representatives (all of them) should not be sent to Washington to "bring home the bacon" (pork) or to dip their fingers into every possible aspect of our lives, in a misguided attempt to solve all of our problems. Mitt Romney, like most other politicians of both major parties these days (at least on the national level) believe in this type of role for government, and only differ with one another in the particular targets for gov't largesse.

I urge all Utahans who truly believe in the Constitution to support Dr. Paul. He may not be LDS, but he comes closer to Pres. Benson's (and McKay's, and otherss) idea of the proper role of government than does Mitt Romney (or any of the other candidates, for that matter).

There is a much more obvious explanation - unforuntaly, it does not merit a sensational headline. The more Republican's know about Romney, the more they like him. Nationally, he has little name recognition. He has the highest name recognition in Utah. He also does well in Iowa, NH, SC and NV - where he has been getting face time with the candidates. Romney was the hero that saved the SLC Olympics. His character, success and family allow him to resonate with Utahan Republicans.
Is anyone surprised that Guiliani does well in NYC polls?

There is a much more obvious explanation - unforuntaly, it does not merit a sensational headline. The more Republican's know about Romney, the more they like him. Nationally, he has little name recognition. He has the highest name recognition in Utah. He also does well in Iowa, NH, SC and NV - where he has been getting face time with the candidates. Romney was the hero that saved the SLC Olympics. His character, success and family allow him to resonate with Utahan Republicans.
Is anyone surprised that Guiliani does well in NYC polls?

I understand that Mitt is spending lots of money for television advertisements in select states to elevate his name into the public spotlight. And the ads seem to be successful. But if the “more obvious explanation” is all about recognition, why isn’t Mitt the favored Republican in Massachusetts where he’s the governor? Sure there’s more then purely religion driving Mitt Romney’s popularity in Utah, but religion is likely the largest factor.

Please don’t get me wrong; I’d love Romney for the top pick at the Republican Convention because then we could honestly have a conversation about his politics and his religion, with out the primary getting in the way. Plus, we could drop the “everybody hates Mormons” thing because Mormons have been governors of Massachusetts and other states, Representatives and Senators including the Majority Leader, and a Presidential Candidate hopeful. Clearly not “everybody” hates Mormons.