Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Can't help but spill more ink on Donald Trump

We feel guilty spilling more ink on Donald Trump, but we can’t help ourselves.

What does the success of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders say about the electorate in this 2016 election cycle?

Pignanelli: "Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment." — Ambrose Bierce

Most of us have experienced the following anxiety: you are woken up in the middle of the night by an unfamiliar noise; something disturbing is happening but you don't know the cause or origin. The fear of the unknown is gripping.

A similar emotion of puzzlement is plaguing very smart people who possess a great deal of expertise in campaigns and elections. (Thus, really dumb political hacks — like me — are genuinely confused.)

The Trump phenomenon is defying normal behavior. All the predictions and expectations by the intelligent experts continue to be confounded. Moreover, the top three Republican hopefuls are outsiders who never held office. The Democratic contender was not a member of the party until several months ago.

Something is generating a great deal of noise and scaring the residents of the house.

Several prominent members of the political intelligentsia (aka braniacs stumped at the conundrum) are subtly suggesting that the boisterous billionaire and the septuagenarian socialist are benefitting from a new dynamic among voters — an absolute rejection of those who represent the establishment. Despite attempts to dismiss the long-term viability of the duo, the excitement they are generating is intriguing and cannot be ignored. This is especially highlighted because the mainstream candidates are struggling for relevancy.

Americans often forget we were bred in revolution. Pushing back against an establishment we believe to be incompetent and clueless is fundamental to our character. The 2016 primary voter could be returning to his and her roots.

Webb: I worry about the intellectual capacity of a certain segment of the electorate. Sure, enough prurient tendencies exist in all of us to watch a video replay of a bloody automobile crash, or pay attention for a moment to some antic by the Kardashians. Shock value grabs eyeballs. But to support an egotistical entertainer who is also boorish, inconsistent, illogical, simplistic, reckless and absurd (I could go on) to become the world’s most powerful leader is a dangerous departure from common sense.

Yes, I know a segment of the population is fed up with the establishment, with politics as usual. I’m tired of gridlock and dysfunction as well. But Trump and Sanders would amplify these problems, as well as others the country faces, not solve them.

I’m all in for a big shakeup. But it has to be done wisely and intelligently by someone who can bring diverse societal segments and branches of government together to make significant changes. That’s the only way our country works. Dictators aren’t welcome. We need a uniter, not a divider.

Will the eventual party nominees be establishment candidates?

Pignanelli: Political history for the last half-century compels mainstream candidates will eventually triumph. But a longer view of our Republic suggests the United States may be undergoing a major political realignment we experienced in the early 1800s, 1850s, 1930s or 1960s. The rumblings of 2015 could be the beginnings of an insurgency against the status quo that will occur over the next several years. Thank goodness the victims of our modern bloodless revolutions are just the political parties who lose traditional supporters.

Webb: After folks have had their flings with Trump, Sanders, and the other flavors of the week, voters will back someone who can win. On the Republican side it will be Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina or Scott Walker. On the Democratic side it will be Hillary Clinton, although Joe Biden could be a credible challenger.

The proposal to increase the sales tax by one-quarter percent for local transportation projects will be on the ballot in most counties in this year's municipal election. Is it going to win or lose?

Pignanelli: Many municipalities and county governments were slow to pass resolutions authorizing a proposal ballot in their jurisdiction. Politicos believe this is a reflection of opposition that is percolating. Municipal elections suffer lower voter turnout, which helps opponents. But this may be neutralized by the preponderance of mail-in voting. Polls are eagerly anticipated.

Webb: Utah’s economic success, in part, has occurred because we’ve been willing to invest in infrastructure. We remain a young, dynamic, fast-growing state with significant mobility and infrastructure needs. Local governments desperately need funding for local roads and highways, plus trails, bikeways and increased bus service. Freeways are great, but we must support local governments and improve air quality by investing in other modes of transportation as well.

If you don’t like congestion and gridlock, and you do like clean air, vote in favor of the quarter cent. Then it will pass.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: As summer concludes, Utahns face national, state issues

As summer wanes, Utahns face national and state issues. We have opinions on all of them.

Is America turning more anti-immigrant, and what are the ramifications?

Pignanelli: ”We should erect a wall of brass around the country for the exclusion of Catholics.” — Chief Justice John Jay

Bless Donald Trump — he may be the accidental spokesperson for our state. His behavior on immigration is providing the important contrast of the “Trump Way” and the “Utah Way.”

Several years ago, our state leaders crafted a balanced immigration approach that received accolades across the country. This is because Americans, whether their ancestors arrived on the Mayflower or in less glamorous circumstances (like my family), possess a complicated but commonsensical view of immigration. Polls indicate we are concerned with mass immigration (despite the benefits), but our pragmatic and compassionate souls desire a path of citizenship for the hardworking undocumented. There are problems associated with new entrants (i.e. the criminal activity of which my ethnic heritage excelled), but nothing warms our collective hearts as much as when people of various colored hues take the oath of citizenship.

The perception of anti-immigrant emotion is increasing because the loudest voice on the issue emanates from Trump. Soon, shrewd presidential contenders will counter his rhetoric with elements of the Utah solution, which will be well received. Americans understand that newcomers from all over — who seek liberty and opportunity — are a fundamental element of the energy and entrepreneurial spirit that make this country great.

Webb: Turning against immigration is a certain path to political loss, along with cultural, social and economic decline. What’s happening in the Republican Party is simply tragic. Instead of embracing Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric, Republican candidates should look to the Utah Compact for guidance on immigration. The Compact emphasizes humane treatment of illegal immigrants, keeping families together and economics.

I recently spent a few days at Jackson Lake Lodge in Teton National Park. One of the guides there said lodge employees are recruited from all over the world because they can’t find enough young Americans to work. Trump and other retrograde thinkers would have you believe that immigrants are taking away American jobs. That’s simply not true. The agriculture and hospitality industries face worker shortages.

Trump has, unfortunately, provided cover for the immigrant-haters, many of whom are struggling with life themselves. They target immigrants as convenient scapegoats. In reality, immigrants will help them, not hurt them.

Utah Reps. Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz will soon release their big public lands proposal. Can it pass Congress and be signed by the president?

Pignanelli: Years ago I actually practiced law, especially in domestic relations. I learned quickly that when my client and his/her soon-to-be ex-spouse objected strenuously to the details of a settlement proposal, we were on the right track. Environmental groups have been extremely participatory and helpful, but still have some reservations with the lands proposal. But when I witnessed conservative Rep. Michael Noelthrash Chaffetz and Bishop staff for their efforts, my experience suggested a potential legitimate compromise.

These congressmen certainly have the juice to get the bill through the House. But facing them is a calendar filled with a host of issues that may prevent anything in the near future accomplished in the U.S. Senate.

Webb: Bishop and Chaffetz are demonstrating the right way to make public lands policy, in contrast to the possibility of President Obama unilaterally imposing a national monument by executive edict. Their years-long process has been bottom-up, involving all stakeholders, with innumerable meetings and negotiating sessions and a lot of time spent out on the land.

If Obama imposes a national monument, it will expose as a lie all his rhetoric about open, transparent, collaborative government.

The Bishop/Chaffetz proposal won’t make everyone happy. Everyone has to compromise a little. And the extremes on both sides will moan and groan. I say ignore the extremes. Ignore the chronically complaining Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. Ignore those who think the state can magically wrest all BLM and Forest Service land from the federal government.

This may be the most important public lands initiative in the history of the state. It will mean a lot more protected land for conservation purposes, and a lot more energy development. Utah’s business, political and conservation leaders ought to get behind this proposal.

Will Joe Biden really take on Hillary Clinton?

Pignanelli: In a "friendly" wager (which is allowed in Utah law), I bet Biden drags this out for months. The emails controversy surrounding Clinton is unlikely to end anytime soon, and he could have a late opportunity. "Uncle Joe" speaks his mind without a script, has not economically benefited from public service and has a warm demeanor. He could do well.

Webb: I’d love to see the Democrats face additional drama in their nomination process. My guess is that Biden will carefully consider running, but will ultimately say no — unless the Clinton scandals really start to damage her. Clinton has a big head start. Biden is old and prone to gaffes. But he could beat Trump.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Political persuasion depends on the fundamental message

Thanks to technology, demographics and underlying anger toward politicians and government, political dynamics are more unpredictable than ever before. The upheaval in the presidential race is clear evidence of this. It proves that one fundamental element is crucial in political persuasion — the message.

Good communications makes all the difference in politics. Interesting messaging examples include the Outdoor Retailers discussion about abandoning Utah, antagonism toward Mayor Ralph Becker, criticism of the Utah Transit Authority and the public relations triumphs of Attorney General Sean Reyes. Lessons to be learned?

Pignanelli: “One of the interesting things about politics is how quickly politicians can tailor their message to the prevailing winds. They would be great at ocean racing.” — Jack Citrin

Whether it's my students, interns or children (I know, the thought of me teaching any youngster is scary), I emphasize that style is equal to or greater than substance when delivering a message.

The public lands debate is all about messaging. Environmental activists utilize the statements and actions of officials seeking control of federal land to paint them as insensitive (causing angst with Outdoor Retailers). Countering efforts to describe the feds as incompetence in management, in contrast to states’ quality stewardship, have struggled but are improving.

Utah is blessed with a legacy of political messaging wizards: Govs. Michael Leavitt and Scott Matheson, Congressmen Jim Matheson and Jason Chaffetz (who has shrewdly pivoted persona from inquisitor to a deliberative statesmanlike committee chairman). This list includes Reyes who — with his brilliant communications director Missy Larsen — consistently broadcasts messages to Utahns that he is fighting against sex trafficking, an incompetent EPA and white-collar criminals.

As we noted in prior columns, the Becker administration has not effectively messaged on successes in the city, thereby missing an opportunity to establish a presence in the minds of voters. Without a strong perception, the police chief controversy undermined Becker’s reputation. Conversely, Jackie Biskupski has been masterful in messaging that defines her and Becker.

Lessons for politicos abound.

Webb: The old saying that perception is reality is absolutely right, especially in politics. Small symbols often overshadow far bigger, more important and more substantive things. The Utah Transit Authority, for example, has been enormously successful. It’s the best-run transit agency in the country. Its visionary and capable leaders have saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. But its critics have focused on the emotional symbols of salaries, bonuses and travel (all justified, in my opinion) to damage the agency’s image.

It’s unfortunate, but any politician or public entity must be as attentive to image, symbols and perception as to real substance and accomplishments.

Whatever presidential candidates Donald Trumpand Bernie Sanders say — no matter how bizarre — is resonating and propelling them to amazing success in the polls. Are they that good or just lucky?

Pignanelli: Two presidential contenders with the most momentum fulfill the maxim: "It's better to be lucky than good." Sanders' socialist anti-establishment theme would have faltered in other election years, but the current environment of anger and despair is fertile ground for him. There is little consistency to Trump, but disparaging those who disagree with him is playing well to right-wing audiences. While neither candidate is likely to secure the nomination, they are influencing the 2016 elections.

Webb: Trump and Sanders have tapped into fringe, protest elements of the parties who don’t really care about good public policy or ultimately winning. It’s like an absurd movie that develops a cult following not because it’s good, but because it’s so bad. Protest candidates will always have a following, but they will never win the presidency.

A political savior who will miraculously solve every problem and appease citizen anger simply by grandiose pronouncements is attractive to alienated people, no matter how intellectually dishonest the candidate is. Trump has been able to defy all the political rules because he has become a symbol himself, able to avoid accountability for untruths and mistakes. He gets away with being illogical, inaccurate, inconsistent, completely impractical and sometimes offensive. He has no political principles and changes his positions on a whim. His disciples ignore all that and see only a political savior.

Good messaging is a constant requirement for political success. So how will technology impact its delivery in the future?

Pignanelli: Success in political communications now requires the quick construction of a statement that does not exceed 140 characters (for Twitter) and certainly no more than two minutes for a YouTube video. It is a wonderful development that technology is increasing accessibility to information for Americans across the political and economic spectrum, but it's also deteriorating the attention span of audiences.

Webb: For now, newspapers, TV and radio can still set the agenda with good reporting. But direct-to-consumer mobile messaging is taking over, allowing candidates and organizations to bypass traditional media and communicate directly to voters. Mass media is much less important. I’m just glad I’m really old and don’t have to learn all the new stuff.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Plenty of politics popping in the dog days of summer

We’re in the dog days of summer, but plenty of politics are popping. Our insights are worth what you pay, so here’s about a nickel’s worth.

What are the dynamics behind Jackie Biskupski’simpressive primary election win, and will she be Salt Lake City’s next mayor?

Pignanelli: "The golden rule has no place in a political campaign." — John James Ingalls

Biskupski was a well-regarded legislator — loved by liberals and respected by many Republicans. This solid reputation served as a solid springboard for her candidacy.

Salt Lake City is experiencing a mini-renaissance in so many categories — economic development, cultural expansion, high-speed fiber, fun nightlife, quality lifestyle, etc. The Becker administration is extremely efficient in hiding these achievements from the mayor’s constituents. (Remember: bragging is fundamental to success in politics and professional wrestling.) Taking advantage of this vacuum, the Biskupski campaign cleverly castigated Ralph Becker’s leadership style. Parking meters, bicycle lanes and the police chief debacle are clouding the incredible momentum in the capital city.

Becker has a difficult, but not impossible, task. In 1995, incumbent Mayor DeeDee Coradini lost her primary re-election. She restructured campaign strategy with altered messaging that persuaded undecided voters (and many who cast a ballot against her in the primary) to win the general election.

Salt Lake City voters are a fluid bunch and demand constant attention. Becker defied the odds because he knew this in 2007. Biskupski really understands this — explaining her amazing primary victory. This fluidity suggests the general election remains competitive. So the question is whether Becker is prepared to do what he must do. Will he “take the fight” to Biskupski?

The mayor's race is all about Becker. Therefore, how he responds to the primary results and crafts his messaging strategy (for him and against Biskupski) will determine the results in November.

Webb: As an old, white, male, Mormon Republican living in downtown Salt Lake City, the EPA should probably declare me an endangered species. (Although it’s more likely the EPA would declare me toxic mine waste and flush me down a river.)

At any rate, I don’t purport to understand the politics in Utah’s little ultra-liberal island. I have to get down to Utah County once in a while or I get the shakes.

Smart people who do understand the wine-and-cheese crowd tell me they think Becker didn’t get his people to vote, and he’ll do better in the final election. The moderates/Republicans/business people in the high Avenues and on the east side of the city will vote for Becker. So it’s probably still a race. Biskupski hasn’t really laid out an agenda for the city.

But the primary election losers will turn their votes toward Biskupski. The real wild card is turnout due to mail-in ballots. Ballots will be sent to the same people as in the primary. Becker will need to get a lot more people to vote. I’d say Biskupski is the favorite now, unless Becker, with more money, can pull off a minor miracle.

Did the Prison Relocation Commission play politics in recommending the Salt Lake City site for the state’s new prison, or was the selection make objectively?

Pignanelli: The selection process was open, deliberative, completely fair … and absolutely predictable. The Utah prison has been in Salt Lake County since the arrival of the pioneers. The population demographics and geography of necessary services has remained the same for over 160 years, so the selection should not be a surprise. Access to proper medical treatment, the courts, families and friends and religious volunteers (all which reduce recidivism) mandated this decision.

Webb: Even the Democrats on the commission voted for the Salt Lake City site. It really is the best site and it’s not going to upset a lot of citizens. It doesn’t encroach on neighborhoods. City residents will barely notice it. City politicians may be upset, but they don’t have a lot of clout in the Legislature. So the politics and the merits align, making it the easy choice.

Negotiations between Salt Lake County and hotel developer Omni have collapsed regarding the proposed downtown convention hotel. How big a setback is this?

Pignanelli: This could hinder Utah’s ability to keep the Outdoor Retailers Convention. But Mayor Ben McAdams refuses to violate public trust by forcing the Omni deal, reaffirming why he commands respect across the political spectrum.

Webb: This is a signal that building a big convention hotel on the county’s terms may be more difficult than thought. The fact that the county had only one development firm bid on the project, and now negotiations have ended with that firm, shows this won’t be easy. I believe the convention hotel is needed, but it’s a delicate balance to provide sufficient tax incentives while being fair to taxpayers and the existing hotel industry in Utah.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: National, local elections offer chance for predictions

National and local politics are offering Utahns tasty summer treats. We suggest our favorite political popsicles.

After the first big GOP debate Thursday night, is Donald Trump still atop the Republican pack, or is he in trouble?

Pignanelli: “There’s just one present under the Christmas tree … it’s all a columnist could ever hope for: the first Republican debate!” — Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post

Although political observers — and especially me — disdain Trump, we were grateful for his performance (no other word describes it) on the debate stage. He transformed a potential snooze fest into a frolicking cage match. Trump did not retreat, and he alone adhered to the important rule of political discourse: answer the question you want to answer, not the one actually asked.

Trump incurred serious blows from the debate panel. If he continues a top-tier position in polling after this roasting, national Republicans have a serious dilemma with the brazen billionaire, and his possible third party candidacy.

Webb: Trump crashed and burned. He can’t handle the big time. He was his usual pompous, arrogant and bombastic self. He would be a disaster as the Republican nominee and a bigger disaster as president. He’s probably the only Republican candidate who would make a lot of Republicans vote for Hillary Clinton.

Who were other winners and losers in the debates?

Pignanelli: Debate sponsor FoxNews essentially held the first party primary by culling the herd. The well-organized event firmly established the network’s role in determining the GOP nominee. Sen. Rand Paul feistily pushed against Trump, Chris Christie and others. Many mainstream Republicans viewed Jeb Bush as "presidential." Pundits are praising Carly Fiona (who dominated the second tier debate), Sen. Marco Rubioand Gov. John Kasich. Hillary Clinton fared well because most jabs against her were forgettable. Candidates were well prepared, played to their base and avoided any fatal mistakes.

Many debaters threw the usual cheap shots against lobbyists, claiming my profession is to blame for government ills. (This hypocrisy — which extends to both parties — does not prevent them from begging my colleagues for contributions.)

Webb: I’m not looking for ideological purity or who can best pander to the far right. I’m looking for a conservative candidate, an adult in the room, who can win support of mainstream Americans and beat Hillary Clinton.

I saw a number of candidates who fit that model, among them Bush, Kasich, Christie, Fiorina, Rubio and Scott Walker (although Walker’s extreme no-exceptions position on abortion is a problem). They demonstrated leadership, poise and a strong grasp of the issues. I think the race is between those six. Any of them would be a far better president than Clinton.

Among the 16 non-Trump candidates, no clear star emerged, although Fiorina probably helped herself the most Thursday night, jumping from the bottom tier into the top tier of candidates. She was terrific. Bush was a winner because he held his own. With a lot of money and staying power, all he had to do was show up and avoid mistakes.

Bobby Jindal and Rick Perry did OK in the early debate. Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson were impressive, but won’t win the nomination. Ted Cruzpandered too much to the far right and has a very narrow base. Clinton would love to run against him. I like Lindsay Graham and George Pataki, but they won’t emerge from the third tier. Jim Gilmore, Rand Paul and Rick Santorum are capable guys, but will end up as also-rans.

The municipal primary election is Tuesday. What should we be watching for in the Salt Lake mayoral race?

Pignanelli: Politicos are scrutinizing the race for multiple curiosities. Incumbent Ralph Becker was in good shape until the police chief debacle, which moved a chunk of his voters to “undecided.” Can Jackie Biskupski claim them, or has the last-minute push by Becker stopped the hemorrhaging? The Capital City has never experienced local PACs spending gobs of money to influence municipal elections.

But this year moneyed interests — tied to billboard advertisers and developers — are carpet-bombing against Becker.

Many pundits are predicting a primary victory for Biskupski, guaranteeing a hotly contested general election. The real nerds (like us) will be analyzing various results: voter turnout for the first all-mail election, the performance by each candidate in the different districts, post-election surveys (since exit polls will not exist). Elections are changing in Utah, and what happens this year in Salt Lake City as to voter turnout, social media tools, SuperPACs and other new campaign tools, will signal trends for 2016.

Webb: Becker and Biskupski will continue into the final election. Becker hasn’t had a great election year so far, and it could get worse if Biskupski wins or comes close in the primary. Becker’s challenge is that the votes that go to the other three candidates in the primary will likely go to Biskupski in the final election.

Still, Becker will have a lot more money and he’s a strong grass-roots campaigner. He also has solid support among key business leaders. He still has a fighting chance to win a third term.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Identifying proper roles of various government levels

Gov. Gary Herbert is now chairman of the National Governors Association and has chosen federalism — restoring a proper balance in the federal-state relationship — as his key focus. His initiative comes at a time of when major questions are being raised regarding the proper roles of the different levels of government.

Can Gov. Herbert make meaningful progress with his federalism initiative?

Pignanelli: "I do believe states' rights was a sound doctrine that got hijacked by some unsavory customers for a while — like 150 years or so.” — John Shelton Reed

My parents recently celebrated their 56th wedding anniversary. (A modern-day miracle considering the Italian-Irish ethnic mix, compounded by family stubbornness and the daily drama.) I learned from them that in a successful relationship, there is friction and constant give-and-take by either party for an adjustment of responsibilities based upon circumstances. Our republic is in the 226th year of the marriage between the federal government and the states, and is enduring continual tug-of-war in response to changing dynamics.

Early in my life, the federals did all the cool things: forcing desegregation in schools, protecting civil rights, mandating clean air and water, etc. But Washington, D.C., has lost the sheen for numerous incompetencies: weak responses to crisis, bloated and wasteful bureaucracies, bizarre and burdensome regulations. Most federal employees are hard workers, but the massive leviathan prevents realization of important objectives.

Therefore, Gov. Herbert can succeed if his important endeavor is framed correctly. Americans do not understand "states' rights." Yet they enthusiastically support the form of governance that best defends their families, liberties and livelihood. Sometimes that is the feds, but in most cases it's the states. Local governments are responsive, innovative, consumer friendly and efficient. Thus, marketing competency and not ideology, is the best strategy for Herbert.

Webb: Addressing federalism is an ambitious undertaking and a worthy pursuit. In his one year as NGA chairman, Herbert won’t have time to make great progress sorting out the tangle of federal/state programs, funding and responsibility. But focusing attention will be helpful, and Herbert’s plan to highlight state-level innovation and best practices will demonstrate that states can better perform many of the things the federal government is struggling to do.

Reversing many decades of centralization at the federal level will be a long and difficult process. In fact, even today the trend is toward more consolidation and power at the federal level, not less.

Sen. Mike Lee wants to dramatically reduce the federal role in transportation funding and shift most funding and responsibility to the states. Does his plan make sense?

Pignanelli: Sen. Lee does not shy away from a battle, which his "Transportation Empowerment" legislation will deliver. All the interests vested in the federal fund regime (i.e. construction, engineering, etc.) are building a defense against this proposal — which implies some reform is needed. Policy gurus do have legitimate concerns whether the states will adequately replace the lost federal revenues. A lively debate is expected.

Webb: Lee’s big idea makes sense philosophically, although the federal government has a legitimate and important role in interstate transportation. Nationwide connectivity via highway, rail and air is crucial to every state economy, and especially Utah’s, as the crossroads of the West.

The devil is always in the details, and the problem with Lee’s legislation is the logistics, funding reductions and difficult transition. My experience with the Salt Lake Chamber’s Transportation Coalition indicates that even in conservative states like Utah, transportation agencies and business leaders concerned about transportation infrastructure don’t support Lee’s plan as currently written, and they don’t expect it to gain traction.

Lee apparently wants to do states a favor and help balance the federal budget, but he did not engage in meaningful discussions with state transportation leaders to discuss how devolution could occur in a rational, practical, common-sense way that doesn’t upend state budgets and disrupt planned projects and financing structures.

In the meantime, by vocally opposing short-term efforts to protect transportation funding, Lee loses credibility with the state and local transportation agencies he purports to help.

Lee has a lot of nuts-and-bolts work to do with the local folks if he wants his devolution idea to take off.

Efforts continue in Western states to take over federal land, even as Barack Obama's administration considers designating a huge new national monument. Are efforts to take title to federal land a futile exercise?

Pignanelli: For decades, Western officials have shouted demands at the Feds — and were always ignored. But recent actions by the Utah Legislature are the right approach. Republican and Democratic legislative leaders agreed to hire a legal/public affairs team (my firm is a participant) to determine viability of any legal strategy to increase state control of public lands.

Webb: More than 60 percent of Utah is owned by the federal government, compared with less than 2 percent in many states. That’s a real economic disadvantage for Utah and the other public land states. Certainly, national parks, conservation areas, military reservations and wilderness areas ought to be retained in federal ownership. That’s a lot of land. But substantial acreage could be better managed by the state.

For now, Rep. Rob Bishop’s Public Lands Initiative is the best vehicle to balance conservation, energy, recreation and other land management disputes. It deserves support. Another big federal monument designation would be disastrous.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: A more political version of a Pioneer Day parade

The Days of ’47 Parade Committee likes to keep the parade as nonpolitical as possible, as we saw last Friday. We understand the need for decorum at this important historic event. But if we were in charge, here’s what the parade might look like:

Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker would eschew suit and tie in favor of showing off his lissome figure in spandex on a bike, surrounded by other cyclists with signs saying, “SLC — Car Free by ’23,” and a huge banner with the slogan: "Re-elect Ralph — he's not quite as boring as Hillary!"

Mitt Romney would be on an ornate float shaped like a dog carrier, sporting a sign: “It’s great to be back in Utah where 47 percent of the people also haul their dogs on top of their cars.”

The "Utahns for Donald Trump” committee would walk behind a banner saying, “Brigham Young was no pioneer hero. I like my pioneer heroes to be killed by Indians.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch would be riding on a float shaped like a giant vitamin bottle, with a banner saying, “Take these and you can grow as old as me!” Another sign would be a warning: "As President Pro Tem, I’m assigned full-time security. Those guys in black suits with earpieces really are Secret Service. Do not make suspicious movements or nasty comments."

Gov. Gary Herbert would stand atop a float shaped like the Wasatch Mountains, with a banner: “Gary Herbert: A Man to Match Our Mountains — delivering the best economy in the country, recapturing our Medicaid dollars, and defending Utahns’ right to trespass on federal lands. If you get caught, I’ll contribute $10,000 to your defense.”

Likely GOP gubernatorial candidate Jonathan Johnson, both arms immobilized in plaster casts, would be limping behind the Herbert float with a simple sign: “Despite all the arm-twisting to get me out of the race, I’m still here.”

House Minority Leader Brian King would be on a fenced-in float labeled: "Threatened and Endangered Species! A rare live active Mormon Democrat! Federal law needed to protect this genus.”

Former state lawmaker and current mayoral candidate Jackie Biskupski would be walking behind a large billboard: "Please ignore those dark money PACs dodging election laws to help my campaign. Just know that I’m a lot more liberal and a lot more fun than Ralph and his bikes.”

Those other Salt Lake City mayoral candidates (City Councilman Luke Garrott, George Chapman and Dave Robinson) would be hoisting a banner together proclaiming, "Good news! The news media say we are legitimate candidates. Really!”

Eagle Forum President Gayle Ruzicka’s float would feature a thousand followers in pioneer garb atop a float with the banner, “Holding firm to 1847 culture in 2015 and beyond.”

Utah Republican Chairman James Evans and Utah Democratic Chairman Peter Corroon would stand together on a bipartisan float featuring a sign: "Champions of Lost Causes — Electing Democrats and Restoring the Caucus/Convention System."

Troy Williams, president of Equality Utah (Utah's largest gay and lesbian advocacy group) would stand on a huge pedestal on a float over a banner reading, “Welcome to Salt Lake City. … This is the place … and we own it!”

State Sen. Jim Dabakis would carry a banner stating, "Welcome to my downtown Senate District. Remember me when I announce I’m running in 2016 for Governor, or Senator or Congressman. … Unless I quickly drop out."

Congressmen Rob Bishop and Chris Stewart would be on a float with a gigantic mound of dirt and rock labeled “National Monument.” They would be tearing it down with their bare hands.

Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams would be on a float with a huge banner: "Your guilt-free candidate in 2016. Support political diversity by voting for a Democrat. … While still getting Republican policies.”

Fourth District Democratic candidate Doug Owenswould be dressed as a knight in shining armor, lance in hand, tilting at a windmill resembling Mia Love.

Congressman Jason Chaffetz wouldn’t be on a float or walking the parade route. He would send a stand-in who would wave with vigor — because he is having too much fun excoriating Hilary and the IRS in Washington, D.C.

Some parade invitees would likely send their regrets. The 16 Republican presidential candidates would collaborate on a joint note to the Parade Committee, saying, “Love ya, Utah. … Just can’t break away from the beautiful Iowa summer sunsets.” Hillary Clintonwould respond, “What’s a Utah?”

By popular vote, Frank Pignanelli and LaVarr Webb would be contained in a cage on a float guarded by tea party soldiers with a sign saying, “Do not release these sad old clowns until their juvenile humor is actually funny.”

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Utah's political nerds now have reasons to 'geek out'

The Utah political nerd society (we are charter members) is excited about new developments in local elections. We “geek out” on the intriguing questions:

Almost all Salt Lake County municipal elections will be conducted by mail-in ballots this year. How will this impact the mayor's race in Salt Lake City and other contests?

Pignanelli: "Boomers and Xers totally want to unplug from voting as a social activity. They don’t have time for it; they don’t want to participate in some institutional ceremony” — Neal Howe

This campaign season is best described as "Revenge of the Nerds,” because those political operatives who understand and crunch the numbers, mechanics and demographics will prevail.

National studies indicate “all-mail” balloting increases voter participation in local elections, which otherwise have abysmal turnouts. Politicos are conjecturing whether this new dynamic benefits incumbents (with name identification and decent job approval ratings) or challengers (because grumpy citizens can easier express complaints), especially in the battle between Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker and his major opponent Jackie Biskupski.

City candidates and apartment dwellers usually ignore each other. But now, the presence of a handy ballot lying around may prompt a newly discovered civic responsibility — and unpredictably alter a close race. Most mayoral and council contenders lack financial resources to track support in various demographic groups, so they have to make the “best guesses” and then utilize retail politics for persuasion. But the wrong gut feeling is riskier with mail ballots.

So there are no real answers — a frustration to candidates and their campaign managers (but great fun for us political weirdos).

Webb: For several years, voter turnout in Utah has been lousy, especially in municipal elections, where a few votes can make a big difference. One suggested solution is to make it easier to vote. Nothing’s easier than marking a ballot and dropping it in the mail. So we will see if voting by mail results in more ballots being cast. It’s worth trying.

The fact that results are less predictable with mail-in voting is actually a good thing. It forces candidates to campaign more broadly, to all registered voters and citizens, instead of just those who have voted in past elections. It’s very easy now to register to vote. And now it’s very easy to vote. That means candidates can’t zero in on select voters as they have in the past. This is good for democracy.

How do mail-in ballots and the likely involvement of the conservative Super PAC Americans for Prosperity affect the local option sales tax proposal that county leaders are considering placing on the ballot?

Pignanelli: Long-established knowledge dictates that tax and bonding initiatives are more likely to succeed in lower turnout elections. But conventional wisdom is in jeopardy. The local option gas tax proposal enjoys only soft support because many residents are grumpy with the Utah Transit Authority (which is a beneficiary along with cities and counties). So the likely increase in voter participation this November, compounded with the well-funded super PAC media blitz, offers unprecedented challenges to the tax supporters. (The dynamics of this is entertaining to the really demented political hacks.)

Webb: The conventional wisdom is that mail-in ballots will increase voter turnout and higher turnout improves the chances of ballot proposals.

I have worked with the Salt Lake Chamber’s Transportation Coalition and I’ve watched as mayors, city council members and county leaders have worked hard to assess and plan their transportation infrastructure needs in the face of dramatic growth.

So I’m personally rather insulted that an out-of-state, unelected, unrepresentative special interest group funded by the Koch brothers would waltz into Utah and tell Utah’s local leaders it knows what’s best for them.

For years, local leaders, close to taxpayers, have asked the Legislature for tools to address their local transportation needs. In the last session, the Legislature gave them the tools. I’m confident they won’t be intimidated by an out-of-state special interest group that knows nothing about local conditions.

A new Utah PAC controlled by billboard magnates Billand Dewey Reagan is spending money supporting Biskupski over Becker in the Salt Lake mayoral race. Does this alter the outcome?

Pignanelli: The intense support of a well-connected wealthy family is a real benefit to the lucky candidate … usually. But our capital metropolis is a different place. Becker built his political career opposing billboards. If the mayor cleverly uses this new election revelation to reaffirm his green urban planning background, and play to the suspicions of city voters towards corporate PACs, he will have transformed an obstacle into an effective weapon.

Webb: Municipalities, in particular Salt Lake City, like to make life miserable for billboard companies. I believe, in some cases, the outdoor advertising firms haven’t been treated fairly.

But I’m not sure siding with one liberal Democrat over another liberal Democrat will help the Reagan operation very much. In reality, this is the Reagan folks flexing some political muscle, sending a message to politicians that if they take on the outdoor advertising industry there will be consequences.