Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Pignaelli Pope Francis' visit, Fiorina's rise dominate political spectrums

Politics is fascinating, in part, because unexpected external factors sometimes influence policymaking. This is just a fancy professorial introduction to questions dominating the media from unlikely sources — Pope Francis and presidential contender Carly Fiorina. We review the impact of “His Holiness” and “Her Toughness.”

Pope Francis has bluntly jumped into political issues, ranging from the evils of capitalism, climate change, immigration and the arms trade to abolishing the death penalty. So political commentators are arguing about the pontiff’s influence in policy deliberations. Should Utahns expect the pope’s comments to alter national politics?

Pignanelli: “I admire the pope. I have a lot of respect for anyone who can tour without an album.” — Rita Rudner

When the Vatican announced the new pope chose Francis as his papal name, hundreds of millions of Catholics exclaimed some variant of "wow!" After Jesus Christ and his mother Mary, the most popular figure in Christendom is St. Francis of Assisi. This beloved 13th-century Italian monk (my patron saint, of course) founded the Franciscan Order, authored songs and prayers still in use today and dedicated his life to help the poor, animals and children.

The pope is fulfilling the tradition of St. Francis by describing his papal role as “the duty, in Christ's name, to remind the rich to help the poor, to respect them, to promote them.”

Pope John Paul II is credited as an influence on the downfall of the Soviet Union and John XXXIII for expanding religious tolerance.

Francis’ credibility will not diminish, so he could have a subtle influence on global and American decisionmakers in the years to come.

Webb: I believe Pope Francis is a sweet, humble, caring leader, truly concerned about young people, families and those who are suffering around the world. But I’m not so enamored of his politics.

Obviously, both liberal and conservative politicians embrace the pope’s comments that bolster their ideological positions. But it seems to me that liberal politicians enjoyed his visit, and his speeches, much more than conservatives. For example, conservatives cheered his exhortation to “protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.” But then he expanded the thought by advocating the “global abolition of the death penalty” — not the global abolition of abortion.

President Barack Obama, of course, basked in the pontiff’s reflected light, selectively highlighting issues on which they agree (like climate change) and ignoring topics about which they disagree (like abortion).

Personally, I embrace the pope’s message on immigration and the refugee crisis. His focus on the importance of family is wonderful.

He has had a successful trip to the United States, but his visit won’t change politics here very much.

Does the pope offer any lessons for Utah's religious leaders?

Pignanelli: People of all faiths respect the pope for his humility and desire for changes in church policies. Although he is close to 80, his charisma appeals to the young.

Mormons openly express their affection for Pope Francis. I believe he is popular with LDS faithful because he reminds them of their prophets. For example, President Gordon B. Hinckley and Pope Francis share the same down-to-earth, grounded approach and popular appeal.

Pope Francis has delivered many pronouncements, articulating important proposed changes to church guidelines — but final enactment on any is still waiting. Conversely, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are more circumspect in announcements but are very efficient in enacting objectives. So while there is much to admire in the Vatican leader, Rome can learn a lot from observing Salt Lake City.

Webb: If top LDS Church leaders jumped into contemporary politics as much as Pope Francis does, they would be severely criticized for trying to influence public policy. So one lesson for church leaders of any denomination could be to ignore the critics, follow Pope Francis’ example and take positions on all sorts of issues.

That’s not something I recommend, however. I believe a much better role for religious leaders is to teach faith in God and obedience to fundamental Judeo-Christian principles and commandments. They should focus on eternal, universal truths and the basics of a righteous, service-oriented life.

If they do that, and their adherents follow their counsel, then the politics will take care of itself.

Certainly, religious leaders have every right to jump into the rough-and-tumble of politics. But when they do so, they become another politician, another advocate, subject to criticism and opposition.

In the last GOP debate, businesswoman Carly Fiorina energized moral conservatives with her attacks on abortion. She seemed to shame the Republican Congress for funding Planned Parenthood. Will her impassioned plea force another budget impasse and government shutdown?

Pignanelli: The government shutdown strategy was on life support until Fiorina’s debate performance. But Senate and House leaders are now scrambling to stop the new momentum for protest. How this ends will boost or doom Fiorina’s prospects in 2016.

Webb: I doubt Congress is paying much attention to the presidential candidates. Fiorina didn’t specifically suggest shutting down the government. If Congress does so, Republicans will pay a high political price and it will set back the cause of conservatism and pro-life efforts.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Second GOP debate highlights some substance, endless entertainment

Thursday's Republican debate was the culmination of one of the strangest summers in American politics — and the weirdness will likely continue. Although Donald Trump’s success demonstrates that the talking heads (like us) don't have a clue, being wrong is no reason not to share our opinions.

Trump doesn't play well in Utah. However, did this debate demonstrate he will be a factor at least the first several primaries in 2016?

Pignanelli: “Get every candidate to wear a NASCAR racing suit when they go debate; this way we can see who their sponsors really are.” — Jesse Ventura

A strange combination of tagteam wrestling and musical chairs best describes the second presidential debate. The moderators tapped candidates to attack or defend against one of the other contenders and whoever was left out after a round of arguments was presumed fatally wounded. The process moved discussions along and allowed ample time for participants to pummel the current GOP bogeymen (President Barack Obama, illegal immigrants, Vladmir Putin, the Ayatollahs, etc.)

Thursday evening was not as much fun as the August party, but more efficient in culling the herd. Trump survived, while Govs. Mike Huckabee and Scott Walker, along with Sen. Rand Paul, are on life support. The political intelligentsia is heaping praise on Carly Fiorina, extending her momentum. Govs. Jeb Bush and Chris Christie satisfied demands by supporters and politicos for more enthusiasm and feistiness.

Essentially, presidential aspirants were judged how they sparred with Trump. So his persona will remain a factor for months. Regardless if Trump drops out early, success in the primaries may be determined by who is perceived the inheritor of his message and supporters.

Few individuals are more unlike any Utahn than “The Donald,” but the boisterous billionaire is impacting our national politics.

Webb: Sensible people recognize that Trump was a big loser in the debate and is not fit to be America’s president. He outlined no thoughtful public policy positions. He became a wallflower during substantive discussions on foreign affairs and key domestic issues. He was his usual bullying, bombastic, erratic self. All talk, no substance.

However, while most Utahns are rational about politics, I can’t predict the results of the national post-debate polls. Some angry grass-roots conservatives seem to like a carnival huckster who tells them what they want to hear and channels their resentment toward the establishment.

Eventually, they will realize that Trump is not conservative, has no underlying principles, and will not be able to solve the nation’s problems just by saying he can. The flirtation may continue into the new year, but it will eventually flame out.

Post-debate, who are the Republican candidates to watch?

Pignanelli: Fiorina will continue to tap into the movement that is rejecting mainstream candidates. Trump’s critique that Bush is low-energy may define the Florida governor unless he alters his persona. Sen. Marco Rubio's charisma and Sen. Ted Cruz’s fearlessness could be the natural successors of the Trump phenomenon.

The words "Republicans” and "fun" are rarely used in the same sentence without a “not.” But this election season GOP leaders are collectively and individually more entertaining than any Democrat. Thank goodness.

Webb: The Republicans have five really excellent candidates who did well in the debate, including Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Chris Christie. All of them are far superior to Democrats Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. If the eventual GOP nominee can avoid alienating mainstream voters by veering too far to the right, we can elect a Republican president next year.

Like most other observers, I thought Fiorina was terrific in the debate. Rubio and Bush did very well, and Christie and Kasich were impressive. Ben Carson is a very nice man, but lacks the depth and substance to be president. Paul is too isolationist, Cruz is scary right-wing, and Mike Huckabee and Scott Walker are just not catching on.

Conventional wisdom is that after flirting with unorthodox candidates, voters in both parties will eventually embrace a mainstream candidate. Is this the year that tradition is upended?

Pignanelli: The Democrats enjoyed a large selection of establishment contenders in the 2008 election-and all were rejected. So a precedent exists. If Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to encounter email issues and other perception problems, mainstream Democrats may stay home and open opportunities for the truly unorthodox — Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, etc.

Webb: Eventually, after a few flings with the flavors of the month, both Republicans and Democrats will want to nominate someone who can win the general election. Sanders, obviously, could never win the general election. We’re not a socialist country. Trump, Cruz and Paul could never win a general election. It would be really nice if Republicans would rally around a candidate early and focus attacks on Democrats instead of each other, but that would be far too sensible.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Autumn season means Congress back in action

Congress is back in action for its autumn session. Members face some very tough issues, so we naturally offer our simplistic solutions.

Will conservative opposition to funding Planned Parenthood result in a government shutdown? Who will be helped or hurt?

Pignanelli: "Save us from the madness." — Senate Chaplain Barry Black, during the 2013 federal government shutdown

Congress is very unpopular with Americans, so both sides of the aisle need to handle this dilemma with caution (in other words, the smart move is to kick the can).

Because of the circumstances surrounding the controversy, critics of Planned Parenthood clearly understand they can keep the issue alive in the public arena with little pushback. So federal funding of the organization will remain a hot topic until the critical moments for the budget resolution.

Congressional leaders also comprehend the polls demonstrate that Americans will be very irritated if access to federal services is denied because of a stalemate over this issue. Furthermore, the video excerpts that spawned the arguments will be replayed incessantly on the media during any shutdown. This would be an untenable situation for both parties on the eve of an election year.

A bill to defund Planned Parenthood already failed in the Senate. Most members understand this development and will avoid an ostracized shutdown over a legislative process so resistant to change. Thus, the last-minute compromise to avert deadlock will likely be an authorized study and investigation of the controversial group.

Webb: I would love to see Planned Parenthood defunded, with the money redirected to other agencies that provide services to women. But conservative Republicans in Congress will be playing right into the hands of President Obama and the Democrats if the government is shut down over this issue.

It’s absolutely true that Obama and the Democrats will be just as responsible as the Republicans for shutting down the government — but Republicans will get the blame. With control of the U.S. Senate and the presidency at stake, it would be a terrible way to start the 2016 election cycle.

Some unyielding conservatives can’t quite grasp the fact that they can’t change government until they control government. And they won’t ever control government if they continue to antagonize voters with unwise crusades. The No. 1 priority should be winning the 2016 election, not dying as martyrs in a less consequential battle. Don’t fall on your swords over Planned Parenthood.

Republican chances of scuttling the Iran deal appear slim. How will this play out in the 2016 elections?

Pignanelli: A successful conclusion of the Iran nuclear agreement will not be known for at least 10 years. The details are complicated and if there are no perceived violations, voters will not register this as a priority in an election.

Yet, Republicans have no electoral risk because Americans are suspicious of Iran. So if access by investigators is stalled or there is an increase in funding of terrorist allies, Democrats will be shouldering a huge burden in their campaigns. Therefore, the president must not relax (even in retirement) and work to ensure compliance to protect his legacy, the supporters of the deal … and global safety.

Webb: Foreign policy should be a Republican strength in the 2016 elections. The Iran deal is a great example of the foreign policy and military weakness of the Obama/Hillary Clinton administration. The world is a much scarier place since Obama took office. He has retreated from a muscular international presence, and the Republicans can make a powerful case for a stronger military and more forceful foreign policy.

But they have to be smart and reasonable. If they come across as reckless, war-mongering cowboys, they will lose. Americans aren’t in the mood for another war. And simply calling everyone “stupid,” as Donald Trumpdoes, isn’t a foreign policy.

Some Utah members of Congress hold key leadership positions. Are they using them effectively to serve the needs of the state and nation?

Pignanelli: Polls indicate that Republicans frustrated with a Congress controlled by their party are fueling Donald Trump’s unexpected popularity. (Democrat lawmakers are not scoring well with their faithful either.) So the successes our delegation have accomplished are lost in the noise of general irritation with Washington, D.C. Hopefully, an important bipartisan legislative initiative (i.e. tax reform, financial regulatory relief, etc.) will break through the morass.

Webb: Sen. Orrin Hatch is providing terrific leadership in the U.S. Senate. He is one of the four or five most powerful members of Congress. To his credit, he is focused on getting things done, not grandstanding or chasing ideological fantasies. He’s a voice of reason and effectiveness.

Congressmen Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz have been very impressive in their public lands work, preparing groundbreaking legislation to resolve decades-old battles over wilderness, energy development, and many other public lands issues.

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.