Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Political survey results offer interesting beliefs among Utahns

As twisted, demented political observers, your columnists love everything about polling and the dynamics driving the results. Even better, we can always make our observations substitute for an intelligent explanation. We offer our insights on recent interesting surveys of Utahns by Dan Jones & Associates for UtahPolicy.com.

Local Republicans are out of sync with Republicans nationwide in presidential candidate preferences. Jeb Bush fares much better than Donald Trump (61 percent-32 percent) in a head-to-head matchup. Ben Carson is popular (18 percent support), but most mainstream candidates are competitive. Hillary Clinton (11 percent) is losing to Bernie Sanders (22 percent). Why are we different?

Pignanelli: “Every city has a Donald Trump; ours is just the Trumpiest.” — Padma Lakshmi, host of "Top Chef"

Utahns rightfully swell with pride over notable achievements — transforming this desert into a paradise, the Transcontinental Railroad, advancement in science and technology, 2002 Winter Olympics, etc. Add to this list of extraordinary accomplishments the rejection of Donald Trump buffoonery by commonsense Utahns.

When Utahns peel back the gentle demeanor of Carson and discover a real liberal (i.e. his platform includes eliminating private health insurance, free medical school education, more regulations on banks), support for the neurosurgeon will diminish. Bush and Marco Rubio are the likely top favorites in January.

Sanders' popularity fatally wounds the old canard that “A Utah Democrat is a Republican anywhere else.” Undecided (34 percent) is still the leading candidate among Democrats. This bloc, and Vice President Biden’s 16 percent, will move, dependent on perceptions of Clinton’s performance in congressional hearings.

Webb: I continue to await, with most other sensible Republicans, the decline of Trump as the rest of the country comes to its senses. I fear it might be a long wait.

Utah Republicans, to their credit, have resisted the Trump mania. They want substance, not just hot air. They understand Trump is not a real conservative. Unless Bush starts to show some life, I expect Rubio to rise in Utah. The Republican disarray, both in Congress and the presidential race, is the gift that keeps on giving for Democrats.

Utah Democrats’ infatuation with Sanders shows Utah Democrats aren’t as sensible as Utah Republicans (of course, we already knew that). The Utah Democratic Party skews pretty far left (as also shown in the Salt Lake City mayoral race).

In 2012, Utah received greater than usual attention in the election because of favorite son Mitt Romney. Will we be relegated back to the electoral hinterlands or do other reasons exist for Utah to be significant in the election?

Pignanelli: Utah Democrats and Republicans will declare presidential preferences on March 22, 2016. This is three weeks after Super Tuesday and would normally be a moot exercise. However, with so many contestants likely to divide the pie, the remaining handful will view a late March victory as a valuable weapon for the spring caucasus/primaries.

Thus, Utah can expect a number of GOP contenders visiting in the snows of January and the rains of late March. If Sanders is still competitive by then, Utah will be a real battle battleground for Democrats.

Webb: We’ll watch our neighbor Nevada get a lot of attention, and we’ll see candidates come to Utah to raise money. Whether Utah is relevant beyond that will depend on what happens in the earlier primaries — whether a candidate in each party wraps up the nomination early. The Clinton nomination is inevitable. We’ll see how long Sanders wants to hang around. The GOP nomination, on the other hand, could be in play for a long time. But forget Romney stepping in at the last minute to save the party. Ain’t going to happen.

The Salt Lake City poll released last week confirms Jackie Biskupski still leads Mayor Ralph Becker. Is this a surprise?

Pignanelli: The mayor's race is an important election, and not just for who will be residing in City Hall next year. The successful and losing strategies for “all mail” balloting in Utah will be clarified. More importantly, the outcome will set the standard for the upcoming 2016 elections as to traditional media and the evolving dynamics of campaigning. A Becker loss demonstrates bombardment with television commercials no longer moves voters. Utah is trending with other parts of the country that social media, smart messaging and a focus on basic retail politics deliver results — explaining a Biskupski victory and the Trump phenomenon.

Webb: Becker is famous for building a strong grass-roots campaign infrastructure and campaigning aggressively door-to-door. But Becker was caught off-guard and unprepared by Biskupski’s strong primary election showing and he’s struggled to recover. TV advertising can provide exposure and build name ID, but it’s no longer enough to get people to vote.

Mail-in ballots make the election less predictable, so it’s hard to guess what will happen in the final week. Becker does well among males and more moderate voters, but unless they vote in high numbers at the end, Biskupski is looking strong.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Elections, near and far, begin to take center stage

We’ve written a lot about Republican internecine warfare. Now the Democrats are engaging in family feuds. Our analysis:

Ballots are in voters’ hands for the Salt Lake City mayoral race, and capital city voters are closely divided, according to a new UtahPolicy.com poll. Why is this race so close, and who’s going to win?

Pignanelli: “The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is that Democrats are cannibals that live off each other, while the Republicans live off the Democrats.” — Will Rogers

External and internal fights in many ethnic minority communities and families are bitter nasty personal battles. (The bloodshed is especially atrocious within the two clans to which I swear fealty — the Italians and Irish.) Smaller numbers breed antagonistic familiarity and intolerance of personal quirks. We simply know each other’s warts too well.

Such are the dynamics plaguing Democrats in Salt Lake City. Ralph Becker and Jackie Biskupski served together in the Legislature and possess similar voting records. Their friends and supporters share membership to lefty political organizations. Yet the activists in each campaign know and despise their counterparts. The candidates' leadership styles are radically different and a source of pride or irritation — depending on perspective.

Despite mutual political interests, many city Democrats don't want the mayor back. Biskupski took advantage of this with a brilliant primary campaign. Becker now must solicit support from creatures that exist outside the liberal tribe (aka LDS Republicans). His success or failure in this task will determine the election results.

Webb: With little more than two weeks to Election Day, this race has tightened considerably. With a larger advertising budget, Becker has risen from the dead (he was trounced in the primary election), and seems to have some momentum. As always, the outcome depends on turnout (hard to predict in a first-ever mail-in ballot race) and which candidate excels in get-out-the-vote efforts. Becker is rallying his more moderate supporters, while Biskupski is energizing those with Becker-fatigue after eight years. Neither candidate is terribly dynamic, but both are good people. My guess is Becker squeezes out a win.

The Democratic presidential debate last week was relatively tame, although Bernie Sanders was entertaining. Did Hillary Clinton strengthen her position as front-runner, or did she display weakness?

Pignanelli: As a sick, demented political hack, I offer the following: Clinton performed well and dominated the entire evening, which will give Vice President Joe Biden second thoughts. She eliminated doubts as to her electioneering abilities. The two best debaters this election are women — Clinton and Carly Fiorina. Three of the five candidates in the Democratic debate held prior elected/appointed positions while affiliated with another political party.

“Democratic Socialism” in America was a serious discussion. (My eyes still hurt from extensive rolling.) Except for castigation of billionaires and Wall Street types, the Democrats refrained from the mass insults that predominated in the GOP debates.

Webb: While Republicans can’t even elect a House speaker, let alone coalesce around a sensible presidential candidate, the Democrats are clearly uniting behind a resurgent Clinton. Although I disagreed with most of what she said, Clinton had a great debate. Of course, she was sparring with a socialist and three lightweights who barely had a clue. I’d love to see her go against Fiorina and defend her scandals and the many domestic and foreign policy failures of Barack Obama's administration.

Clinton’s opponents have clearly pushed her to the left, but she’s adept at sneaking back to the center. As her Democratic nomination becomes more inevitable, she will become more moderate and appeal to independents and centrists. Meanwhile, the Republicans will continue to rip each other apart, veering far right to win primary votes.

Thus, it is more important than ever for Republicans to eventually nominate a mainstream candidate with great communication skills. Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul would be general election disasters. I really like Jeb Bush and John Kasich, but I doubt they can handle Clinton. Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie are the Republicans’ best hopes.

Back in Utah, Medicaid expansion is on life support as House and Senate Republicans rejected UtahAccess+. Is a resolution possible before the 2016 legislative session?

Pignanelli: As a close observer of this issue, I reached two conclusions. First, every suggested proposal is dead. Second, well-respected physician Sen. Brian Shiozawa will not relent until a political palatable mechanism to fund Medicaid expansion is found. This popular lawmaker may craft a solution that eliminates the state obligation and the coverage gap. If he doesn't, the issue is postponed to 2017.

Webb: Gov. Gary Herbert notes that Utahns are paying nearly $800 million in federal Obamacare taxes each year and getting none of it back. That’s nuts. Surely, a way exists to bring home most of the tax money we’re paying, use it to support low-income uninsured people and cap services and amounts so they don’t grow out of control. Eliminate the risk. Utah’s budget can absorb the required state match if it is capped. I recognize the feds have to approve Utah’s plan, but push them to accept a Utah solution.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Speaker of the House race picks up, with Chaffetz a possibility

Politics can be awfully unpredictable — especially leadership races in legislative bodies. As of this writing (Thursday afternoon), Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz was back in play for the speakership of the U.S. House of Representatives. Understanding that anything could happen by the time this column appears on Sunday, here’s our take on congressional leadership politics.

What are Chaffetz’ chances now that Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) has stepped aside?Will he support an effort to draft Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan?

Pignanelli: “No one in America cares about this ‘Game of Thrones’ contest for speaker.” — Gov. Chris Christie

Chaffetz became well-known in Utah for his strong legs (as a BYU place-kicker), but recent events demonstrate he possesses a really good nose … for percolations in politics. He predicted McCarthy's caucus problems.

Arguably, Chaffetz had no choice but to run. McCarthy’s insinuation that the congressional Benghazi investigation was motivated to damage HillaryClinton is a kryptonite her campaign is using aggressively (the commercials are already airing) to preempt Republican attacks in future hearings. This may hamper Chaffetz’s Government Oversight Committee in the short term.

A dynamic driving the momentum behind Donald Trump are Republicans frustrated with Congress. Chaffetz is tapping into this sentiment with promises to pass GOP priority legislation and force vetoes from President Barack Obama — all music to conservative ears. Chaffetz is often mocked for his love of media exposure, but is also respected for incredible communication skills (a now valuable gift in light of McCarthy’s missteps). With McCarthy gone, Chaffetz will attempt a coalition to counter the other announced candidate, Florida Congressman Daniel Webster.

Politicos agree if the beloved Paul Ryan indicates an interest to serve, the election is over. Chaffetz is close to Ryan and will back efforts for a unanimous floor vote to name him as speaker. This guarantees Chaffetz retains chairmanship of his powerful committee.

Webb: Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives is one of the top political offices not just in the country, but in the world. The speaker is second in line for the presidency, only behind the vice president. The speaker negotiates directly with the president and the Senate, welcomes foreign heads of state — and can even invite the pope to address Congress.

So it’s a heady thing for a four-term congressman from Utah to seriously seek the speakership, whatever his chances. However, if leadership races at the federal level are anything like Utah legislative leadership contests, they are notoriously hard to predict. Nothing is more cutthroat, and sometimes deceitful, than leadership elections. People lie. Even the best vote counters get things wrong. All sorts of behind-the-scenes dynamics occur.

So anything is possible. Chaffetz could win. An interim speaker could be appointed. Speaker John Boehnercould continue temporarily. House Republicans could rally behind Ryan (perhaps the best outcome). A deal with the Democrats could be brokered (although that’s not likely).

Can Chaffetz or Ryan unite a highly fractured House?

Pignanelli: Depending on one's ideology it's easy to embrace or dismiss Ryan’s and Chaffetz’s political activities. But it is impossible for anyone to deny the abilities of these popular politicians. Ryan is respected for a deep intelligence, mastery of budgetary policy combined with a folksy friendly approach. Chaffetz is especially talented with public messaging and building coalitions inside the caucus and with Democrats. (Several times I witnessed liberal members of Congress publicly praise his bipartisan demeanor).

Webb: The Republicans are going to look very foolish if the chaos continues very long. If they can’t even elect a speaker, how can they govern the country?

Whatever happens in the speaker’s race, can the House govern effectively, or is more dysfunction ahead?

Pignanelli: Many observers in Washington, D.C., believe the current political environment is so toxic that no lawmaker with deep experience wants to be speaker (explaining Ryan’s reluctance). Republicans are mad their legislation has stalled. Powerful left-wing special-interest groups pressure Democrats against compromise with moderate Republicans. Ryan or Chaffetz face a daunting challenge and should demand rational flexibility from their caucus before accepting the gavel.

Webb: Congress very quickly faces some really tough debt ceiling and budget votes that could shut down the government. The leadership turmoil throws into question the House’s ability to deal with these issues. Further dysfunction will only damage the Republican brand and hurt the party’s chances of winning the presidency and retaining control of the Senate.

I know the far right hates to hear this, but it is downright stupid to think they can win on all these big issues. Besides budget issues, they and their base back home demand that Congress repeal Obamacare, shut down Planned Parenthood and toss out the Iran nuclear agreement. All this while House conservatives don’t even control the House, which is only one-half of one-third of the federal government.

Here’s a simple fact: They don’t have the votes! Let me repeat that for the hard of hearing. They don’t have the votes! They can’t win in the Senate and Congress can’t override a presidential veto. In our democratic republic you don’t get your way unless you have the votes. It’s a minor detail that the far right can’t seem to grasp.

So if you don’t have the votes, what’s the smart thing to do? It’s pretty simple. Govern smartly and run good campaigns to win more votes. Win the presidency and win a bigger margin in the Senate. Then you will have the votes.

You win the presidency and more of the Senate by being competent, mainstream, common-sense problem-solvers. You don’t alienate and offend voters by shutting down the government, tilting at unpopular ideological windmills, and by causing chaos and gridlock.

After you win the presidency and more of the Senate then, by golly jeepers, you can turn the country around. You can have your way (although if you go too far too fast you’ll be booted out at the next election).

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: With government shutdown avoided, focus shifts to Medicaid expansion

The scary prospect of a federal government shutdown has been avoided, making Halloween less frightening in Washington, D.C. But in Utah, Medicaid expansion has risen from the dead, terrifying the Utah political world. We explore the huge (to use a Trumpism) political ramifications of these events.

Under the radar until recently, state leaders have been floating the idea of taxing medical providers to cover the state cost of adding up to 95,000 low-income people to Medicaid rolls, beginning in 2020. All legislators discussed the idea last week. Does the plan satisfy conservative lawmakers and will Medicaid expansion pass in a special session later this year?

Pignanelli: “However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results." — Winston Churchill

Whether normal well-adjusted keen observers or demented political hacks (my species), politicos are in awe of this incredible development.

For several weeks Speaker Greg Hughes and House Republican leadership have repeatedly suggested the concept that medical providers who benefit from additional Medicaid funds should assume the state obligation. With just one statement, Hughes & co. have irrevocably changed this debate and ended the PR siege against them. Brilliant.

Yet, there is a political cost to this novel approach.

Federal law allows these tax architects to determine which medical classes and categories to be assessed and the rate. But here's the rub: discrimination inside a class/category is prohibited. For example, lawmakers cannot just target doctors receiving payments from the program but must tap all physicians, including those who do not see Medicaid patients. Almost 20 classes of identified health care providers — which contain hundreds of companies and thousands of individual practitioners — will pony up regardless of any benefits received. (“Unfair!” is the kindest response so far.)

Originally a contained skirmish, Medicaid expansion has escalated into a full-blown war with armies of lobbyists, trade associations, social media activists, grass-roots warriors, etc. (I represent several clients with dogs in this fight, part of the larger wolf pack growling at the Capitol.) The public hearing Tuesday will be historic, substantive and very entertaining.

The fight on Capitol Hill is no longer about widening Medicaid, but whether providers (regardless of receiving any Medicaid payments) must participate in funding this program. Each legislator now has thousands of constituents who will be impacted — few will be asking to have the fee imposed.

The dynamic has forever changed.

Webb: The new plan is a good-faith attempt to solve a problem and pay for the costs of expanding a government program. That’s a laudable objective. I wish the national Congress would pay for the programs it creates instead of borrowing.

But it’s extremely difficult for Utah’s Republican Legislature to raise taxes by $52 million, even though the tax is levied only on medical providers (some of whom will receive additional business), not on the public.

Given the state’s strong economy and revenue growth, Medicaid expansion could be financed through general tax revenue, which was Gov. Gary Herbert’s original proposal. The state’s economy will be bolstered by $450 million annually in new federal money, which will generate additional state tax revenue.

But in the short run, spending an additional $52 million for Medicaid expansion may mean less money for education, transportation and other state needs. It’s also difficult to predict how fast Medicaid costs will grow, increasing the state’s risk.

This is a tough issue with no easy answer. Utah policymakers essentially have three choices: Don’t expand Medicaid at all, forgoing $450 million in federal money and leaving some 100,000 Utahns uninsured; expand Medicaid using existing state money, or expand Medicaid and pay for it with a medical-provider tax.

The provider tax is the best solution among some very difficult choices. Federal regulators ought to approve it, and the Legislature ought to pass it.

Regardless of passage or failure, are there political ramifications to the Medicaid proposal?

Pignanelli: Legislators concerned with Medicaid expansion can claim — legitimately — they tried for something through a provider tax. But significant opposition and federal law prevented a possible solution. So any further attacks from advocates for "lack of compassion" are mooted.

However, anti-tax activists and other right-leaning organizations are displeased this is even under consideration. In response, Hughes and leadership could counter the exercise exposed the public to the financial issues surrounding this entitlement program.

Politicos are watching the public positioning of Herbert, his challenger Jonathan Johnson and future gubernatorial wannabes. Opportunities for advancement, and missteps, are in abundance.

Webb: No matter what the governor and legislators do, they are going to face angry advocates and political minefields. We hire them to make the tough decisions, so step up and decide.

A federal government shutdown was diverted (more like punted). What political storms does this cause for national politicians and the Utah delegation?

Pignanelli: John Boehner’s resignation satiated the blood lust … for now. The nation needs to be ready for an impasse in December.

Webb: Circular Republican firing squads are occurring more frequently. The party’s rigid right wing seems intent on losing the next presidential election and losing the Senate, setting back the cause of conservatism for years.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: With government shutdown avoided, focus shifts to Medicaid expansion

The scary prospect of a federal government shutdown has been avoided, making Halloween less frightening in Washington, D.C. But in Utah, Medicaid expansion has risen from the dead, terrifying the Utah political world. We explore the huge (to use a Trumpism) political ramifications of these events.

Under the radar until recently, state leaders have been floating the idea of taxing medical providers to cover the state cost of adding up to 95,000 low-income people to Medicaid rolls, beginning in 2020. All legislators discussed the idea last week. Does the plan satisfy conservative lawmakers and will Medicaid expansion pass in a special session later this year?

Pignanelli: “However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results." — Winston Churchill

Whether normal well-adjusted keen observers or demented political hacks (my species), politicos are in awe of this incredible development.

For several weeks Speaker Greg Hughes and House Republican leadership have repeatedly suggested the concept that medical providers who benefit from additional Medicaid funds should assume the state obligation. With just one statement, Hughes & co. have irrevocably changed this debate and ended the PR siege against them. Brilliant.

Yet, there is a political cost to this novel approach.

Federal law allows these tax architects to determine which medical classes and categories to be assessed and the rate. But here's the rub: discrimination inside a class/category is prohibited. For example, lawmakers cannot just target doctors receiving payments from the program but must tap all physicians, including those who do not see Medicaid patients. Almost 20 classes of identified health care providers — which contain hundreds of companies and thousands of individual practitioners — will pony up regardless of any benefits received. (“Unfair!” is the kindest response so far.)

Originally a contained skirmish, Medicaid expansion has escalated into a full-blown war with armies of lobbyists, trade associations, social media activists, grass-roots warriors, etc. (I represent several clients with dogs in this fight, part of the larger wolf pack growling at the Capitol.) The public hearing Tuesday will be historic, substantive and very entertaining.

The fight on Capitol Hill is no longer about widening Medicaid, but whether providers (regardless of receiving any Medicaid payments) must participate in funding this program. Each legislator now has thousands of constituents who will be impacted — few will be asking to have the fee imposed.

The dynamic has forever changed.

Webb: The new plan is a good-faith attempt to solve a problem and pay for the costs of expanding a government program. That’s a laudable objective. I wish the national Congress would pay for the programs it creates instead of borrowing.

But it’s extremely difficult for Utah’s Republican Legislature to raise taxes by $52 million, even though the tax is levied only on medical providers (some of whom will receive additional business), not on the public.

Given the state’s strong economy and revenue growth, Medicaid expansion could be financed through general tax revenue, which was Gov. Gary Herbert’s original proposal. The state’s economy will be bolstered by $450 million annually in new federal money, which will generate additional state tax revenue.

But in the short run, spending an additional $52 million for Medicaid expansion may mean less money for education, transportation and other state needs. It’s also difficult to predict how fast Medicaid costs will grow, increasing the state’s risk.

This is a tough issue with no easy answer. Utah policymakers essentially have three choices: Don’t expand Medicaid at all, forgoing $450 million in federal money and leaving some 100,000 Utahns uninsured; expand Medicaid using existing state money, or expand Medicaid and pay for it with a medical-provider tax.

The provider tax is the best solution among some very difficult choices. Federal regulators ought to approve it, and the Legislature ought to pass it.

Regardless of passage or failure, are there political ramifications to the Medicaid proposal?

Pignanelli: Legislators concerned with Medicaid expansion can claim — legitimately — they tried for something through a provider tax. But significant opposition and federal law prevented a possible solution. So any further attacks from advocates for "lack of compassion" are mooted.

However, anti-tax activists and other right-leaning organizations are displeased this is even under consideration. In response, Hughes and leadership could counter the exercise exposed the public to the financial issues surrounding this entitlement program.

Politicos are watching the public positioning of Herbert, his challenger Jonathan Johnson and future gubernatorial wannabes. Opportunities for advancement, and missteps, are in abundance.

Webb: No matter what the governor and legislators do, they are going to face angry advocates and political minefields. We hire them to make the tough decisions, so step up and decide.

A federal government shutdown was diverted (more like punted). What political storms does this cause for national politicians and the Utah delegation?

Pignanelli: John Boehner’s resignation satiated the blood lust … for now. The nation needs to be ready for an impasse in December.

Webb: Circular Republican firing squads are occurring more frequently. The party’s rigid right wing seems intent on losing the next presidential election and losing the Senate, setting back the cause of conservatism for years.

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.