Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: What would a Clinton or Trump presidency be like?

Two candidates with low trust and low approval ratings are competing to become the leader of the free world. So it’s worth speculating how each nominee would perform as commander in chief.

How would a President Donald Trump govern?

Pignanelli: "I have no idea what Trump might do if he ever became president. If you look at his statements, proposals, ideas, it's a kind of a garage sale and I don't know that there's a Rembrandt behind that lawn mower that won't start.” — Bob Woodward, Washington Post

Readers: If Trump is elected, consider investing in wax manufacturing companies. Millions of nervous Roman Catholics will be lighting massive amounts of church candles every week to promote divine assistance to the new administration. Americans of other faiths will pursue various entreaties to a higher power with similar goals. How Trump has conducted his businesses and this campaign is cause for the extreme fear (especially with some of the consultants hired). However, a Trump administration will be the most entertaining four years for many of us since college.

Almost daily, Trump’s masterful media representatives attempt positive spins on his outrageous remarks. As a demented political hack, I respect this dark magic. Legions of these crafty agents will surround a Trump administration to offer clever explanations why Mexico refuses to pay for the wall, Vladimir Putin’s antics and traditional manufacturing jobs not returning to this high-tech economy, etc.

Because Trump is relying on self-acclaimed negotiating skills to fulfill his promises, there will be many initial failures. At some point, will he jettison all the sycophantic "yes men and women" he appointed and expand the cabinet with knowledgeable individuals? Trump’s campaign experience suggests he stays on a dangerous and troublesome course.

I'm happy to teach my Mormon friends how to use a rosary.

Webb: A friend who follows the X-Men movies suggests the shape-shifting character Mystique was patterned after Trump, or maybe vice versa. We really have no idea who Trump is or how he would operate. Will it be the vulgar, offensive Trump? Will it be the kindler, gentler Trump of late? Will he listen to wise advisors? Would a Trump presidency reflect his core philosophies (whatever they are)? We don’t know much about his policies, which seem to change on a whim.

Will Trump really shake up Washington? I’m all in favor of that, if it’s done sensibly and reduces the role of the federal government in our lives. Washington needs a good thrashing. Will Trump offend our allies? Will he master the nuances of foreign policy? I want a president who shows strong leadership — but not one who plunges the country into war or depression in the first six months.

Voting for Trump will require a lot of hoping and guessing.

How would a President Hillary Clinton govern?

Pignanelli: Love her or despise her, at least we know a President-elect Clinton would have an important decision Nov. 9. Does she maintain the charade and push the progressive agenda she’s reluctantly agreed to to capture the nomination? Or does the famous Clinton “shameless flexibility” reappear and pursue a realistic economic and foreign-policy strategy to attract support of moderate Republicans and practical Democrats?

During the first Clinton administration, she and her husband were very adept in sensing trends and unabashedly molded policies accordingly. While this led to left-wing grumbles, there was undeniable success in deregulation of key sectors, free trade, entitlement reform and promotion of economic resurgence. Business types and Wall Street bigwigs donate to her because they know she clearly understands how the world works.

Webb: We know plenty about Clinton, not much of it good. She’s very much a creature of Washington, uses poor judgment and is ethically challenged. Needing to defeat a socialist, she’s become a leftist, promising bigger government, higher taxes and a new government program for every interest group.

Some say Clinton is, at heart, a centrist and she might compromise more and work better with Congress than President Barack Obama has. But the Bernie Sanders people will keep ultra-liberal pressure on her. That’s her base. Certainly, she will appoint liberal judges, and that could have greater negative consequences than anything else she’ll do.

A Clinton presidency means business as usual in Washington — Clinton cronies in charge, lots of gridlock and dysfunction (a bonanza for lobbyists and lawyers). No progress on the big issues facing the country.

What a choice!

Can the Republican Party survive Donald Trump’s anti-establishment populism, or is it headed for a steep decline? 

Pignanelli: The GOP survived the LBJ landslide, Richard Nixon and Dick Cheney. This election is just another phase in a historic realignment of the American political structure.

Webb: Only one person can keep the Republican Party viable and unified — Hillary Clinton. She’s fully capable. Even so, expect plenty of squabbling. Can the Trump wing and the mainstream wing co-exist? Is it the party of Trump, or the party of Paul Ryan? Will mainstream Republicans leave (or be driven out)? If Republicans avoid a circular firing squad and instead focus on Clinton they’ll be all right.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Debating the necessity and relevancy of the Electoral College in electing our presidents

Since the dawn of the Constitution, Americans have debated the necessity and relevancy of the Electoral College in electing our presidents —m which offers your columnists the opportunity for a good argument.

Should the Electoral College be preserved, or is it an anachronism that should be replaced by a popular vote?

Pignanelli: “I'm sorry I ever invented the Electoral College.” — Al Gore

LaVarr appropriately defends the Electoral College, as both are outdated relics. Our bizarre presidential selection process was rushed through the 1787 Constitutional Convention to appease various interests … and is overdue for elimination.

Alexander Hamilton opined in The Federalist Papers 68 that the Electoral College was designed to ensure that a president is chosen "by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

Nice try.

The existing “winner takes all” process (absent Hamilton’s “judicious” deliberations) is warping presidential elections. Candidates and media divide the country into red and blue states, and those categorized as “swing” acquire all the attention. These battleground states account for 95 of the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the election. Further, the outcome within each of these states are decided by a small number of counties — local campaign war zones that, in a very tight race, have the potential to determine the next president. The Founders would be aghast.

The notion that the elector procedure protects small states’ rights is a nice fantasy. Presidential candidates expend resources in only three to four small states. Further, aspirants never bother to develop an alliance of small states for support. Eliminating the College will promote concepts and ideas that transcend swing state boundaries. A successful national candidate will construct a broad coalition to include many categories of Americans, not just the party base with a sliver of independents. As Senator Bob Doleobserved, “Direct election of the president is common sense federalism.”

Webb: Frank adopts the trendy, but flawed, populism of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Rile up the masses and turn them into a mob. Forget about thoughtful, representative government.

Without the Electoral College, presidential candidates would focus all of their time, money and attention in the big cities and the crowded coastal population centers — where the votes are. A campaign advertising dollar spent in New York City reaches a lot more people than in Utah. The small states and the flyover country would be ignored. Candidate platforms would pander to big-city liberal agendas.

One of the last remaining bastions of balanced federalism is the Electoral College. It forces candidates to respect states, to campaign state-by-state, to pay attention to individual states and their concerns and issues, to listen to state leaders and seek their support.

If candidates needed to simply win 50 percent (plus one vote) of the popular vote, their national campaign map wouldn’t be divided by state lines, but by national demographic segments. The chief campaign goal would be, “How can I win the big demographic groups and population centers for a majority of votes,” not, “How can I win enough states to assemble 270 electoral votes” — a very big difference.

Would Utah benefit or be harmed by elimination of the Electoral College?

Pignanelli: I have heard for decades — without a shred of evidence — that small states like Utah benefit from the current system. According to Electoral College Primer, Utah is one of the six states with the least voting power in national elections. Because of our unique characteristics, Utahns would receive extra attention from presidential contenders unobstructed by the College.

Webb: Utah is receiving attention this year from Hillary Clinton precisely because she wants Utah’s electoral votes (she’s even discussing religious freedom). Same reason Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Arizona get attention. Without the Electoral College, Utah and the Mountain West would be snubbed.

Is there a possibility the Electoral College could be eliminated or drastically modified?

Pignanelli: Because of the dynamics of this election, there are rumblings that some College delegates may ignore the results of their state’s elections and select a person other than one of the two most despised politicians in the country. Such actions may drive needed reforms.

Webb: Writing in The Huffington Post, two liberal columnists attacked the Electoral College because (among other reasons) it forces candidates to talk about family farms “when there are less than 1 million professional farmers in this country” instead of talking more about public transportation “taken by tens of millions of Americans every week.”

Thankfully, many state leaders understand the importance of candidates talking about family farms in rural America, and not just about big-city issues. They also understand that the relentless encroachment of the federal government has relegated America’s states, once proud and sovereign, to bit players in the federal system. They will protect the Electoral College because eliminating it would be the final nail in the coffin of balanced federalism, a once-revered constitutional provision, now nearly lost.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Alternative presidential candidates, BYU and Sen. Hatch

Olympic games and political games are both getting attention in Utah. It’s fun to watch participants in both pursuits hit, run, feint, jump, win, lose, celebrate and cry.

Alternative presidential candidates, like Libertarian Gary Johnson and Provo native Evan McMullin, are seeking votes in Utah. Will they have any real impact on the race?

Pignanelli: "Are Libertarians just Republicans who want to smoke pot and rich Democrats wishing to avoid taxes?" — Numerous commentators

Usually, third-party candidates are gadflies not taken seriously. But when they have impressive backgrounds, and there is confusion in the traditional parties, they can perform well … especially in Utah. Remember, Utahns delivered second place to independent party candidate and billionaire Ross Perot in 1992.

The Libertarian candidates are credible and well-respected and are gaining traction. But there is more than just Americans rolling their eyes at Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The insurgent candidates (Trump and Bernie Sanders) have instilled impractical populist themes in each party's platforms that are making their way into the candidates’ speeches. This is driving more examination of alternatives by serious-minded voters.

McMullin is benefiting from a brief burst of attention, as is the Green Party candidate. But the Libertarians will become more attractive as a potential alternative. Johnson and William Weld are former successful governors who provide serious policy offerings that are intriguing many frustrated with the major candidates and/or their stands on trade, regulations and fiscal matters.

So the dynamics are different, but the net result will be the same as 24 years ago. A third party will impact the presidential race across the country and in Utah. This offers some fun and respite from the nastiness. (My son is a registered volunteer for the Johnson/Weld campaign. No snarky comments please.)

Webb: Dislike of Trump and Clinton is strong enough that many Utah voters are seeking alternatives. But in this stranger-than-fiction political year, no good alternatives exist. Johnson would be almost as weird a president as Trump. McMullin’s bid is too little, too late, even if he has supporters with significant money.

McMullin and Johnson are hoping for a complete Trump collapse. Not going to happen. Trump’s floor of true believer support is much higher than Johnson or McMullin will ever attract. Like it or not, either Trump or Clinton will win the election. If the race is close, Republicans voting for anyone other than Trump will help elect Clinton.

LGBT organizations oppose BYU’s bid to join the Big 12 athletic conference. Is this flare-up a trend of things to come?

Pignanelli: How any organization — public or private — adapts its policies to LGBT persons will forever be scrutinized as a fundamental aspect of society. Support by the LDS Church of the antidiscrimination amendments demonstrates deep compassion and understanding of these issues. I am confident that these emotions will be reflected in BYU policies and allow for admission into a collegiate conference.

Webb: If Hillary Clinton really cares about religious freedom, as she purports in her much-ballyhooed Deseret News op-ed, perhaps she could write a letter to the Big 12 presidents, suggesting they ignore the LGBT activists’ demands. Is her religious freedom devotion more than pandering? She would never write such a letter, of course, because LGBT support is far more important to her than Mormon support.

We need to understand who we’re dealing with here. In Utah, we’re nice. We like to compromise, find common ground, see some good in the other side. These militant LGBT groups aren’t nice. They play hardball. They’re out to destroy anyone who doesn’t fully support their extreme ideology. They have no tolerance for heart-felt religious convictions. Bigotry is no sin as long as it’s directed at a religious organization not aligned with their agenda.

The crusade to deny BYU Big 12 membership is a harbinger. Tomorrow they will attack church tax-exempt status, federal research dollars, student grants and loans. Anything to hurt any institution that doesn’t surrender to their demands.

Sen. Orrin Hatch has been in the U.S. Senate longer than some of his potential challengers have been alive. Will he seek an eighth six-year term in 2018?

Pignanelli: This has elevated from just talk into serious deliberations among politicos and Hatch watchers. The general consensus is that if the GOP keeps the Senate, Utah’s senior senator will likely run again. Each day more Republicans are adopting the strategy of conceding that Trump loses, but campaigning that there needs to be counterbalance to Clinton. This would be the Hatch strategy in developing his campaign. Other potential candidates also understand there is one factor that remains constant — it is foolish to underestimate Hatch.

Webb: The senator has immense power, clout, respect — and seniority (no kidding). It would hurt Utah to lose Hatch. But everyone has to retire sometime — or die in office. I believe Hatch would like to run again. But it will depend on his health and whether Republicans maintain Senate control. If, by some miracle, Republicans take control of Washington, Hatch will be positioned to do some great things for Utah and the country.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Annual guide to what politicos are really saying

Pignanelli & Webb: For any sane person, politics can be confusing even in normal election years. But this year, standard political discourse doesn’t exist. So, as a public service, we offer our annual guide to what politicos are saying — and what they really mean.

Donald Trump: “Crooked Hillary, Little Marco, Lyin’ Ted, Hillary Rotten Clinton, Mitt the Choker." (I don’t have a clue about domestic issues or foreign policy, but the news media can’t resist my insults, so substance is unnecessary.)

Hillary Clinton: "I apologize for the email controversy. But what I did was legal at the time." (We all know us Clintons are above any silly rules or laws that apply to other people. Absurdly legalistic excuses worked for my husband, and they work for me.)

Trump II: "I'm a religious person. Crooked Hillary is the one who has no morals." (Religious fervor welled up in my heart when I won the support of evangelical Christian leaders, even more than when I drink my little wine and have my little cracker. By the way, what is Two Corinthians?)

Clinton II: "Trump is disgraceful to women, minorities and our allies. (Thank goodness for Donald Trump — the only Republican I can defeat.)

Mike Pence: "I am fully confident that Donald Trump respects the sacrifice made by the Khan family, and he will strengthen our military to reduce loss of life in the future.” (Yeah, this is a pathetic defense to Trump's outrageous comments. But I have nothing else. What have I gotten myself into?)

Utah Republicans: "We are proud of our great Utah political leaders, our conservative values and the great success of our state. We are confident voters will support our candidates.” (If we totally ignore Trump, maybe the voters will, too, and we won't suffer at the polls.)

Utah Democrats: "The Trump factor makes Utah a swing state, so this is a great opportunity for Democrats down the ballot, especially Doug Owens against Mia Love." (Even with Trump, we’ll probably keep losing, but hope springs eternal.)

Clinton III: "I oppose free trade treaties; I support increased regulations on banks and Wall Street; I will expand entitlement programs and raise taxes." (This directly contradicts everything my husband accomplished, but I have to satisfy those ultra-left Sanders supporters.)

Political reporters and TV networks: "Once again Trump is blaming the media and making irresponsible comments on every topic imaginable. How could Republicans be so incredibly stupid as to nominate him as the leader of the party of Lincoln and Reagan?” (We created this monster, but we couldn't help ourselves. His tweets and press conferences are like crack cocaine. Sorry, America, but ratings are up!)

House Speaker Paul Ryan: "I truly believe that House and Senate Republicans can work with Trump and implement a robust, pro-growth policy agenda that will keep America safe and eliminate intergenerational poverty.” (I have lived a Boy Scout life, but in politics you have to tell a few white lies. What did I do to deserve this mess? I didn’t even want to become speaker and now I have to deal with the most disastrous Republican presidential candidate in history.)

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer: "This year offers a real potential for the Democrats to take control of the U.S. Senate." (Please join me in a toast to Donald Trump. Any other Republican candidate would defeat Hillary, and we would have no chance to win the Senate. Thanks, Donald. I like the sound of Chuck Schumer, Senate majority leader!)

Mitt Romney: "For the sake of the Republican Party and conservative values, I will continue to speak out about the excesses and irresponsibility of Donald Trump.” (This is getting fun. The media jump on anything I say, and more Republicans are joining me. And, by the way, I’m available if Trump drops out.)

Bernie Sanders: “Hillary Clinton is the best choice in this election.” (America won’t get a real Socialist president, but I pushed her so far left that I get most of what I want.)

Devout Sanders supporters: "We cannot stomach Hillary. There is no way we will betray our values and vote for that shill of corporate America." (Of course we will vote for her. It just makes us feel good to complain about it, and Trump would be even worse.)

Jeb Bush: “No comment.” (Republicans rejected me, so they get what they deserve.)

Chris Christie: “Donald Trump is a great American and we need his forceful leadership.” (I’ll say anything to become attorney general and leave behind this mess in New Jersey.”

Newt Gingrich: “The world is a dangerous place, and Donald Trump is the commander-in-chief we need.” (Anyone who’s been married as many times as Donald and I have can deal with domestic strife and easily handle the Russians.)

President Obama: “Donald Trump isn’t fit for office. I call on my fellow Americans to vote for Hillary.” (Why didn’t my buddy Joe Biden jump into this race? Then I really could have had a third term.)

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Are the two political parties merging or getting further apart?

The 2016 Republican and Democratic national conventions are history. The focus now shifts to the November election. But first, a few loose ends to tie up.

Hillary Clinton emerged from the historic Democratic convention as the first-ever woman nominee of a major political party, fighting off insurgent Democratic socialist Bernie Sanders. After a controversial convention, will the nation’s Democrats unify around Clinton? 

Pignanelli: "Political campaigns don’t happen in a vacuum. As strong a motivator as Trump is with his core constituency … he’s at least as strong at motivating Democratic opposition.” — Joshua Green, Bloomberg Politics

This presidential election is the strangest in our nation's history. But it got weirder in both conventions with the Ted Cruz "vote your conscience" speech and Russians hacking Democratic emails. So if extraterrestrials are discovered using mind probes to help a campaign, no one will be shocked.

Although there was talk of love and "togetherness" in Philadelphia, Democrats introduced Trump into the major leagues of hardball politics. They responded to four days of GOP Hillary-bashing with plenty of hard-hitting attacks on his personality and business practices. Further, the Clinton campaign was aggressive in rehabilitating her image with contrasting features — tough, effective senator and secretary of state who possesses a compassionate heart.

Trump and Clinton faced conventions with the same tasks — cure the divisiveness within party ranks and reach out to independents. Both adopted the strategy of scaring delegates and viewers with the prospect of the other in the White House.

The Democratic Convention endured the unending complaints of many obnoxious Sanders supporters. But while they may continue to "feel the Bern," the prospect of President Trump will promote party unity.

Webb: The Democrats had a very conventional convention with far more star power than the Republicans, better speeches, better organization, more inspiration, more discipline, more unity and a very effective prosecution of Donald Trump. I’ll be surprised if Clinton doesn’t get a nice bump in the polls.

Still, the Democrats were preaching to the choir. Meanwhile, some 80 percent of citizens think the country is going in the wrong direction after nearly eight years of Barack Obama. The mutual Clinton/Obama embrace means four more years of big government liberalism. Forget the change agent the country needs.

Trump may be outrageous, but Clinton remains the secretary of status quo. Plenty of angry voters want to see the government disrupted. Trump, the champion of chaos, is their guy.

The Democratic and Republican platforms are fascinating. They may be the most liberal and conservative, respectively, in history. Yet, both platforms share surprising populist elements, such as antagonism toward trade agreements. Are the two parties merging or getting further apart?

Pignanelli: The new policies articulated at the conventions confirmed we are amid a major realignment of political demographics. Clintonian Democrats of the 1990s and early 2000s emphasized entitlement reform, free trade and sensible financial regulation. Apparently the delegates and convention speakers believe such successful policies belong to the Dark Ages.

Further, the insurgent candidates are wishing to expand government (Trump: deporting 11 million immigrants, building walls, etc.; Sanders: free college tuition, single-payer health care, etc.) and their populist beliefs infiltrated the conventions, which explains the many similarities.

Webb: The platforms, thankfully, don’t mean much. They’ll barely be mentioned the rest of the campaign. But both platforms leave traditional mainstream conservative Republicans like me a little cold. The anti-trade planks of both platforms are shortsighted and damaging to the economy.

While I agree with much in the GOP platform, the far right-wing elements alienate moderate and independent voters. The old-fashioned, ultra-liberal positions in the Democratic platform perpetuate the myth that more government, more regulation and higher taxes will solve the country’s problems.

Best use for both platforms: Tinder to start a fire at the next Boy Scout campout.

Post-convention, which party and candidates are best positioned to pick up momentum through the summer and fall and win in November?

Pignanelli: If anyone tells you they can predict this unusual election, either laugh or throw something at them. Clinton has a huge Electoral College advantage that could dissolve from external forces (i.e., terrorist attacks, a recession, Russians, etc.). Conversely, Trump’s post-convention bump will dissipate every time he speaks.

Maybe those aliens can tip the balance.

Webb: This obviously isn’t the matchup I wanted. I do want to see a Washington shake-up. I’m all for controlled disruption. I wish loose-cannon Donald would show me he can be a responsible change agent who won’t throw the country into war or depression in his first six months.

On paper, Clinton should win. Her party is more unified, her campaign is better run and more disciplined. She has a better ground game and a lot more money. But she’s also deeply flawed, unexciting and untrustworthy and represents more of the same.

So the election shapes up as establishment, status quo, big-government Hillary vs. loud-mouth, egomaniac, anarchist Donald — lacking guiding principles and common sense.

What a great choice.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Shurtleff, GOP convention and a DNC convention preview

Happy Pioneer Day! There are many benefits to living in Utah — including an extra day off in July. Today and tomorrow we honor the courage and determination of our state’s founders. Many of their descendants ended up in politics and continue to provide delicious discussion topics at barbecues and fireworks parties.

Several weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned the bribery conviction of Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell. This decision was cited as one reason that Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings dropped charges against former Attorney General Mark Shurtleff. Will these results affect local politicians?

Pignanelli: “I never bought a man who wasn't for sale.” — William Andrews Clark, responding to condemnation of his bribing Montana legislators. Roughly99.9999 percent of Utah politicians are good individuals who were never tempted by, or even joked about, bribery … except me. Years ago, a reporter from this newspaper published my flippant comment that while I would never trade a vote for money, a nice pasta dinner accompanied by wine could prompt sympathetic legislative deliberations. (Good government advocacy groups, and my mother, were not amused.) Thus, few officials are exclaiming "whew" to recent developments.

But there will be a subtle impact. For some time, attorneys from across the country have been spooking lawmakers with opinions that accepting a contribution while discussing the most minor of details about the donor’s interests, without any specific request, would still attract an FBI SWAT Team. (I strenuously disagreed with such interpretation and the Supreme Court vindicated me, thank you very much). This strained analysis fostered ridiculous complications in legitimate ethical fundraising by politicians.

Now Utah candidates receiving a contribution may allow donors to discuss matters, beyond vague niceties and not accompanied by a specific ask. At the very least, it could prompt nice discussions between the two parties at a pasta dinner.

Webb: It would be a terrible mistake to interpret the McDonnell and Shurtleff cases as meaning it’s OK for politicians to accept favors and play footsie with shady characters. McDonnell and Shurtleff have both paid dearly. McDonnell was once a potential presidential candidate. Shurtleff was a prospective U.S. Senate or gubernatorial candidate.

But the cases do show that while it’s fairly easy to accuse a politician of conflicts of interest and illegally accepting favors, it’s a lot tougher to send someone to prison.

I’ve never thought Shurtleff was overtly corrupt or an evil person. But politicians must be wary of wealthy, well-connected people seeking favors. Such people are drawn to politics and the power it represents, and they love to endear themselves by making large campaign contributions and other gifts. Every top politician has to deal with devious hangers-on and sometimes has to tell them to get lost. Shurtleff got too cozy with some unscrupulous people. He won’t go to trial, but he won’t get off easy in the court of public opinion.

On many levels, the just-concluded GOP national convention was unprecedented. (Due to our deadline, this was written before the final night.) Upstart delegates, led by Utah Sen. Mike Lee, attempted a last-minute effort to free Donald Trump delegates. But a real effort was made to unify the party. Will the events of last week move Utahns to support Trump?

Pignanelli:

Many Republicans are upset with Lee, Sutherland Institute Director Boyd Matheson and other insurgents for their activities at the Convention. But they deserve accolades because although Trump is the nominee, he must reap what he has sown. Lee and Company also understand a political party cannot be built around one person and are keeping an actual philosophy alive. The Trump family speakers and the outreach to the LGBT community were positive elements at the Convention. But most Utahns reject the dark, foreboding anti-immigrant message the billionaire delivered Thursday evening.

Webb: Hillary Clinton will unify the Republican Party. The Trump convention — like his entire campaign — was tumultuous, spontaneous and unorchestrated. That made it rather fun. Mike Penceis a great VP selection, and the Trump children helped humanize their father. Donald Jr. had perhaps the best performance of the convention, both in style and substance. Ted Cruz was the big loser. When you get invited to a nice party, you don’t spit in the punch bowl.

The Democratic National Convention starts tomorrow. Will the activities in Philadelphia help or hurt Hillary Clinton's chances in Utah?

Pignanelli: As did the Trump campaign, the Clinton machine faces convention challenges. It will need to motivate supporters of Bernie Sanders, without too much left-wing rhetoric that will irritate independents and frustrated Republicans. This will be difficult, but if accomplished it promises to attract voters in Utah and other states.

Webb: Utahns will get bored watching a parade of leftist speakers extol big government, more regulation, more programs, more gun control, more consolidation of power at the federal level, higher taxes and more liberal Supreme Court justices. Trump will look great by comparison.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: GOP Convention, Chaffetz's future and the PLI

The political scene this week will be hotter than the weather. Here’s what we’re watching.

The Republican National Convention will soak up all political oxygen. Will the convention help Utah Republicans accept Donald Trump as their presidential nominee?

Pignanelli: “I stayed up last night and watched the Republican Convention all night long. I'm not interested in politics. If you watch them and listen to them you can find out why.” — Casey Stengel

This could be a convention like no other. The world’s loudest salesman will ensure HIS show is entertaining and interesting. Unless he goes off script and shouts something stupid (don’t bet against it), Trump will get the historic bump in the polls after a nominating convention.

But Trump is Trump. He cannot help himself. He will say or do something to erase any gains from the convention. So Utahns will remain suspicious of Trump into the fall.

Webb: Clearly, part of Republican Trump angst is worry that he can’t beat Hillary Clinton. But recent polls show him very close (due, in part, to Clinton’s email/classified documents scandal). If Trump has a good convention, gets a convention bump and shows he can defeat Clinton, more Republicans will become believers. If he becomes responsible and reasonable and stops saying and doing idiotic things, Republicans might even get comfortable with him.

Congressman Jason Chaffetz has been on a roll lately, winning big in the primary election, unveiling major bipartisan conservation legislation for the Wasatch mountains, chairing a hearing grilling FBI Director James Comey, and starring in TV interviews. What’s in the congressman’s future?

Pignanelli: Even for a congressman with a long string of successes, this month was uniquely spectacular for Chaffetz. He provided the road map of how Republicans can avoid the Trump dilemma and take advantage of Clinton's email controversy. Further, his Mountain Accord legislation reflects that many Democratic members of Congress like Chaffetz and will work with him.

Another victory for Chaffetz last week was a lightly publicized, but incredible, effort to benefit millions of Americans.

Community banks are the foundation of the national economy as small businesses and families rely on them for their credit needs. Further, Utah is the fourth-largest center of financial services in America, mostly because of the industrial banks (whom I am honored to represent). Our state receives immense benefits through jobs and huge charitable contributions. But all this is in jeopardy because federal regulators are strangling state-chartered banks. Washington bigwigs have ignored or mocked pleas for help — until last week.

Chaffetz hauled the bureaucrats before his committee to be grilled by Republicans (and some Democrats) for their recalcitrance. Promises of reform were grudgingly made.

With such laurels, Chaffetz could pursue House leadership, the U.S. Senate in 2018 or the governor’s mansion in 2020.

Webb: Chaffetz can keep his House seat as long as he desires and can likely move up in congressional leadership. But he’s also ambitious. Being one of 535 members of Congress in gridlocked, dysfunctional Washington can get really old. Good leaders want to actually solve problems and make progress, not just spin their wheels. So the governorship in 2020 looks enticing.

However, Chaffetz would have tough competition in that race, as a lot of other attractive Republicans will be going for it. And Utahns vote somewhat differently for governors than for members of Congress. For Congress they want a firebrand who will go to Washington and battle the evil liberals. It’s OK to be ideological and partisan. For a governor they want a fatherly figure who can bring people together and is more of a practical problem-solver than an ideological purist. The business community wants someone it is very comfortable with.

Can Chaffetz make that transition? Does “Governor Chaffetz” have a nice, comfortable, soothing sound to it?

Last week was a big week for public lands in Utah, as Congressman Rob Bishop was scheduled to unveil his massive Public Lands Initiative (PLI) legislation. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell also visited Utah, sparking speculation about a Bears Ears national monument. Does Bishop’s legislation have a chance to pass, or will President Barack Obama create another national monument in Utah? 

Pignanelli: Washington insiders are telling me that Bishop's bill may stall monument designation. But the ever-changing dynamics of the presidential election will also influence this issue.

Webb: If Democrats and environmentalists are honest, they will admit that they will get a lot more of Utah’s beautiful land protected via Bishop’s PLI legislation than from a mere Bears Ears designation. Bishop’s bill spans multiple counties across the eastern portion of the state, not just the small Bears Ears area. He has made numerous concessions to conservation groups and has tried to accommodate all stakeholders. It is true compromise, collaborative legislation.

A national-monument designation will signal the utter failure of the Obama administration to work with mainstream Utah leaders. It will dramatically exacerbate federal/state tensions and distrust and will encourage civil disobedience. It will further propel the Legislature to try to take over most federal land. It will mean more bickering, more anger, more cynicism, more suspicion.

Bishop’s PLI is vastly superior to a monument designation and it should pass.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Unbinding delegates and Clinton's chances in Utah

While the country is being dragged through Hillary Clinton’s email scandal and whatever the latest idiotic thing is that spews from Donald Trump’s mouth, the national conventions are approaching. The GOP convention, especially, could be exciting.

Pressure is increasing — locally and across America — to unbind Republican convention delegates so they can dump Trump. Former Utah member of Congress Enid Mickelson is Rules Committee chairwoman, putting her on the hot seat. U.S. Sen. Mike Lee and Sharon Lee are also members. Should they and their colleagues make every effort to ensure someone other than Tromp is nominated?

Pignanelli: “The 1928 Republican Convention opened with a prayer. If the Lord can see His way clear to bless the Republican Party the way it's been carrying on, then the rest of us ought to get it without even asking.” — Will Rogers

Republicans … please don’t do this. A political institution founded on the nobility of eliminating slavery and blessed with the incredible legacy of Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Robert Taft, Howard Baker, Jack Kemp, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan demands better than the Trump chaos.

Republicans, please don’t do this. Your party rightfully claims a deep intellectual tradition of conservative thought. My 15-year-old boys have a better grasp of political philosophies than the presumptive nominee.

Above any partisan wrangling, we are all Americans. We do not deserve the nonsense and hateful messages the Trump campaign generates. If another candidate espoused the junk Trump effuses, he/she would be rejected by millions of Republicans.

Republicans, please don’t do this. Yes, Trump won the primary elections. But he is breaking the implied rules by not developing a general election campaign, offending voters with racist comments, preventing expansion of the party and refusing to honor the policies and traditions of the GOP.

Chairman Mickelson and the Lees enjoy a reputation of thoughtfulness. Many hope they will use their skills this week to protect their party and our country.

Here ends my guilt trip (My mother would be proud). I have faith my fellow Utahns will do what is right.

Webb: I say play by the rules. Trump won sufficient votes, state by state, to be the “presumptive” nominee. But he has to win the vote of delegates to be the “official” nominee. If rules allow delegates to change their minds, so be it. I’d love to see a Paul Ryan, John Kasich or Mitt Romney nominated instead of Trump. But I don’t expect that to happen. And a successful revolt against Trump would tear the party apart and probably ensure the election of Clinton.

It’s just incredibly unfortunate that in a presidential election year when Democrats nominate the worst possible candidate — Hillary Clinton — Republicans are going to nominate the only candidate she can defeat — Donald Trump.

Utah is in the political spotlight because it is a deeply red state wavering in support of Trump. Does this offer opportunities for Clinton and Libertarians, or do Republicans come home and vote for Trump?

Pignanelli: Trump is Trump. Even as the nominee, he will continue to offend decent, tolerant, ethical people. Therefore, a majority of Utahns will be uncomfortable with him as president and continue to consider alternatives. (At last, a fun presidential election in Utah!)

Webb: Most Utah Republicans will collectively hold their noses and vote for Trump over the deeply flawed Clinton. It’s true that Clinton isn’t as crazy as Trump and is more qualified. But it’s also true that with Clinton you know exactly what you get, and Utahns don’t like it. Clinton is a predictable, old-fashioned, leftist liberal who will tax more, regulate more and increase the size of the federal government. In an era of incredible innovation and creativity giving us ultra-high-tech electric, autonomous Teslas, Clinton is a pink ’59 Cadillac DeVille with enormous fins, belching clouds of exhaust. She doesn’t have an original idea in her head.

Meanwhile, many Utah Republicans understand that Trump is completely unpredictable and maybe even a little dangerous. But at least he will shake up Washington, and an outside chance exists he might even do something good.

The FBI investigation cleared Clinton of criminal wrongdoing, but stated she was “extremely careless" in the handling of classified information. Does avoiding prosecution mean the path is clear for her to win the general election?

Pignanelli: The Clinton campaign is relieved they do not have deal with formal charges of misconduct. But the decision has created a perception of a double standard that will haunt the secretary until November.

Webb: The FBI conclusions further damage the credibility of an already terribly defective candidate, although Trump has no clue how to exploit it. (Praising Saddam Hussein instead of keeping the focus on Clinton!?!?) The lack of consequences for Clinton furthers the widely held belief that the Clintons are above the law, making up the rules as they go — with seeming impunity.

All I can say is (deep sigh), how the heck did we get in this fix?