Opinion: Lessons from the state GOP convention
The recently concluded Utah Republican Organizing Convention results offer an interesting insight into what may happen in the near future. We offer our perspectives.
Current GOP chair Rob Axson prevailed over his opponent, former state representative Phil Lyman 52%-48%. This was more than just a contest to see who would be the next chairman. This election was influenced by external forces and signaled direction for the state's majority party. What does Axson's reelection mean?
COWLEY: President Trump and Sen. Mike Lee are the darlings of delegates, and their endorsements tipped the scales in this contest. It wasn't Lee's endorsement of Axson that I found more notable from the convention. It was his urging that the Legislature repeal SB54, which allowed candidates to bypass the convention process. Both Axson and Lyman campaigned on eliminating the signature path, but were split on who has the authority to implement the change.
Trump's policies may be popular with delegates, but many MAGA Republicans side-eye the usurpation of the 22nd Amendment regarding a third presidential term. Delegates narrowly voted down a resolution to 'oppose and condemn any measure or action' that would allow the president to serve more than two terms. With one faction of delegates opposing a third Trump term, juxtaposed with another faction donning Trump 2028 hats, the upcoming presidential election will be interesting, to say the least.
Delegates' clear penchant for Trump and Lee is the antithesis of their sentiment toward Gov. Spencer Cox. Nobody can blame the governor for not attending this year's convention after the delegates' crass behavior last year. Disagreeing with a politician is one thing, but boos and jeers for our state's highest office holder is unbecoming of our party and Utah as a whole.
PIGNANELLI: 'What we have in our power is gratitude. It can be culturally contagious.'— Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review
Various conditions can plague successful people and prevent them from enjoying their achievements. Something similar is affecting the local GOP. Republicans control the congressional delegation, over two-thirds of the state Legislature, all the statewide offices, most county governments, etc. Utah is continually honored for a well-managed government and strong economy. Thus, activists should have spent Saturday morning congratulating themselves, thanking voters, and re-electing Axson by acclamation.
Instead, they engaged once again in this silly fight over minutia, which blemishes positive messaging to the general public. The closeness of the race defies reason because Axson is a solid chairman.
Without strong Democratic opposition to focus their energies, Republican delegates are instead chewing on other party members.
Although delegates deferred a decision on the proposed resolution to the party constitution revoking membership of candidates seeking nomination through signatures, it's still a major issue for the party's activists. Where is this issue heading into the next legislative session and beyond?
COWLEY: Let's examine why delegates support only one path to party nomination. Some believe delegates are more engaged and better informed for candidate vetting. As a former delegate, I can fully endorse that statement. Others say the convention is harder to manipulate and produces more conservative candidates. Since the passage of SB54, I haven't observed Republican candidates becoming less conservative, and both processes yield creative campaign tactics - caucus stacking and coordinated, paid signature gathering. Convention-only arguments seem to be rooted in protectionism while signature gathering favors wealthy candidates. Neither path is without its shortcomings.
As candidates, legislators conduct a cost-benefit analysis. Signature gathering is costly, but it's an insurance policy. Convention-only can be expensive without any guarantee of making it to the Primary. As policymakers, legislators are divided on the best approach for candidate selection.
PIGNANELLI: Delegates comprise less than 1% of Republican voters. But they want control over the nominating process restored. Because they are more engaged than the average citizen, their activism cannot be dismissed.
But on the other side of the conundrum is the fact that, should the Legislature eliminate the signature gathering process, many events would be triggered. A referendum, an initiative, and a restricting of resources to the party will likely occur should delegates regain control of the nominating process.
What's likely to happen? The existing passive-aggressive strategy will continue. Many elected Republican officials will grumble about the signature gathering process, praise legislation that reverses it, but ensure the bill fades away in the last days of the session. This will keep the peace. Such is practical politics.
Congressional deliberations surrounding the recent tax bill imply a split between MAGA and mainstream Republicans. Is this happening in Utah?
COWLEY: Congressional holdouts are conservative hardliners. They like the 'big beautiful budget bill' but feel it doesn't go far enough to reduce the deficit. Moody's downgrading of the U.S. credit rating fuels these concerns. Comparable budget hawks also serve in Utah's Legislature, but because of our constitutionally mandated balanced budget, similar dynamics don't arise.
PIGNANELLI: The Utah delegation has perfected the ability of throwing red meat to the activists but working behind the scenes to ensure a working relationship with the president, his team and their colleagues. Similar dynamics occur in the Legislature, in which local MAGA lawmakers receive attention but the necessary work (budgets, appropriations, infrastructure, economic features, etc.) are always a priority.
Republican Renae Cowley is a political consultant, lobbyist, social media influencer, and professional rodeo athlete. Email: capitolcowgirl@gmail.com. Frank Pignanelli is a Salt Lake attorney, lobbyist, and political adviser who served as a Democrat in the Utah State Legislature. Email: frankp@xmission.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Morning Bid: Inflation to set the tone for ECB
A look at the day ahead in European and global markets from Rae Wee The highlight for the European day on Tuesday will be flash euro zone inflation figures for May, which come ahead of an expected rate cut from the European Central Bank (ECB) later in the week. Expectations are for consumer prices to have slowed to an annual 2.0% last month after April's larger-than-expected 2.2% rise, but what the reading means for the ECB's rate trajectory will be the question on investors' minds. The ECB is considered almost certain to cut its rates by a quarter point to 2.0% on Thursday, but traders are sensing a pause will then follow as the economy holds up better than anticipated and longer-term inflation worries creep back. U.S. tariff uncertainty, heightened further by ambiguity over court rulings on the legality of the tariffs, makes the backdrop challenging as the ECB weighs the impact to business activity against implications for inflation further out. And in more tariff news, the Trump administration wants countries to provide their best offer on trade negotiations by Wednesday, as officials seek to accelerate talks with multiple partners ahead of a self-imposed deadline in just five weeks. President Donald Trump's erratic trade policies continue to cast a pall over markets, and the dollar fell anew to a six-week low on Tuesday on signs of fragility in the U.S. economy. Talks between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping are expected this week as trade tensions between the world's two largest economies simmer. It remains to be seen whether it will be a "beautiful" chat or if things could take a turn for the worse. Key developments that could influence markets on Tuesday: - Euro zone flash CPI (May) - U.S. Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) report (April) - Fed's Goolsbee, Logan speak Trying to keep up with the latest tariff news? Our new daily news digest offers a rundown of the top market-moving headlines impacting global trade. Sign up for Tariff Watch here. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Business of Fashion
33 minutes ago
- Business of Fashion
Why Brands Are Still Betting on the US
Serena Uziyel isn't giving up on the US. Over the last year, the Istanbul-based luxury shoe brand has opened two stores in Florida and one in New York in what is now its second-largest market after Turkey. The brand hopes to open more stores in Florida, as well as new markets like California and Texas. Those plans were made before the Trump administration unleashed its tariffs, and when the US economy was on more solid footing. But the brand has no intention of changing course now. 'We know how to deal with it, so we are not going to change our plans,' said chief executive Nadir Celik. It helps that the brand has experience navigating economic turbulence and high inflation in Turkey, he added. Countless brands are making their own assessment of whether trying for a slice of the world's biggest fashion market is still worth the investment. All signs point to a weak economy with consumer confidence plummeting as the costs for essential goods like eggs go up. Retail sales on discretionary items fell in April. Trump's trade policy is also in flux, with the Supreme Court potentially weighing in on whether he can impose tariffs on dozens of countries on top of a 10 percent global levy that went into effect in April. Investing in America could be a costly mistake in a worst case scenario, where Trump imposes prohibitive tariffs, the economy enters a deep recession, or both. But missing out if the turbulence is milder than expected has its own costs. Brands operating in the US are moving quickly to protect themselves, such as by reconfiguring their supply chains to minimise potential tariffs, or operating on parallel tracks, growing their US presence while speeding up expansion elsewhere. For many, the choice to stay is clear – the market is simply too big to ignore. 'America as an economy is too important to be canceled,' said the Switzerland-based designer Philipp Plein. 'People have money to spend; people will keep on spending money.' A Resilient Market Philipp Plein International Group is going ahead with a number of US store openings for its Plein Sport activewear brand, as it looks to at least double sales for that business to $40 million, Plein said. The line is made in China, where Trump has slapped 30 percent duties on all products, but he's betting that the tariff uproar won't be as detrimental as many fear. He's even more confident in the American consumer. He noted the country's economy bounced back quickly after Covid compared to other leading economies like China, which has struggled to recover from the pandemic. Brands are also banking on customer loyalty to get them through a potential rough patch. When it comes to customers, 'once we get, them we keep them,' said Peta Heinsen, co-founder and director of the Australian womenswear brand Matteau. Heinsen said the label aims to have more than half its sales come from the US, up from 35 percent today. If US customers replicate a 70 percent global repeat purchase rate, they'll get there, tariffs or no tariffs, Heinsen said. The more that happens in the US, 'we can see huge potential without having to do too much more than we're already doing,' she said. Supply Chain Alignment Where brands are changing course, it's often behind the scenes. Ever-changing tariffs have underscored the need for brands to have a global supply chain — particularly one that isn't wholly dependent on China. The more suppliers and factories in its network, the more flexible a brand can be in relocating production when the cost of doing business increases. Diversified supply chains will help in most tariff scenarios, experts say. Several brand founders cited Portugal, Turkey and India as countries with relatively low manufacturing costs that were likely to dodge the highest tariffs. In February, Matteau moved production of its swimwear line from China to Portugal, sidestepping the roller coaster ride in April and May that saw tariffs on Chinese imports set as high as 145 percent before temporarily settling at their current level. (Whether the brand's bet pays off in the long run remains to be seen; in late May, Trump threatened a 50 percent tariff on goods from the European Union). After moving into 1,700 Target stores, supplement maker Imaraïs Beauty is in talks to move production of its gummy supplements from Canada to the US so it can keep its big new retail customer consistently supplied without having to pay tariffs. 'As a brand, and a brand owner, you're putting out fires nonstop,' said co-founder and chief executive Aaron Hefter. 'This is a forest fire.' With a trade war still brewing and consumer sentiment in flux, brands have to move forward with their growth plans while minimising any threats to their business, said Anshuman Jaiswal, chief business officer at software firm OnePint, which helps global businesses manage inventory. 'The only thing that you can control is, 'Can I have more risk cushion in my business plan?'' Jaiswal said.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
2 key findings on Democrats' brand problem from the new CNN poll
There's new evidence that the Democratic Party's reputation is in a bad place. That doesn't mean the party is doomed, electorally speaking. There's plenty of reason to doubt that, given lots of history and its performance in the 2025 elections thus far — but it is a complicating factor for the party's path forward. And a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS provides insights into the party's problems. It's worth a breakdown. The poll, which was released Sunday, asked a battery of questions about how people view both parties. Perhaps most striking was that people were more likely to view the Republicans than Democrats as the party with strong leaders (40% to 16%) and even the 'party of change' (32% to 25%). Neither party won close to a majority in either category. But the former is notable because there is such a gulf between the two parties. And the latter is notable because the party that's out of power is usually viewed as the party of change. Not this time. So what can we read into these findings? The 'strong leaders' question might be the most troublesome finding for Democrats. Only about 1 in 6 Americans said Democrats have stronger leaders than Republicans. As remarkably, only 39% of Democrats said that. We've seen hints of this in previous polls. A March CNN poll found about 3 in 10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters couldn't name a single leader who best reflected the party's core values. An AP-NORC poll last month showed just 35% of Democrats said they were at least 'somewhat' optimistic about the future of their party, compared with 55% of Republicans for their party. This might not seem too surprising. We just said goodbye to a Democratic president (Joe Biden) who was a diminished figure even when he was still in office. And the Democratic nominee who replaced him (Kamala Harris) wasn't exactly viewed as the future of the party when she took over the ticket in the 2024 race — and then lost. But there was a time when Democrats were at a somewhat similar crossroads, and the numbers weren't as dismal. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll asked the same question in 2006 — after John Kerry's unsuccessful emergence as Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate — and found a smaller 14-point advantage for Republicans. Back then, 63% of Democrats said their party had stronger leaders than Republicans — 24 points higher than today. One reason for the difference is that the 2025 and 2006 polls asked the question in a slightly different way, partly because one was conducted entirely by phone and the other mostly online. Today's poll gave people an explicit 'neither' option, which the 2006 poll didn't (though some people volunteered that option back then). Nearly half of Democrats in the new poll (48%) chose that option. That's still a remarkable finding. Combined with the 13% of Democrats who said Republicans have the stronger leaders, that's 6 in 10 Democrats this year who don't think their side has stronger leaders than a party led by a president whom a huge majority of them revile. The other notable finding is on which party is the 'party of change.' Americans chose Republicans, 32% to 25%. That's not a big gap, but it is counterintuitive given Republicans swept the House, Senate and White House last fall. Historically speaking, it's almost always the party that's out of power that's viewed as the party of change. Before the 2006 election, the same CNN-ORC poll mentioned above showed Democrats had a huge, 56% to 29% lead on this measure. Then, as now, Democrats didn't hold the presidency or either chamber of Congress. But the numbers are very different today. Not only do Democrats trail on this measure, but only a slight majority of Democrats themselves — 51% — say their party is the party of change. And only 18% of independents say that. It's likely this is, in part, about Democrats' failure to position themselves as change agents, but also about what President Donald Trump is doing — and about people not necessarily seeing 'change' as a good thing. However you feel about the changes Trump is making, there is no question he is pushing lots of them. You see that in his and the Department of Government Efficiency's rapid overhaul of the federal government and in Trump's historic efforts to expand executive power — in ways that are often being halted by the courts because they go too far, too fast. It's possible that people just see Trump changing lots of things, whether for good or ill in their opinions, so the 'party of change' mantle doesn't mean what it usually does. We already saw during the 2024 campaign that people's definitions of 'change' were somewhat jumbled by unusual circumstances — i.e., Harris replacing Biden, and a former president running as the challenger. But it's also pretty clear that Democrats have failed to make themselves into a viable and attractive alternative to the party in power. The new CNN poll also asked which party people viewed as the 'party that can get things done.' Republicans led on this by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, 36% to 19%. Only 49% of Democrats and 11% of independents picked the Democratic Party as the more formidable one. There's also, of course, Republicans' big edge on the 'strong leaders' question. None of this means Democrats are sunk in the 2026 elections — or anything close to it. History shows the party that doesn't hold the White House almost always wins midterm elections, in large part because they're viewed as a check on the president. Democrats and liberal candidates have also been doing well in special elections and other races held since the 2024 election. In other words, being not-Trump could be good enough to at least reclaim a very closely split House. But if the Democratic Party wants to run up the score in 2026 and really chart a path for the 2028 election, it has some real work to do on its branding.
