Next week's primaries: what you need to know

The low down on Arizona, Michigan and Washington.

Next week will see primaries in Arizona and Michigan on 28 February and the Washington caucuses on 3 March. The final debate before Super Tuesday on 6 March is tonight in Phoenix, Arizona, making it arguably the most important debate to date.

This week's campaigning may prove to be make-or-break for Mitt Romney. If he wins in Arizona and Michigan, he once again cements himself as the frontrunner in the GOP race. However, should Santorum take them then he will have lost more states than he has won and proven that he cannot connect with the conservative right.

The race remains volatile, with slim margins between Santorum and Romney in Arizona and Michigan. Although Romney is expected to win in Arizona -- laregly due to its significant Mormon population -- his position is precarious and will be undermined should Newt Gingrich's supporters switch their allegiance to Santorum and decide that he is now the only viable conservative alternative to Romney.

Mirroring John McCain in 2008, Romney also seems to have an edge with the Latino population in Arizona. Even if he loses the white vote to Santorum, a big win among the Latinos could still mean that Romney takes the state.

Crucially, Arizona is also a winner takes all state meaning that it gives all of its 29 delegates to the candidate with the most votes, regardless of how close the race is. Since Michigan is seen as more fertile ground for Santorum's message, it is unlikely that he will pour valuable resources into Arizona.

If polling predictions show Romney with a significant lead in Arizona, Santorum may well pull out in order to focus his efforts on Michigan.

Michigan, however, is a different story and may prove to be a turning point in deciding the Republican nomination. Despite the fact that Romney was born in Michigan, his father serving as governor there for six years, and has the endorsement of most Michigan GOP leaders including the governor, the more conservative and blue-collar electorate are likely to favour Santorum.

The Romney camp is spending more than twice as much as Santorum and his allies in Michigan. The Massachusetts governor ensured that he successfully dominated the airwaves in Florida and looks set to do the same in Michigan. He will also be helped by fellow candidate Ron Paul's recent ad attacking Rick Santorum as a faux fiscal conservative.

However, Michigan is an open primary, meaning that any registered voter can participate, making it difficult to predict the outcome. Non-Republicans will make up a third of the electorate and could be the determining factor. Should Democrats decide to vote and shake up the race - as they did in 2000 when they voted for John McCain over George W Bush supporter John Engler - it could be Santorum who leaves Michigan the victor.

Also making Michigan tough to predict is the fact that, like Florida, it is a very divided state. While the northwestern parts are more conservative and therefore more likely to vote for Santorum, the southeastern parts, including Detroit, are wealthier and likely to indentify more with Romney than evangelical Santorum.

A victory for Santorum in the Washington caucuses on 3 March would give the Senator some much needed delegates, although since the voting is after the Arizona and Michigan primaries, the outcome may be influenced by the results there.

With next week's primaries set to be as exciting as Super Tuesday, Michigan could prove to be the most important moment yet in Romney's presidential bid as he struggles to maintain hold over his frontrunner status.

Santorum has won three of the last five states and is showing staying power far beyond his team's finances and organisation. If Romney loses both primaries on 28 February and the Washington caucus, for which polling predictions suggest a close race, it would be his sixth loss in seven contests heading into Super Tuesday - all to Santorum.

With everything to play for, tonight's debate in Arizona could be monumental and there's no doubt that both Santorum and Romney will be hoping for homerun performances in what could be a decisive turning point for both campaigns.

 

Jamie Squire/Getty Images
Show Hide image

Clinton and Trump: do presidential debates really matter?

The ability of the candiates to perform in front of the cameras is unlikely to impact the final result.

The upcoming televised presidential debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are undoubtedly the most eagerly anticipated for many years. No doubt there are various surprises in store – this has been, after all, the most surprising of campaigns.

People will be particularly fascinated to see if Trump dials down his bombastic rhetoric and perhaps even adds some substance to the vague policy pronouncements he has made so far. To a lesser extent, many will also be interested in whether Clinton can add the necessary zest to what some consider her lacklustre style, and whether she can prove she’s made a sterling recovery from her recent bout with pneumonia.

It’s possible that some voters may in fact change their minds based on what they see in the two’s only on-camera encounters. And yet, barring a true disaster or devastating triumph, it’s unlikely that anything the candidates say or do will make much difference to the overall result.

This might not seem all that surprising for these two candidates in particular. Leaving aside how long they’ve both been in public life, social media and the 24-hour news cycle have put Clinton and Trump under incredible scrutiny ever since they announced their respective candidacies – and their every sentence and gesture has already been analysed in the greatest detail.

Trump in particular has received more free publicity from the networks and Twitter than even he could afford, and it’s highly unlikely that he will say anything that the US public hasn’t heard before. Similarly, voters’ impressions of Clinton are apparently so deeply entrenched that she probably won’t change many people’s minds.

Yet there are also broader reasons why presidential TV debates are less important than we might imagine.

Looking the part

Even before the media environment became as saturated as it is today, debates were rarely, if ever, decisive in presidential elections. The exception was possibly the very first TV debate in 1960, which pitted the then vice-president, Richard Nixon, against John F. Kennedy.

At the time, the election was so close that the young, relatively inexperienced but highly telegenic Kennedy was able to reap the benefits of putting his case directly to viewers. He was the underdog; a relative unknown in comparison to Nixon and so had more to gain from such national exposure. Nixon, as the establishment figure, had a lot to lose.

In the end, Kennedy’s narrow victory may well have been because of his debate performances. But his success also demonstrated another important feature of television debates: that viewers take more notice of what they see than what they hear.

Notoriously, television viewers responded very favourably to Kennedy’s film-star good looks, but were turned off by Nixon, who refused to wear make-up and looked sweaty and uncomfortable under the studio lights. In contrast, those who listened on the radio believed that Nixon had come out on top. It seems that viewers saw Kennedy as more “presidential” than Nixon, especially given his calmness under pressure. Kennedy did work hard to exploit some of Nixon’s weaknesses on policy, but in the end, that turned out not to be the point.

Kennedy’s success was one of the reasons that neither of his two successors, Lyndon B. Johnson and then a resurgent Nixon, participated in any such events when they were running for the presidency. Although some debates were held in the primaries, there were no face-to-face contests between presidential candidates in 1964, 1968 or 1972.

The next debates were held in 1976, another tight campaign. These yielded a notorious moment in the second encounter between Gerald R Ford and Jimmy Carter, when the incumbent Ford appeared to throw the election away with a poorly judged remark declaring that there was no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. As myth has it, this gaffe stalled Ford’s polling surge; he ultimately lost the election.

Yet even this was not decisive. Although the comment did the president no favours, it’s highly debatable whether it in fact had an impact on the overall result; Ford actually closed the polling gap with Carter between the debates and the general election. People’s reactions to the debate had less to do with the substance of his remark and much more with the media’s constant replay and analysis of that moment, which continues to mar Ford’s reputation to this day.

Selective memory

This pattern has continued in the election cycles that have followed, as slips and awkward moments rather than substance provide the media with dominant themes. Many people recall vice-presidential candidate Dan Quayle’s cack-handed attempt to compare himself to Kennedy in 1988, or George Bush senior’s ill-judged glance at his watch when listening to a question in 1992; few probably remember much about what policies they discussed, or whether, if they won, they carried them out.

If anything, the shortcomings of the TV debate format have become more pronounced in the current cycle. Although neither of the main candidates in this year’s election wants for national exposure, the primary debates have tended to favour the underdog and those who claim to be outsiders.

On the Republican side, Trump’s various moderate competitors were one by one hobbled and engulfed; Clinton, for her part, spent months slugging it out with her remarkably successful left-wing rival Bernie Sanders, never quite landing a televised knockout punch and ultimately only defeating him properly after six months of primaries.

While credible policy proposals seem to matter less than ever, things that would have once been considered catastrophic gaffes have become par for the course. Indeed, one could argue that Trump’s success so far is because he has built his campaign on half-truths and outright lies without care for the consequences.

So despite all the anticipation, this year’s debates probably won’t tell us very much about what will happen after the president takes office next January; the analysis will almost certainly focus less on what the candidates have to say and more on how they say it. Voters will no doubt tune in in great, possibly record-breaking numbers, but they’ll come away with precious little sense of what’s in store for their country.

Equally, the spectacles we’re about to witness might be pyrotechnic enough, but they’re unlikely to decide the result in November. And in the unlikely event that they do, it won’t be for the right reasons.

Andrew Priest is a lecturer in Modern US History at the University of Essex

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.