From roughly 1900 to 1960, a strong showing in presidential primaries?
a. enable a candidate to demonstrate popular support, but did not ensure nomination.
b. did not improve a candidate's chances of gaining the nomination.
c. guaranteed a candidate's nomination.
d. guaranteed a candidate's place on the ticket, although sometimes as the vice presidential nominee rather than presidential nominee.
IS A BEST ANSWER ?THANK YOU:))))
I agree with A. During those years, candidates were nominated at active conventions where a lot of the action took place behind the scenes.
Yes, option A is the best answer.
From roughly 1900 to 1960, a strong showing in presidential primaries enabled a candidate to demonstrate popular support, but did not ensure nomination.
To arrive at this answer, you would need to understand the historical context and the role of presidential primaries during that time period. Here is an explanation of how to get to the answer:
1. Understand the purpose of presidential primaries: Presidential primaries are elections held to select a political party's candidate for the presidential election. They allow party members to express their preference for a candidate, and the results are used to allocate delegates to the candidates for the party's national convention.
2. Consider the broader historical context: From 1900 to 1960, the primary system was still developing and evolving. The primary system as we know it today, where the winner of the primaries almost always secures the party's nomination, was not firmly established during this period.
3. Analyze the options:
a. Option A: This option suggests that a strong showing in primaries demonstrated popular support but did not guarantee the nomination. This aligns with the historical context and the fact that the primary system was not as decisive as it is now.
b. Option B: This option states that a strong showing in the primaries did not improve a candidate's chances of gaining the nomination. This contradicts the purpose of primaries and does not align with historical evidence.
c. Option C: This option claims that a strong showing in the primaries guaranteed a candidate's nomination. This is incorrect because the primary system was not as determinative during the given time period.
d. Option D: This option suggests that a candidate's strong showing in the primaries guaranteed their place on the ticket, possibly as the vice presidential nominee. While this could have been true in some cases, it does not capture the full picture of the primary system's influence.
Considering all the options, option A - "enable a candidate to demonstrate popular support, but did not ensure nomination" - provides the best explanation based on the historical context and the role of presidential primaries during that time.