Which of the following is important when a primary scheduled as heavily front-loaded as it was in 2008?

A. A clear stance on the issues
B. The ability to raise money
C. A comprehensive general election strategy
D. A steady, slow building following with the primary electorate <<<

Which of the following would be most likely to occur if there is no nominating step in American electoral politics?
A. many people run in the best most qualified candidate would win <<<< B. many people would run in the winter it would be an elected with a relatively small percentage of the vote
C.fewer people would run in the most votes will be wasted
D.fewer people with one and the differences between the candidates will be made very stark

B

D
A

The correct answer is the ability to raise money.

Answers for the QC:
- I cant remember
- D
- B

Please proofread. Much of this makes no sense.

Thats the problem I'm having, thats the way the questions are written in the quick check

To determine the correct answer to the first question, let's analyze the options:

A. A clear stance on the issues: While having a clear stance on the issues is important, it may not be the most crucial factor when a primary is heavily front-loaded. This is because candidates may not have enough time to fully develop their positions and convey them to the electorate.

B. The ability to raise money: This is a significant factor in any political campaign, as it allows candidates to fund their operations, advertise, and connect with voters. Therefore, the ability to raise money is an important consideration in a heavily front-loaded primary.

C. A comprehensive general election strategy: While it is vital to have a general election strategy, the question specifically asks about a heavily front-loaded primary. Therefore, the focus should be on factors that are relevant to the primary race rather than the general election.

D. A steady, slow building following with the primary electorate: This option suggests that a candidate with a gradually growing support base among primary voters would be favorable in a heavily front-loaded primary. Candidates with a solid and steady following are more likely to perform well in such a scenario.

Based on the analysis of the options, the most fitting answer to the first question would be D. A steady, slow building following with the primary electorate.

Moving on to the second question, the options are as follows:

A. Many people run, and the best, most qualified candidate would win: Without a nominating step in American electoral politics, it is likely that many candidates would run. However, it does not necessarily guarantee that the best, most qualified candidate would win. The absence of a nomination process may result in a fragmented electorate, making it challenging for a single candidate to garner sufficient support to secure a clear majority.

B. Many people run, and it would be an election with a relatively small percentage of the vote: This option suggests that with multiple candidates running, the winner would likely receive only a small percentage of the overall vote. This is a plausible outcome when there is no nominating step.

C. Fewer people run, and the most votes will be wasted: Without a nomination process, it is possible that fewer people would run, assuming that potential candidates are discouraged by the lack of a structured selection procedure. However, it does not necessarily mean that the most votes would be wasted, as the absence of a nomination process could lead to clearer choices for voters.

D. Fewer people run, and the differences between the candidates will be made very stark: This option suggests that with fewer candidates running, the distinctions between them would become more pronounced. This is a possible outcome when there is no nominating step, as the competition becomes more focused and direct.

Based on the analysis of the options, the most likely outcome if there is no nominating step in American electoral politics would be B. Many people would run, and it would be an election with a relatively small percentage of the vote.