Reasons would include:
The candidate with the most votes.
no one currently running for the presidency is competent for taking over as the head of one of the most influential countries in the world.
I'll bet you that the answer within the last 100 years time frame is "Ralph Nader".
Most gun clubs are apolitical
One of the most important informal requirements for the presidency is the ability to connect with the electorate, often referred to as charisma or likability. Candidates who can effectively communicate their vision and resonate with the values and concerns of voters tend to gain more support. This personal appeal can significantly influence public perception and media coverage, ultimately impacting a candidate's viability in primaries and general elections. Additionally, a strong presence in debates and public appearances can enhance a candidate's image and relatability.
The candidate who receives the most electoral votes wins the presidency. It is possible to lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote to be elected president.
There is no way to predict that. It will depend on a number of factors, including which candidate runs the most effective campaign and offers the best solutions to the nation's problems.
The most popular candidate.
If no candidate for the presidency wins a simple majority of the total number of electoral votes, the decision is made by the U.S. House of Representatives. Each state delegation in the House gets one vote to choose the president from the three candidates with the most electoral votes.
No. Not only do electoral votes have an enormous disparity in the number of voters represented, but the awarding of all of a state's votes to one candidate means that votes for other candidates become effectively moot. The "winner take all" system makes the states with more electoral votes more important in the election. The presidential candidate with the most votes wins all the electoral votes of the state (in 48 states). The result is that winning a few large population states, even by a tiny margin, can guarantee election to the presidency. A candidate who received 51% of the vote in just 11 large "swing" states could win the Presidency with as little as 25% of the popular vote. (This is, however, unlikely.)
No. Not only do electoral votes have an enormous disparity in the number of voters represented, but the awarding of all of a state's votes to one candidate means that votes for other candidates become effectively moot. The "winner take all" system makes the states with more electoral votes more important in the election. The presidential candidate with the most votes wins all the electoral votes of the state (in 48 states). The result is that winning a few large population states, even by a tiny margin, can guarantee election to the presidency. A candidate who received 51% of the vote in just 11 large "swing" states could win the Presidency with as little as 25% of the popular vote. (This is, however, unlikely.)
Bill Clinton reached out most to younger voters while campaigning for the US presidency.