Democratic.
The modern nomination process includes several primary elections and the nomination is usually wrapped up before the convention. The candidates campaign for these elections by making speeches, making statements to the press and sometimes by a debate with the other candidates. Everything they say of note is reported to the nation, so their differences become public knowledge. Of course, if the nomination is still open at the convention, there would be major battles there, mostly behind the scenes.
Party nominees have a responsibility to do their best to uphold the ideals of their party and present those ideals to the electorate in a favorable way. They need to be honest with their supporters before their accept the nomination and not hide personal information that would likely cost them the election if it came out during the campaign. Independent candidates are only responsible to be true to themselves and honest in their campaign speeches and what they plan to do if they are elected.
Within the Democracy
Someone suggested the Secretary of State investigates candidates. I can tell you that is not so. The Secretary of State does not investigate, it recommends and advises. The FBI investigates. Before I could work in the White House I had to undergo a thorough background investigation by the FBI for the Secret Service. *Candidates for political office, most especially the presidential candidates, do need better regulation. As far as I am aware, there has never been a thorough background check or polygraph of Barack Obama. It is entirely up to the voters to elect to office anyone they wish in spite of their background and make whatever check on the few requirements there are, i.e. age and birth. It is likely ACORN did Obama's background check. Another words, the system is flawed and we often get what we don't wish for.
newspaper article
barrock obama by a landslide
Based on data from presidential elections throughout American history an individual is least likely to become next president when holding what position?
its the best ray romano
depends o the issues n the candidates,no one "type" election is less important or voter participation
Political participation is more personal and issue-oriented in state and local politics than in national politics.
This is referred to as the "coattail effect." It happens when a popular or influential candidate's success in an election helps boost the chances of other candidates from the same party, as voters are more likely to vote for candidates from the same party as the top candidate. This phenomenon is often seen in presidential elections, where the winning presidential candidate's popularity can positively impact down-ballot races.
Fewer people voted for him.
For the 2020 presidential election, the main candidates are: Jacob Hornberger Adam Kokesh Daniel Behrman Ken Armstrong Arvin Vohra Max Abramson There are others, but these are the main candidates and the ones most likely to be seriously considered for the nomination.
It's not at all inevitable. Self-reporting to the US Census Bureau indicates that those aged 18 to 20 are among the most likely age groups to vote in a presidential or congressional election, averaging approximately 56% in presidential elections since 1996. Those aged 21 to 24 are typically the least likely to vote in either type of election, averaging 35.4% in presidential elections since 1996... Still far from an inevitability of not voting.
the relative strength of each candidates support etc.
There were millions of people who were not candidates in 1968. Robert Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were two that were considered likely nominees at one time but did not run. Kennedy was shot and killed and Johnson earlier decided against running.
The Gemini 4R model could likely be linked to the American presidential elections. Whether such a model would be useful in identifying causal relations or effects (for example, why does a certain candidate get elected? What would be the expected effect of a candidate's actions on their outcome?).