If a candidate has no support in an entire region out of the one created, it is still indeed <u>possible </u><u>for them to </u><u>win </u><u>the </u><u>Presidency</u><u>. </u>
If a lines are drawn across the U.S. such that they are divided into 4 regions:
- A person not having support in only one region would mean that they still have support in other regions
- A candidate can still win the Presidency if they have overwhelming support in the 3 other regions
An example that comes to mind is Abraham Lincoln. He had virtually no support in half the U.S. in 1860 and yet won the election on the votes of the Northern and Western states alone.
In conclusion, it is indeed possible to win if one has no support in one region.
<em>Find out more about Lincoln's win at brainly.com/question/19462759. </em>
Answer:
Explanation:
The Anti-Federalists believed the people's liberties needed protection from the government. Their pressure and threats to block ratification of the Constitution led the Federalists to agree to add a "Bill of Rights" to the Constitution if it were to be ratified. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.
Answer:
pretty sure its D
Explanation:
just cuz it says "local" culture
Hope this helps ya
<span>Battle of the Marne; the Belgian coast to the border of Switzerland.
Germany had invaded France with the objective of beating France quickly and then turning to attack Russia. However, the French and British attack caused Germany to retreat and began the digging in which would become the Western Front. Trench warfare created a stalemate in the war with years of the battle lines moving little between Germany and the French and British alliance. </span>