CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

1924 Democratic Party presidential primaries

Open-knowledge reference entry

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionSep 29, 2025
Entity authorityQ20715356 ↗
Source-derived summary

From March 12 to June 7, 1924, voters and members of the Democratic Party elected delegates to the 1924 Democratic National Convention, in part to nominate a candidate for President of the United States in the 1924 election.

Though William Gibbs McAdoo won a vast majority of states, and almost three-fifths of the popular vote, in those twelve states that held primary elections, it meant little to his performance nationwide. Many of the delegations from states that did not hold primary elections favored his main rivals, Oscar Underwood of Alabama and Al Smith of New York, neither of whom won any primary elections. As well as the primaries that McAdoo did not win were won by "local sons" who stood no chance of winning the nomination, or in some cases were not even formal candidates. Once at the convention, the party was deadlocked for 102 straight ballots, before dark horse candidate John W. Davis, (who was not a formal candidate when he arrived at the convention) was chosen on the 103rd ballot. Davis went on to lose the election to Republican candidate Calvin Coolidge.

Background

Sizable Democratic gains during the 1922 Midterm elections suggested to many Democrats that the nadir that they experienced immediately after the 1920 elections was ending, and that a popular candidate like William Gibbs McAdoo of California, who could draw the popular support of labor and Wilsonians, would stand an excellent chance of winning the coming presidential election. The Teapot Dome scandal added yet even more enthusiasm for the party initially, but further disclosures revealed that the corrupt interests had been bipartisan. Edward Doheny for example, whose name had become synonymous with that of the Teapot Dome scandal, ranked highly in the Democratic Party of California, contributed highly to party campaigns, served as chairman of the state party, and was even at one point advanced as a possible candidate for vice-president in 1920. The death of Warren Harding in August 1923 and the succession of Coolidge blunted the effects of the scandals upon the Republican Party, including that of Teapot Dome, but until the convention many Democrats believed that the Republicans would be turned out of the White House.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “1924 Democratic Party presidential primaries” as open-knowledge reference entry. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1924, 1922, 1920, 1923—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Democratic, Party and presidential can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as open-knowledge reference entry. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

Evidence profile

Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 29, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q20715356. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1924, 1922, 1920 and 1923.

Critical limits

A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “1924 Democratic Party presidential primaries”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 1924 Democratic Party presidential primaries primary sources, 1924 Democratic Party presidential primaries archive and Democratic research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “1924 Democratic Party presidential primaries”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “1924 Democratic Party presidential primaries” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.