About the 2016 Election
|REMINDER: S. B. Woo has stepped down from the presidency of 80-20 PAC, although he is still the president of 80-20 Educational Foundation|
Hillary Clinton (HC) had such real and presumed advantages over Donald Trump (DT). Click here to read Part (1) and (2) about what the advantages were and why many didn't work out. Even though the election was over, looking back at the facts (mixed with some opinion) can help us understand America and American elections.
Why didn't the Overwhelming media endorsements for HC Work?
The HC/DT endorsements ratio was 500/27. Shouldn't that have had a huge impact? Apparently not. Why?
1) HC benefited from the fact that the media intellectuals disliked DT intensely. Voters sensed that media bias. So the endorsements didn't carry as much weight.
2) Most of the media were into "identity politics" just like HC. They favored diversity over qualifications when it came to hiring or admissions to schools and colleges. Such over-emphasis has lessened American voters' respect for the media.
Why Didn't the Overwhelming Endorsement of HC by the Top Political Leaders of BOTH parties Work?
All past and present Democratic officials endorsed HC. Many of the most prominent past and present Republican top officials rejected or refused to endorse DT. In effect, the top political leaders of BOTH parties had endorsed HC. Why didn't that work?
Most politicians knew that endorsements by famous political leaders helped in their fundraising efforts. However, such endorsements were never very effective in getting votes for the candidate. Ordinary voters didn't read or cared about a candidate's press releases which touted such endorsements.
Every candidate has pluses and minuses. HC's strength was that she was very well respected by elected officials of both parties -- being known as a hardworking colleague who knew the issues, was willing to discuss compromises, and share credit. Her weakness was that she was a very poor campaigner, and yet ever confident of her imminent victory. She lost 2 of her 3 national campaigns in-spite-of huge initial advantages over all 3 rival candidates.
1) In the 2008 Dem. primary, everyone said it was "her campaign to lose." At the early stages, her campaign was lavishly pretentious. At the end, she lost it to Obama, who was almost an unknown initially.
2) In the 2016 Dem. primary, she faced a real unknown, Sen.Sanders. At the end, if it were not for the unshakable loyalty of her 500+ Super Delegates - all elected officials - she came close to losing that one as well. The final pledged delegates ratio between HC/Sanders was 1/0.84.
3) In the 2016 General Election, she was the overwhelming odds on candidate to win over DT. She enjoyed huge real and presumed advantages. Her campaign planned to have fireworks over the Hudson river on election night, costing $7 million, according to DT. But she lost that campaign too.
In part (4), we'll ask if HC had make good political decisions. Please don't construe these e-newsletters as favoring one or the other former candidates. The election was over. The real purpose is to help AsAms understand America and American politics.
President and a volunteer for the past 18 years
80-20 Educational Foundation, Inc, a 501 C-3 organization,
PS: Acknowledging another great supporter of my "Swan Song' campaign:
Tina Liu Jen, Parsippany, NJ $1,000
To know more about 80-20, view these videos :