|
|
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.
|
About the 2016 Election
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.
HC's Weaknesses
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.
T
he 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,
http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/index.php
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 :
|
