Monday, January 23, 2017

Do you know the 2016 election Part (3)?

Info on 2016 election that you may not know

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. 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.        
S. B. Woo 

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 :  (Ignore the last 35 secs. The election is over.)

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Do you know the 2016 election Part (2)?

Info on 2016 election that you may not know

 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.
 Did the outcome of the 2016 election surprise you?  Understand why.
      The 2016 election is over. Please don't misconstrue the info presented as plugging for one or the other of the former candidates. Knowing these facts could help us better understand America and American elections.  
    Last Friday, I presented this talk to a group of prominent retired senior professionals, including many former government officials.  Both facts and opinions were very well-received.  Part (1) of this series was on H. Clinton's (HC's) real advantages over D. Trump (DT).   Part (2) is on her presumed advantages, and how the presumed advantages didn't match up with the reality, seen via NYT's exit poll.
           Presumed HC Advantages When Compared With Reality
1) The possibility of electing the historic first woman President would induce over-whelming women support for HC.
     Truth:  Women voted more for Obama in 2012 (55%) than for HC in 2016 (54%).
2)  Educated whites would NOT vote for Trump
      Truth:  Whites with college degrees voted 49% for DT and 45% for HC.

3)  Minorities would be HC's firewall, given HC's identity politics and DT's politically incorrect statements. 

     Truth:  Blacks, Hispanics and Asians all supported HC by 5 to 8 pts. than they supported Obama in 2012.

         2012(Obama/Romney/Others)    2016(HC/DT/Others)
Blacks                      93/07                                        88/08/4
Hispanics                 71/27                                        65/29/4
Asians                      73/26/1                                     65/29/4

           Why Didn't HC's Real Advantage in Money Raised work?
   HC had almost a 2 to 1 advantage over DT in money raised. But it didn't win the election for her.   Why?   
    Of the $1.4 billion she'd raised, only $102 million or 7% came from donations of $200 or less.  In comparison, Obama raised $214 million from donations of $200 or less in 2012, more than2 times more.  Let's say that the average small donation is $102, then HC has 1 million donors who are ordinary citizens, while Obama had about 2 million such ordinary donors.  The enthusiasm of such small donors is very important to winning an election.  Most politicians have valued that.  Some campaigns were willing to lose money in order to raise this kind of small donations.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    In the next few EF e-newsletters, we'll continue to explore why HC didn't win in-spite of all the real advantages.

S. B. Woo 

President and a volunteer for the past 18 years
80-20 Educational Foundation, Inc, a 501 C-3 organization,

PS:  Acknowledging great supporters who responded so generously to my "Swan Song" appeal to raise money for 80-20 PAC.  About $32,000 was raised.  Besides the ones already acknowledged, there are also

Alec Y. Chang, Pound Ridge, Ny                          $2,500 

Chen Chen & Tuohui Zhong, Greensboro, NC   $1,000

Jerry J Zhang & Weili Fan*, Dana point, CA       $   500

Louisa and Benjamin Chu, Stonybrook, NY        $   500   

James and Constance Liu Chen,                        $   500
Billy and Lydia Yeh, Coral Gables, FL                 $   500

THANK YOU, THANK YOU to all the other donors whose names are not listed, owing to space considerations.
*Weili Fan is the author of a wonderful Chinese book about the noble but sad lives of a mixed couple who masterfully translated the "Dreams of the Red Chamber" and many other Chinese classics into English.  The book brought tears to my eyes many times, and I am not such an emotional person.   
To know more about 80-20, view these videos :  (Ignore the last 35 secs. The election is over.)

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Do you know the 2016 election Part (1)?

Info on 2016 election 
that you may not know

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.
         Shocking Facts You May NOT Know About the 2016 Election

        The following facts (NOT opinion) about the 2016 election may be shocking since most people didn't know it, to my best knowledge .  These facts could be educational in helping AsAm understand how elections are won and lost.  
     These facts are all referenced.  They are from a talk I'll give on coming Friday to a FL group of which I am a member.  The members are composed of generals, one admiral, many CIA officials, diplomats, medical doctors, physicists, and other professionals with "distinguished" careers, who have retired.
    To whet your appetite, here is a "table of contents" plus the details of part (a) of item 1: "HC's Incredible real & presumed advantages in the election."  HC and DT stand for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump respectively.
                                  Table of Contents
        1. HC's Incredible real & presumed advantages over DT
        2. Why the advantages didn't work out
        3. Michael Moore, a very strong HC supporter, had 5 fears that HC'd lose
        4. Dem. could easily win back the White House in 2020, if .....
        5. Worrisome implications to our democracy.
            Part (a) of Item 1: HC's Incredible advantages over DT
*Money Raised  (as of about Nov. 8).  Click here to know more.
       HC has a  2 to 1 advantage (HC:  $1.4 Billion ; DT $870 million)
*Endorsements from Major Media     Click here to know more.
         500 to 27 in favor of HC. 37 papers didn't endorse, but published editorials advising "No Trump" e.g. The USA Today. 37 was 10 larger than 27.
*Party Support     Click here to know which Republicans opposed DT. 
HC enjoyed the united support of the Dem. Party, including that of Sen. Sanders, Pres. Obama and all past Dem. presidents and all immediate past presidential nominees (J. Kerry & W. Mondale)

DT faced a Terrible Disunity of the Republican Party. He was publicly disowned by the 2 immediate past GOP presidents, rejected by the 2 immediate past presidential nominees (Romney & McCain),rejected by GOP heavy weights Colin Powell, Condo. Rice, even the Koch brothers didn't financially support DT.
     How could HC possibly lose???  For clues, look for EF's e-newsletters in the next days and weeks.  They may help you to understand America and American election of the modern days.  
                         Help Recruit  to Get Matching Funds
    41 big Corporations will match donations to EF.  If you work for one of these companies, please recruit your AsAm colleagues to financially support 80-20 EF.  $1 from you or your colleagues will mean $2 to $4 dollars to 80-20's war chest.  To donate, click here.
    The names of these companies are:  
1. Adobe  2. AIG  3. ALLSTATE  4. Am Eep  5. American Express 6. Amgen  7. Amylin Pharmaceutical LLC  8. Apple  9. AT&T 10. Baxalta 11. Boeing  12. Bristol-Myers Squibb  13.Chevron Employee Funds  14. Citrix System  15. Emerson  16. EOG Resources 17. FMC Technologies 18. General Electric Foundation  19. Genetech, Inc. 20. Google 21. Illinois Tool Wooks Foundation (matching $3 for $122. JP Morgan Chase Foundation  23. Juniper Networks  24. Merck 25. Microsoft  26. Monsanto  27. Morgan Stanley  28. Prudential 29. Qualcomm  30. RBC Capital  31. Rockfeller Foundation 32. Saba Capital Management  33. Sana Capital  34. Sempra 35. Takeda 36. TE Connectivity  37. TripAdvisor  38. UBS  39. Verizon 40. VMWare Foundation  41. Workday, Inc.
S. B. Woo 
President and a volunteer for the past 18 years
80-20 Educational Foundation, Inc, a 501 C-3 organization,

To know more about 80-20, view these videos :Â (Ignore the last 35 secs. The election is over.)
80-20 EF Mission Statement

Saturday, December 31, 2016

My Swan Song as the President of PAC

Introducing the New Officers of 80-20 PAC
         First, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.  Thank all of you from the bottom of my heart for your great support to 80-20 PAC.  
(a) You have given selflessly of your time to respond to PAC's "Calls To Action".  Your pressure from the grassroots, coupled with 80-20's political connections and knowhow, induced our political establishment to respond to our grievances.
(b) You have given generously of your money, which enabled 80-20 PAC to to carry out its political actions on a scale large enough to make YOUR grievances heard.
   Secondly, GOOD NEWS.  The following Board members will collectively lead 80-20 PAC in the coming year.  
      Kathleen To: Co-coordinator and Secretary,
      Yin-long Qiu: Co-coordinator and V.P. in charge of Chapters, and
      Jing-Li Yu: Treasurer
To get to know more about each of these noble souls, please click here.
    In addition, PAC's board has instructed these officers to schedule a membership vote for Board members and officers within one year, in accordance with Bylaws article 3.2.3. That means, by 2018, 80-20 PAC will operate in complete accord with its posted Bylaws again, ending the aftermath of its 2013 retrenchment. That will be a GREAT day.
   Finally, A WISH!
     The Asian Am. community has many high-achieving individuals.  But very few are willing to TAKE SOME RISKS to stand up for our community.  I hope that in a small way, my colleagues and I have collectively set an example*.  This seemingly self-glorifying statements may make me the laughingstock of our community.  But I am willing to risk it, because it needs to be said.
     I wish that henceforth more capable AsAms would step forth to help win equal opportunity for the entire AsAm community which will also help to make America "a more perfect Union."

S. B. Woo
President and a volunteer for the past 18 years, 80-20 PAC, Inc. 

* We have stuck my necks out often, but we were not hurt at all.  Indeed, I might have unduly and undeservingly benefited from taking the risks.  It may be that we were just foolish but lucky.  But doesn't the world need a few fools sometimes?
   Last month, as a parting gift for PAC, I mounted a fundraising effort to add to PAC's diminishing war chest.  Up till today, $28,200 has been raised, Including contributions from 
Prof. Mu-Ming Poo, Berkeley, CA:   $5,000
Kenneth Fong, Palo Alto, CA:          $2,000
Marisa Y. Chuang,, Berkeley, CA:    $2,000
Wai-Yim Ching, Leawood, KS :        $1,000
Gang-Yu Liu, Davis, CA :                  $1,000      
Hezhong Ma, Chesterfield, MO:       $1,000
Lung-Sheung Ng, Berkeley, CA  :     $1,000
Jonathan Wang, Chicago, IL:            $1,000
S. B. Woo, Newark, DE:                    $1,000.
If you are interested in pitching in, please send your check, payable to 80-20 PAC and mail it to   Katy Woo
                                5 Farm House Rd.
                                Newark, DE 19711.     
All contribution will also count towards your membership.  Thank you!

Monday, December 19, 2016

Is 80-20 PAC AsAms' Best Political Tool?
Q:  Gov. Woo, why do you claim that 80-20 PAC is the most powerful political weapon for AsAms?
 A:  Actually, I claim more than that. :-) I claim that 80-20 PAC is by far the most powerful AsAm political weapon available today.  My statement takes our elected and appointed AsAm officials into consideration, as well.  
Q:  That's hard to believe.  Can you explain?

A:   Here is why.  The appointed officials could be un-appointed the next day. So they are not likely to stick their necks out for us.  None of our elected officials has the strong political base (unlike some black House members) who can get re-elected without the support of their respective political parties.  They are not free agents.  To be sure, in many discrimination issues, we need the help of these officials.  For those AsAm officials who really stand with our community, sometimes they are most helpful. However, if and when an earth shaking event affecting AsAm's core interest happens (remember Japanese internment and President-elect Trumps' campaign rhetoric?), only 80-20 has the independence and ability to fight on your behalf.

Q:  OK.  I see it now.  Still, don't the appointed & elected officials have much more human & financial resources at their disposal than 80-20 PAC?

A:  Yes.  However, the resources are NOT free for them to use as they see fit. If a cabinet secretary or a Congressman were to use their resources to save the AsAm community from a crisis, the cabinet secretary would be dismissed and the Congressman would most likely not get re-elected.  Only 80-20 PAC has the legal right and self-interest to devote itself to help out the AsAm community, come hell or high water.
 Q: OK.  I am understanding more now.  However, is 80-20 PAC powerful in an absolute sense?
 A:  No, not on an absolute scale, when compared with others outside of the AsAm community.  80-20 is far far below AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and
NAACP.  AIPAC's annual expenditure was $69 million in 2014.  The NAACP is the darling of the mainstream media, corporations and foundations.   80-20  has mostly only courageous, and perhaps wise, war horses, with fairly good political knowledge.   Better yet, we BEG all AsAm orgs to work together so that our community will be much stronger politically.
COMMENT:  Thank you for being brutally honest, Gov. Woo. You are saying that 80-20 PAC is far from being strong enough on an absolute scale  But when it comes to the CRUNCH time for AsAms, 80-20 PAC is by far the best available today. Additionally, you yearn for a day when all AsAm orgs will work together.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      Please join 80-20 PAC today.  We have stronger leverage when we have a stronger membership base. A 1-Year Basic Membership is $35, a family membership (2 votes) is $50, a Life Membership is $1,000, and there are several other options, as well.  To Join, click here.  Your membership will start on 1/1/2017.

S. B. Woo  :-)

President and a volunteer for the past 18 years
80-20 Initiative, Inc.

To know more about 80-20, view these videos :à(Ignore the CA Dem. primary part.) (Ignore asking for funds. SELF has succeeded)
80-20 Mission Statement

Friday, December 09, 2016

A Post Mortem: How AsAms Fared in 2016 Election?

Ask a candidate to help back, BEFORE giving your help

                     A Post Mortem - A National Review
     Did AsAm political groups, whether they supported Dems or GOPs, sufficiently seize the opportunity of the 2016 election to win equal opportunity?   Here is a nationwide review:
                               A. On the Hillary Clinton (HC) side:
(A1)  80-20
       AFTER HC gave written promises to help AsAms achieve many specific goals, 80-20 endorsed her.  80-20 PAC spent time and money to help her fight off Sanders in the Calif. Democratic primary.  80-20 REWARDS politicians who share our rightful concerns.
       In the general election, 80-20 invited HC to call in during our Endorsement Convention and ask for our support,  HC was willing to send a high-ranking surrogate,but not willing to make the call herself.  As a result, 80-20 endorsed HC with reservation only& didn't invest 1 penny to help HC in the last 4.5 months of the election.  
(A2) Non-80-20 groups:
       A few AsAm groups helped HC, including the Congressional Asian Pacific Am Caucus.  To our best knowledge, none asked for nor obtained promises from HC in exchange for their support. 
                              B. On the Donald Trump (DT) side:
(B1) 80-20:  
        80-20 asked DT to answer its questionnaire i.e. to give AsAms written promises.  DT didn't reply.   As a result, 80-20 turned to help HC only.  80-20 PUNISHES politicians who don't share our rightful concerns.
(B2) Non-80-20 groups:
        A few Chinese Am groups, composed mostly of immigrants from China, campaigned aggressively and conspicuously for DT using WeChat and other campaign tactics.   To our best knowledge, none asked for nor obtained promises from DT in exchange for their support.
      May We All Resolve to Ask for Promises from Candidates?
     Why get into politics?  To help America & ourselves!   So, shouldn't we always ask for the candidates to help our community back, before supporting  them?  Helping a presidential candidate without getting the promises back does NOT help us as a community.
       Is the rumor that 90% of Chinese Ams voted for DT true?
     No.  The groups that made such claims couldn't even deliver votes in their own little backyards, much less nationally.  

     The groups aggressively endorsed political candidates using WeChat.  Here is their won-lost record:
1) Besides endorsing DT, they also endorsed 1 Republican Senate and 5 Republican Congressional candidates in CA.  All endorsed candidates lost, except DT.
2)  To be effective at the US Senate and Congressional level would require huge number of votes and money, especially in CA.   So let's look at the won-lost record of their Assembly race endorsements.  Assembly districts are small. 
      From SF to LA, this group endorsed 10 candidates, one D and 9 Rs.  In 9 of those 10 districts, there were 20% to 36% AsAm voters.  Of the 10 endorsed, 2 incumbents, 1 D and 1 R won.  All the rest lost, including 2 incumbent Republicans.
      The group stated that it wanted to prevent the Dems in CA from obtaining a supermajority in the state Senate and Assembly, which didn't exist BEFORE the 2016 election.  However, AFTER the election, the Dems achieved a supermajority in both Senate and Assembly. PLEASE, you be the judge about the validity of that rumor.  
     NY Times' exit polls reported that AsAms gave HC an 65-29 advantage.  80-20 did a huge poll of Chinese Ams that agreed with that report.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
     Click here to join 80-20, which is buying reinsurance to add to your security.
              Are You a WeChat Member?  80-20 needs your help.   
      80-20 wants to reach out to all WeChat members.  If you are willing to post 80-20 e-newsletters on your own WeChat site,  which will be already have been translated into Chineseplease email me your name.  80-20 is planning an "Operation Reach Out."  Thanking you in anticipation, I am

S. B. Woo
President and a volunteer for the past 18 years
80-20 Initiative, Inc.
To know more about 80-20, view these videos : (Ignore the CA Dem. primary part.) (Ignore the appeal for funds. SELF has succeeded.)
80-20 Mission Statement

80-20 Initiative

Copyright 2007-2013. All rights reserved.