Successes & Failures of 2016 U.S. Elections — Part 2
by Sunil J. Wimalawansa-Dec 21, 2016
( December 21, 2016, Washington DC, Sri Lanka Guardian) By November 8th, just over half of the Americans voted for Ms. Clinton as the Democratic party nominee. Mostly of her voters were elite folks from wealthy regions; especially from the west-coast and the north-east. However, her agenda was out of date and out of touch with the needs of the working class of American public, particularly those who live in the Rust Belt.
Why did Secretary Clinton fail her second attempt for the U. S. presidency?
Secretary Clinton had tremendous advantage of having decades of lead time to prepare herself as a presidential candidate. She also had experience, necessary connections, advisors, the machinery to raise funds for the campaign, and over thirty-years of cumulated experience in the government. She made clear to the pubic during the last few weeks of her campaign that she was betting for a “third term” for the Democratic party¾to continue the Obama doctrine.
Instead of being an asset, her long government experience became a liability for her. Hiatus of having new ideas, relevant and exciting policies, she failed to excite the voters. Moreover, she failed to come out of the negative image that she created herself during her tenure as the Secretary of State. Culmination of these features, worked against her candidacy.
Moreover, some of the key policies she championed during her time as the Secretary of State and eight-years of Obama administration, also failed. The economy was in shambles with millions of Americans unemployed and under-employed, and was in angry mode; constituents were desperate and frustrated. Therefore, the outcome of the election was not surprising.
Obama factor:
Originally, Secretary Clinton didn’t want to bring the sitting president, Mr. Obama and the former president, Mr. Clinton, into her campaign. Therefore, she opted to run the operation under her own brand, keeping two presidents away from the campaign. However, the polls narrowed during the month before the election; this happened even before the letter to the Congress by the director of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Mr. Comey. She apparently had no choice but to modify her policy, and invited the two presidents to directly involved in her campaign to bolster her poll numbers.
She took a major gamble on the decision, to rely on two presidents to promote her campaign.
Incongruously, both Secretary Clinton and President Obama could not stay apart any longer, as both had much to lose by doing so. Although the actions needed by them were the same, two of them had different motives and goals. Nevertheless, she underestimated the fact that the mainstream media, not by the public, created and propagated the inflated ‘ratings’ of the sitting president. Mr. Obama was brought in as an “activist campaigner” against Mr. Trump, but not necessarily to promote the campaign of Ms. Clinton.
Political interjections by the president to Clinton campaign:
The president Obama jumped into this opportunity as a political narrator with the selfish attitude of protecting his own legacy than doing what is good for the country. With his ability for public speaking and connecting with the community, he vividly appealed to the American public to vote for Ms. Clinton, to protect his legacy.
However, attempt by Secretary Clinton to exploit the popular image of president Obama to boost her own campaign, backfired. Evidence suggest that the public rejected his plea, and revolted against the president’s plea. His inability to make right decisions promptly, deviation from his commitments, and failed policies during his presidency may have contributed to this. Instead of becoming an asset, the President, as well as the sitting Vice-President and the former President, Mr. Clinton, apparently became liabilities for Secretary Clinton’s election campaign.
For example, President Clinton openly, perhaps unwittingly, criticized Obamacare as one of the worst legislators in recent years. Ironically, President Obama and Secretary Clinton highly relied upon this law as one of their key achievements during her election campaign.
Why the populous voted for Mr. Trump:
The stagnant economy and the current high unemployment rate (in fact, the true rate reaching 10%) continues to haunt people. In addition, the administrative decision not to prosecute the perpetrators of the 2008 subprime crisis that led to unprecedented foreclosures and business failures, and mortgage meltdown, inflamed the silent anger of millions of affected Americans.
In his wisdom, Mr. Trump was successful in converting this public outrage to a successful political movement. Nevertheless, the Republican Party establishment took an awfully long time to come home and almost lost the opportunity at the 2016 election; but finally, they did it on the election day.
Despite all these efforts by The Clintons, there is no evidence that bringing the president (for the first time, a sitting president became a campaign activist) or celebrities had any perceptible effects on voters or favorable voter turnout. The masses did not like either of these arrangements at this election, thus, showed their revulsion against both through the ballot box.
Hope, this is an important lesson for all future political campaigns. With strategic approaches, a candidate or a party can win with fewer spending and less wastage of funds. More is not always the best. The next article (Part 3) discuss what influenced the 2016 election outcome.
\Professor Sunil J. Wimalawansa MD, PhD, MBA, DSc, is a Physician-Scientist, Social Entrepreneur, Philanthropist, and Educator with strategic long-term vision. Author can be reached via wimalawansa.org
