WARNING:  This post is one more data point by which readers can decide either this blogger sees things others do not or whether he lives in an alternate universe.

When someone says “power to the people,”  what they often mean is “power to my people.

Senator Joe Biden, Harrisburg, PA, 1974

When Biden secured the Democratic nomination for president, the question everyone asked was whether the moderate and progressive wings of the party would coalesce behind the former vice-president.  All the evidence from exit polling suggests this was never an issue and contributed to Biden’s carrying Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  However, for me, the more interesting story is the two/two split among battleground states in the sun belt, which brings me back to then Senator Biden’s 1974 quote when he was the keynote speaker at the annual meeting of the Council of State Community Affairs Agencies.

Nine years later, when I was appointed director of housing and community development by Texas Governor Mark White, I learned first hand exactly what Biden meant.  The primary responsibility of the department I led was the annual distribution of more than $60 million in community development block grants and Section 8 housing subsidies among the 172 non-metropolitan counties across the state.  Many of these jurisdictions in East Texas had large African-American populations while those in South and West Texas, as one might expect, had largely Hispanic majorities.

Prior to relocating to Austin in 1983, I lived and worked in either Virginia, Maryland or Washington, D.C., all places where the term “people of color” was synonymous with African-Americans.  The Texas experience was an eye-opener.  The competition between black and brown Texans to see who stood on which rung of the social and economic ladder was fierce.  “Power to the people,” as Biden had observed, depended on who your people were.

Which brings me back to the 2020 electoral outcomes in Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Texas.  Here is my hypothesis.  During the campaign, the Democratic nominee was more closely tied to the Black than Hispanic community.  It started with South Carolina, where Black voters were rightfully credited with saving Biden’s candidacy.  During the summer, the distinguishing issue between Trump and Biden was their response to the Black Lives Matter movement.  And finally, the selection of Kamala Harris as Biden’s running mate was an affirming indication of Democrats’ stronger identification with African-Americans.

This is not a value judgment.  Whether real or perceived, the importance of Black voter turnout, especially in light of the lower participation rates in 2016, raised the question in some portions of the LatinX community, “What about us?  Maybe we need to look elsewhere for a champion.” (NOTE: LatinX now serves as the generic description for people of Hispanic ancestry regardless of gender or country of origin.)  The one exception in the sun belt battleground states was Arizona, a jurisdiction where the Hispanic population is seven times that of the Black population, and the lingering specter of Sheriff Joe Arpaio program of racial profiling and SB 1070 requiring police to demand papers of individuals suspected of being illegal immigrants pushed all people of color into the Democratic column.

Here is the empirical evidence that led me to that conclusion.

Arizona Population
Hispanic = 2,310,590/Black = 376.997
2020 Arizona Hispanic Vote
Biden = 63%/Trump = 36%
2016 Arizona Hispanic Vote
Clinton= 61%/Trump = 31%

Florida Population
Hispanic = 5,663,860/Black = 3,910,189
Florida Hispanic Vote
Biden = 52%/Trump = 47%
2016 Florida Hispanic Vote
Clinton= 62%/Trump = 35%

Georgia Population
Hispanic = 1,048,724/Black = 3,458,147
Georgia Hispanic Vote
Biden = 57%/Trump = 41%
2016 Georgia Hispanic Vote
Clinton= 67%/Trump = 27%

Texas Population
Hispanic = 11,529,578/Black = 3,739,221
Texas Hispanic Vote
Biden = 59%/Trump = 40%
2016 Texas Hispanic Vote
Clinton= 61%/Trump = 34%

One might argue that the narrow spread in Florida was due to the Cuban-American vote.  However, the same “Democrats are soft on Cuba” arguments were made in 2016 following reopening of the U.S. embassy in Havana, yet Hillary Clinton outperformed Joe Biden by 10 points among Hispanic voters.  The “Republicans care about us more than Democrats” mantra was made more credible when Governor Ron DiSantis chose Cuban-American Jeanette Nuñez as his running mate.

Bottom line?  In addition to threading the needle to keep both moderates and progressives in the fold, the Democratic Party has work to do in the LatinX community.  Of course, as I have said on numerous occasions, good governance equals good politics; therefore, programs and policies which benefit all people of color regardless of skin tone will go a long way toward achieving that goal.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

If there had been a Star Trek episode about the 2020 election, Captain Kirk would have constantly reminded the crew their “prime directive” was to ensure the alien being who threatened civilization for the last four years would not be given another quadrennial lease to foment division and chaos.  In the final scene, once the intruder is vanquished, Mr. Spock would have suggested to Kirk, Dr. McCoy and Scottie, “Success was inevitably logical.  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.”

But life is not a science fiction series where every issue is resolved in 60 minutes minus commercial breaks.  Such is the case this week as one tries to make sense of the disparity between Donald Trump’s pending defeat and the Democrats’ loss of House seats, failure to take control of the Senate (though still possible with the Georgia run-offs) and equally important, flipped control of three state legislatures which will now be in charge of congressional redistricting in 2021.  Let’s be honest.  On election day, a majority of American voters, ready to oust Trump, otherwise rejected the Democratic Party brand.  And to be brutally honest, if the Republican nominee had been anyone other than a disgusting human being who demonstrated gross incompetence in handling a major health crisis, Joe Biden probably would not be the imminent president-elect this morning.

In the coming months and years, much will be written by political pundits and historians about the reasons for this incongruity.  As they did in 2016, researchers will be talking to Obama/Trump/Biden voters and Biden vote splitters who can only be described as consumers who based their purchasing preferences more on what they disliked than what they wanted.  How do I know this?  All one has to do is look at Florida.  Consider the following:

• Despite optimistic predictions Democrats could retake Florida, Trump won the state by three percentage points, more than double his margin in 2016.
• Yet, 62 percent of Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment to raise the state’s minimum wage to $15/hours over the next four years, a priority among Democrats.
• Voters also rejected an attempt by Republicans to change the rules for approving constitutional amendments, requiring they pass by 60 percent in two consecutive general elections, instead of just once.  NOTE:  This proposed change was precipitated by the passage of a constitutional amendment in 2018 which allowed ex-felons to automatically be eligible to vote once they had served their sentences.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I have pointed out this irony on multiple occasions.  The GOP continues to win elections even though they are on the wrong side of most 60/40 issues.  Climate change.  Economic and social justice.  Universal background checks.  Reproductive rights.  And yet they continue to win.

Politics is no different than business except it uses a difference vocabulary.  You can have a questionable product but still be successful with the right marketing campaign.  Examples include “the new Nixon,” “compassionate conservatism” and even “the comeback kid.”  In contrast, you may offer a product or service that exceeds anything previously available and fail if you cannot convey the value of your offering to the consumer.  The same principles apply to policies and political messaging.  Consider the following:

• Americans understand the need to address racial bias in law enforcement, but not if it is labeled “defund the police.”
• Seventy percent of Americans fear they may still contract COVID-19, but will not take the necessary steps to suppress the virus when told mandates are an assault on personal liberty.  However, they tolerate mandatory seat belt requirements and airport screening.
• An overwhelming majority of voters recognize the growing wealth gap between the rich and poor, but reject potential remedies if viewed as “income redistribution” or heaven forbid, “socialism.”  Worse yet, voters support a party that exacerbates the problem through tax policies rewarding accumulated capital instead of labor.
• Democrats could not convince Cuban-Americans in Miami/Dade County authoritarian Donald Trump had more in common with their nemesis Fidel Castro than social-democrat Bernie Sanders ever would.

Why did Biden win and the Democratic agenda lost?  Because there were other groups who shared the Democrats’ “prime directive,” including the Lincoln Project and Republican Voters Against Trump.  While their original target market was disenchanted Republicans, I believe their videos helped generate the historic Democratic turnout.  Their ads laid out what was at stake if Trump was re-elected more clearly than just about everything the Democrats or the Biden campaign produced.

Joe Biden claims he plans to work as hard for those who voted against him as those who supported him.  You do not prove that during a political campaign.  You affirm that promise by how you govern.  A majority of Americans, including Wall Street, intellectually believes Biden’s agenda will be better for the country than a non-existent Trump second term platform.  But will they buy it emotionally?  That is where messaging and the messengers come in.

If I was Joe Biden, the second call* I would make after officially being named president-elect would be to the Lincoln Project founders.  First, I would thank them for contributing to my victory.  Second, I would ask how much would it cost for them to work with my communications office to build a national consensus around one or two major issues which require immediate attention.  Their response will answer the question many Democrats have asked.  Were folks like Steve Schmidt, Rick Wilson, Jennifer Horn and Michael Steele hoping to save the GOP from the Trumpists or did they do it to save America?

*The first call should be to Jim Clyburn, the South Carolina representative who galvanized the African-American vote for Biden during the state’s primary last March.  Clyburn reignited the Biden campaign with a single declaration, “We know Joe.  But most importantly, Joe knows us.”  Biden’s success in reuniting much of the country will depend on whether marginal Trump voters feel the same way over the next four years.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP