Obama Does Not Need to Be Compared to God, but to the Alternative
Published in El Pais
(Spain) on 4 June 2012
by Pablo Ximénez de Sandoval (link to original)
(Spain) on 4 June 2012
by Pablo Ximénez de Sandoval (link to original)
Translated from
by Talisa Anderson.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
An expert on the Hispanic vote and international co-chair of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign affirms that Latinos will be “determinants” in the next election.
The campaign team of Barack Obama was always certain that the president’s challenger from the Republican Party would be Mitt Romney. Juan Verde (Telde, Gran Canaria, 1971), advisor to the president and international co-chair of the Democratic Party’s re-election campaign, explains that Santorum and Gingrich were “impractical candidates” due to their extreme positions. Verde is focused on obtaining votes and funding for Obama among foreign Americans. Verde is a specialist on the Hispanic vote and affirms that much of the strategy for the candidates will be to win over these new voters, “the fastest growing demographic” in the United States.
Has the campaign team always thought of Romney as a rival?
It’s not official, but certainly we have always seen Romney as the only candidate with real options and the only one who could be a rival for Obama. From the beginning we saw a series of candidates that were impractical and improbable, and we saw some that were off-track. The only candidate that demonstrated an ability to go the distance in the race was Romney. He was the most moderate. In the primaries, the Republican candidates have to go to the far right to capture the vote of the North American bases, be very active with a very conservative profile, but afterward victory lies in the center. So, this candidate now has to return to the center to capture the more moderate vote. We did not think that Santorum was a viable candidate.
“The Supreme Court will have the last word on health care reform. If it loses, it will be a win for Obama.”
And after all he has said during the campaign, is Romney still capable?
That’s left to be seen. We think he is going to have the financial means to be a formidable candidate. It may surprise Europe, but now rankings are close and all of the political machinery of the Republican Party is united under a common front. This will be a very close election.
On your side, will Obama present the same as in 2008? What will change? What differences will we see?
I would say that Obama the candidate is the same person, with the same values, ideals, passion and enthusiasm, but clearly he is not the same man. He has governed for four years.
Does he have the same priorities?
No, in part because there are things that we have accomplished; therefore, we have taken them off the list. There were high priorities in the first term. The most important thing for the country was to stop the bleeding. 8.5 million jobs were lost, the stock market lost 42 percent of its value. This can no longer be a priority because the country has resumed a path of growth. The second priority was health care reform, which affects 41 million citizens, a population equivalent to that of Spain.
Is this issue resolved?
No. The Supreme Court has the last word. Of course, if it loses it will be a win for Obama. Surely we will see the final verdict in June and it will have a direct impact on the campaign. We are certain. But they cannot be the same priorities because we have done a lot. I think the candidate that we are going to present is less innocent. He arrived thinking that he could count on the support of the Republicans, and there was a moment when he had the majority in Congress and the Senate, which he tried governing, looking for the consensus of the Republicans. I think that to some extent this was a mistake, it’s my personal opinion. I think he is the same person, but a different candidate, more hardened from governing.
“Romney is going to have the financial means to be a formidable candidate.”
His constituents are also different. Is the public less innocent?
I think the American public is intelligent enough to understand that when you govern you do not always do what you want, you do what they allow you to do, what the opposition permits you to do. The campaign will also be based on informing the American public that we have accomplished many things, and that there are many things left to be done. To use a phrase from Vice President Joe Biden: Obama does not need to be compared to God, but to the alternative.* We are demonstrating that the economy is improving, and I think this is going to be the key in the end. Clinton used to say that people vote with their hand in their pocket.
Are you still counting on an anti-Bush or antiwar vote like in 2008?
This question is a bit categorical. I think we are still counting on constituents that are against injustice. For example, it does not make any sense that multimillionaire Americans, like Romney, who have a personal fortune of $300 million, pay 11 percent in taxes, while a secretary, who may earn $30,000-$35,000 dollars, pays 40 percent. It does not make any sense. We will have this type of vote. We have the vote of those who strongly oppose that we continue betting on an energy model based on fossil fuels. We have the millions of North Americans who today have public health care. In the end, common sense will prevail.
When it’s stated that the Latino vote will decide the elections, what are we referring to? What is the Latino vote and to what extent is it a determining factor?
I believe so. I started working in politics in 1992, and I have been fortunate that everything I have done has been mostly due to the Hispanic vote. The numbers are there. The last census, in the middle of last year, showed that there are more than 50 million Spanish-speakers in the United States. Mathematically, this is interesting. In using the electoral system based on the polling station, when you win more than half the votes, you get all of the votes of that state. The five states with the highest population in the United States are Florida, New York, Illinois, Texas and California, with an interesting and great common denominator: 80 percent of the Hispanic population resides in those five states. No one can win, mathematically, without winning at least three out of the five. So, will it play an important role? In my opinion, it is the decisive factor. Then, there are states like Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico that will probably end up being key states where the Hispanic vote could be the margin of victory.
But what is a Hispanic vote? Is it a uniform vote?
It is complicated because the Hispanic in Florida has nothing to do with the Hispanic in California, nor with the Hispanic in New York. It is a community with a common denominator, which is the Hispanic culture — they identify as Hispanics – but it is very complicated. They will vote on different issues. The Cubans, mainly in Florida, will base their vote on the issue of Cuba. Puerto Ricans will base their vote on education and access to opportunities. Mexicans have other priorities. What does the Hispanic vote mean for us? That whatever Hispanic, wherever they are from, considers themselves to be above all Hispanic. The Hispanics are the demographic sector that is increasing the most, with the largest number of entrepreneurs. Hispanics are hot in the United States, in the movies, in music. They sell more tacos than hamburgers. It is a real fact.
“80% of the Hispanic population is concentrated in five of the most important states.”
The most important Latino face of the Republican Party, Marco Rubio, comes from the Cuban community in Florida.
My opinion is that he could be the Republican vice-presidential candidate. Normally, you look for a vice-presidential candidate who has what you lack, one that adds to your platform. Romney is from the Northeast, from Boston, and moderate — he has to look for a Hispanic candidate from the South, who is far right. The wonder boy of the party is Marco Rubio. Moreover, he’s young, very eloquent, with a lot of enthusiasm and he’s Hispanic. But they have a problem like Santorum. I do not think [the vice-presidential candidate] will be Santorum; he has burned too many bridges. He is a guy that went to Puerto Rico and said that English had to be the official language. It would be a bit incongruous to then try to win the Hispanic vote, no? Marco Rubio is clean, fresh and has not suffered the scrutiny of the process of the primaries, which is brutal. But I insist that you should not view the Hispanic vote as a question of Florida only. Historically, the Hispanic vote has been democratic. We lost the most with Al Gore because Bush was able to appeal to family values. The migration issue will play an important role, as well the issues of the economy and education. I think that even for Cubans of the second and third generations, the issue of Cuba is distant.
How much influence do international issues have in the campaign?
It’s a country that is so big and complicated; in some states, [international issues have] no [influence], in many states, very little, and in a few states, much [influence]. In general, they have little influence. I am specializing in sustainability issues and leading a platform of expatriates living abroad so that they can vote and collect funds. It is an interesting community. In 2000, we lost the election by 523 votes in Florida. We think that this election will be very tight. Mobilizing the community that lives abroad is something that has not been done until now. We think that there are between 8 and 10 million North Americans living abroad, with a unique profile, a much higher socioeconomic status than the average person in the United States — people interested in international issues, foreign policy and the international image of the U.S. They follow American politics much more than most, but do not participate because the system is complex.
Does Obama’s foreign policy reach the electorate? Will what he says in Korea, in Cartagena and in Cairo make any difference in the election?
Again, yes, but it depends where. In Massachusetts, yes; in New York or Miami, the issue will be Cuba. The Hispanic community can use what he says about Mexico against him, but it is not one of the central issues of the campaign.
Is it that there are presidential decisions that appear to be explained in key elections, for example the conversation with Medvedev in which he stated that he needed time, or in the effort to stop Israel in an attack against Iran?
The truth is that if there has been a president in the history of the U.S. that has decided to govern thinking about future generations and not upcoming elections, it has been Obama. I think that, frankly, he is a man of the state, and I’m referring to the facts. All his advisers told him that it was political suicide to face the biggest economic lobby of the country, which is the issue of health care, but after losing Kennedy’s seat and losing the majority in the House, he went ahead, despite everything that they told him, to push forward with the health care reform. He faced Wall Street and the financial lobby when they told him it was political suicide; he faced the oil companies and the fossil fuels sector. He has always been able to think about what he believes to be best for the country. Does that mean that we do not think about the key electoral bases? I would not dare say that. But I do think with absolute conviction that decision-making is never only about the key election. This is clear in the case of Obama.
Are there elements of deception with Obama that you will have to combat in the campaign?
The first will be to try to understand that there were some absolutely surreal expectations with Obama. If you ask the more radical sectors of the Democratic Party, they are going to be disappointed because Obama has not done much. The more radicals of the Republicans are going to tell you that he has done too much. You can’t govern to everyone’s liking. Like I was saying before, do I compare him with God, or with alternative that I have? If there are three issues that are important to me, I am all right with whoever can represent me in two of those issues. That is governing.
Will people find out about what happened in the Senate, the filibuster and the block?
That will be our job. People in the street do not perceive what is happening in Washington, but they perceive how it affects them. They perceive that Obama has tried time and again to pass various economic stimulus plans in sectors such as infrastructure, construction and schools; the Republicans have not wanted this. In many occasions we were at an impasse that nearly blocked the government because there were some individuals, 40 or 50 congressmen from the tea party movement, who swore before God, with a hand on the bible, that they would not sign any bill that supported abortion rights or raised taxes on the rich. How do you govern? They put the country to its knees. That is something that people can understand. They do care about the day to day issues of what happens in Washington, but they can see that their school does not have funding. In the end, it is common sense. Who do you vote for? Which direction do you think each candidate will take you? The problem Romney will face is his lack of consistency; one day he says one thing and the next day another. He has said that Obama is disconnected from reality. Obama responded, “Yes, I’ll be out of touch with reality, but how many Americans have an account in Switzerland?”** [Romney] does not represent the vast majority of North Americans. How will he connect with voters in Arkansas?
*Editor’s note: While this line is an accurate translation of the original article, it should be noted that Biden’s original statement was a revived use of a phrase with considerable history in U.S. politics: “Don’t compare me to the Almighty; Compare me to the alternative.”
**Editor’s note: The original quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.
The campaign team of Barack Obama was always certain that the president’s challenger from the Republican Party would be Mitt Romney. Juan Verde (Telde, Gran Canaria, 1971), advisor to the president and international co-chair of the Democratic Party’s re-election campaign, explains that Santorum and Gingrich were “impractical candidates” due to their extreme positions. Verde is focused on obtaining votes and funding for Obama among foreign Americans. Verde is a specialist on the Hispanic vote and affirms that much of the strategy for the candidates will be to win over these new voters, “the fastest growing demographic” in the United States.
Has the campaign team always thought of Romney as a rival?
It’s not official, but certainly we have always seen Romney as the only candidate with real options and the only one who could be a rival for Obama. From the beginning we saw a series of candidates that were impractical and improbable, and we saw some that were off-track. The only candidate that demonstrated an ability to go the distance in the race was Romney. He was the most moderate. In the primaries, the Republican candidates have to go to the far right to capture the vote of the North American bases, be very active with a very conservative profile, but afterward victory lies in the center. So, this candidate now has to return to the center to capture the more moderate vote. We did not think that Santorum was a viable candidate.
“The Supreme Court will have the last word on health care reform. If it loses, it will be a win for Obama.”
And after all he has said during the campaign, is Romney still capable?
That’s left to be seen. We think he is going to have the financial means to be a formidable candidate. It may surprise Europe, but now rankings are close and all of the political machinery of the Republican Party is united under a common front. This will be a very close election.
On your side, will Obama present the same as in 2008? What will change? What differences will we see?
I would say that Obama the candidate is the same person, with the same values, ideals, passion and enthusiasm, but clearly he is not the same man. He has governed for four years.
Does he have the same priorities?
No, in part because there are things that we have accomplished; therefore, we have taken them off the list. There were high priorities in the first term. The most important thing for the country was to stop the bleeding. 8.5 million jobs were lost, the stock market lost 42 percent of its value. This can no longer be a priority because the country has resumed a path of growth. The second priority was health care reform, which affects 41 million citizens, a population equivalent to that of Spain.
Is this issue resolved?
No. The Supreme Court has the last word. Of course, if it loses it will be a win for Obama. Surely we will see the final verdict in June and it will have a direct impact on the campaign. We are certain. But they cannot be the same priorities because we have done a lot. I think the candidate that we are going to present is less innocent. He arrived thinking that he could count on the support of the Republicans, and there was a moment when he had the majority in Congress and the Senate, which he tried governing, looking for the consensus of the Republicans. I think that to some extent this was a mistake, it’s my personal opinion. I think he is the same person, but a different candidate, more hardened from governing.
“Romney is going to have the financial means to be a formidable candidate.”
His constituents are also different. Is the public less innocent?
I think the American public is intelligent enough to understand that when you govern you do not always do what you want, you do what they allow you to do, what the opposition permits you to do. The campaign will also be based on informing the American public that we have accomplished many things, and that there are many things left to be done. To use a phrase from Vice President Joe Biden: Obama does not need to be compared to God, but to the alternative.* We are demonstrating that the economy is improving, and I think this is going to be the key in the end. Clinton used to say that people vote with their hand in their pocket.
Are you still counting on an anti-Bush or antiwar vote like in 2008?
This question is a bit categorical. I think we are still counting on constituents that are against injustice. For example, it does not make any sense that multimillionaire Americans, like Romney, who have a personal fortune of $300 million, pay 11 percent in taxes, while a secretary, who may earn $30,000-$35,000 dollars, pays 40 percent. It does not make any sense. We will have this type of vote. We have the vote of those who strongly oppose that we continue betting on an energy model based on fossil fuels. We have the millions of North Americans who today have public health care. In the end, common sense will prevail.
When it’s stated that the Latino vote will decide the elections, what are we referring to? What is the Latino vote and to what extent is it a determining factor?
I believe so. I started working in politics in 1992, and I have been fortunate that everything I have done has been mostly due to the Hispanic vote. The numbers are there. The last census, in the middle of last year, showed that there are more than 50 million Spanish-speakers in the United States. Mathematically, this is interesting. In using the electoral system based on the polling station, when you win more than half the votes, you get all of the votes of that state. The five states with the highest population in the United States are Florida, New York, Illinois, Texas and California, with an interesting and great common denominator: 80 percent of the Hispanic population resides in those five states. No one can win, mathematically, without winning at least three out of the five. So, will it play an important role? In my opinion, it is the decisive factor. Then, there are states like Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico that will probably end up being key states where the Hispanic vote could be the margin of victory.
But what is a Hispanic vote? Is it a uniform vote?
It is complicated because the Hispanic in Florida has nothing to do with the Hispanic in California, nor with the Hispanic in New York. It is a community with a common denominator, which is the Hispanic culture — they identify as Hispanics – but it is very complicated. They will vote on different issues. The Cubans, mainly in Florida, will base their vote on the issue of Cuba. Puerto Ricans will base their vote on education and access to opportunities. Mexicans have other priorities. What does the Hispanic vote mean for us? That whatever Hispanic, wherever they are from, considers themselves to be above all Hispanic. The Hispanics are the demographic sector that is increasing the most, with the largest number of entrepreneurs. Hispanics are hot in the United States, in the movies, in music. They sell more tacos than hamburgers. It is a real fact.
“80% of the Hispanic population is concentrated in five of the most important states.”
The most important Latino face of the Republican Party, Marco Rubio, comes from the Cuban community in Florida.
My opinion is that he could be the Republican vice-presidential candidate. Normally, you look for a vice-presidential candidate who has what you lack, one that adds to your platform. Romney is from the Northeast, from Boston, and moderate — he has to look for a Hispanic candidate from the South, who is far right. The wonder boy of the party is Marco Rubio. Moreover, he’s young, very eloquent, with a lot of enthusiasm and he’s Hispanic. But they have a problem like Santorum. I do not think [the vice-presidential candidate] will be Santorum; he has burned too many bridges. He is a guy that went to Puerto Rico and said that English had to be the official language. It would be a bit incongruous to then try to win the Hispanic vote, no? Marco Rubio is clean, fresh and has not suffered the scrutiny of the process of the primaries, which is brutal. But I insist that you should not view the Hispanic vote as a question of Florida only. Historically, the Hispanic vote has been democratic. We lost the most with Al Gore because Bush was able to appeal to family values. The migration issue will play an important role, as well the issues of the economy and education. I think that even for Cubans of the second and third generations, the issue of Cuba is distant.
How much influence do international issues have in the campaign?
It’s a country that is so big and complicated; in some states, [international issues have] no [influence], in many states, very little, and in a few states, much [influence]. In general, they have little influence. I am specializing in sustainability issues and leading a platform of expatriates living abroad so that they can vote and collect funds. It is an interesting community. In 2000, we lost the election by 523 votes in Florida. We think that this election will be very tight. Mobilizing the community that lives abroad is something that has not been done until now. We think that there are between 8 and 10 million North Americans living abroad, with a unique profile, a much higher socioeconomic status than the average person in the United States — people interested in international issues, foreign policy and the international image of the U.S. They follow American politics much more than most, but do not participate because the system is complex.
Does Obama’s foreign policy reach the electorate? Will what he says in Korea, in Cartagena and in Cairo make any difference in the election?
Again, yes, but it depends where. In Massachusetts, yes; in New York or Miami, the issue will be Cuba. The Hispanic community can use what he says about Mexico against him, but it is not one of the central issues of the campaign.
Is it that there are presidential decisions that appear to be explained in key elections, for example the conversation with Medvedev in which he stated that he needed time, or in the effort to stop Israel in an attack against Iran?
The truth is that if there has been a president in the history of the U.S. that has decided to govern thinking about future generations and not upcoming elections, it has been Obama. I think that, frankly, he is a man of the state, and I’m referring to the facts. All his advisers told him that it was political suicide to face the biggest economic lobby of the country, which is the issue of health care, but after losing Kennedy’s seat and losing the majority in the House, he went ahead, despite everything that they told him, to push forward with the health care reform. He faced Wall Street and the financial lobby when they told him it was political suicide; he faced the oil companies and the fossil fuels sector. He has always been able to think about what he believes to be best for the country. Does that mean that we do not think about the key electoral bases? I would not dare say that. But I do think with absolute conviction that decision-making is never only about the key election. This is clear in the case of Obama.
Are there elements of deception with Obama that you will have to combat in the campaign?
The first will be to try to understand that there were some absolutely surreal expectations with Obama. If you ask the more radical sectors of the Democratic Party, they are going to be disappointed because Obama has not done much. The more radicals of the Republicans are going to tell you that he has done too much. You can’t govern to everyone’s liking. Like I was saying before, do I compare him with God, or with alternative that I have? If there are three issues that are important to me, I am all right with whoever can represent me in two of those issues. That is governing.
Will people find out about what happened in the Senate, the filibuster and the block?
That will be our job. People in the street do not perceive what is happening in Washington, but they perceive how it affects them. They perceive that Obama has tried time and again to pass various economic stimulus plans in sectors such as infrastructure, construction and schools; the Republicans have not wanted this. In many occasions we were at an impasse that nearly blocked the government because there were some individuals, 40 or 50 congressmen from the tea party movement, who swore before God, with a hand on the bible, that they would not sign any bill that supported abortion rights or raised taxes on the rich. How do you govern? They put the country to its knees. That is something that people can understand. They do care about the day to day issues of what happens in Washington, but they can see that their school does not have funding. In the end, it is common sense. Who do you vote for? Which direction do you think each candidate will take you? The problem Romney will face is his lack of consistency; one day he says one thing and the next day another. He has said that Obama is disconnected from reality. Obama responded, “Yes, I’ll be out of touch with reality, but how many Americans have an account in Switzerland?”** [Romney] does not represent the vast majority of North Americans. How will he connect with voters in Arkansas?
*Editor’s note: While this line is an accurate translation of the original article, it should be noted that Biden’s original statement was a revived use of a phrase with considerable history in U.S. politics: “Don’t compare me to the Almighty; Compare me to the alternative.”
**Editor’s note: The original quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.