I think there are two types of VP choices – experienced political veterans meant to boost a less experienced Prez candidate (see Biden, Cheney, Bush I), or a young and (seemingly, at least) charismatic/politically attractive up-and-comer meant to inspire and bring ‘youth’ for an older candidate as well as being a (hopefully) solid Prez candidate in 8 years (see Quayle [hah!], Gore [charismatic?!?], Paul Ryan [haha], Palin [HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA]).
Clinton will probably pick the second type, and hopefully with better results.
I agree with your types but I disagree with you on which one Clinton will pick.
I’m expecting that Clinton’s age and health will become a campaign issue. So Clinton won’t be looking for an up-and-comer politician. She’ll want to choose an established politician to reassure voters that even if she dies, there’ll be somebody of Presidential stature waiting to step in.
How often has a VP candidate made a significant difference in the ticket winning a state it would not have otherwise taken? Not rhetorical; anyone know?
The argument for him is a) better Hispanic turn out in many states other than Texas b) investing in Texas not for this election but with a view to moving it into the competitive column maybe a few years ahead of current projections.
Not enough to offset his inexperience I don’t think.
I do think Warner would be good. 1) Enough experience to step in if needed. and 2) there is no realistic path for the GOP to win without flipping Virginia (and Ohio, Florida, and Colorado). He might even help flip North Carolina.
Webb could do it too but he is as old as HRC and going a bit younger would be good pr.
I could also see Sherrod Brown of Ohio - same logic. She is likely to win them anyway but locking one of them in virtually assures an electoral win unless she is overall blown away in the popular vote.
It could be argued that Lyndon Johnson was one such candidate. Kennedy barely won Texas, although it wouldn’t have made a difference in the election results had he lost it. It’s possible that Johnson also made a difference in some bordering states such as Louisiana, Arkansas, and New Mexico, which were also very close.
I think a Hispanic VP is just shy of a given – the Democratic party really, really wants to sew up the Hispanic vote as solidly (or close, since >90% is probably impossible) as the black vote, and they have a ready and proven recipe for how to significantly boost turnout for a low-turnout demographic. I’m not saying a Hispanic VP will do this, but a Hispanic VP over an 8 year, successful Democratic presidency that then turns into a Hispanic Prez candidate might.
So if there’s an acceptable (in age, experience, background, charisma, etc.) Hispanic VP possibility, I think it’s very likely Hillary will choose him (and it will probably be a man).
As has been pointed out elsewhere, the Clintons already have a strong Hispanic following so I wouldn’t expect Hillary to pick a Hispanic running mate purely to shore up that demographic. Warner seems like he’d bring more benefit to the ticket (assuming he could actually nail down Virginia and influence North Carolina) than Castro would.
I also think Brian Schweitzer is still an option, given that his rural Western constituency balances Clinton’s urban East Coast one. He’s also more popular (and populist) which would soften some of Hillary’s hard edges. That’s assuming that he wants the job, of course.
Picking a Hispanic VP candidate wouldn’t be about helping Clinton win, it would be about helping the Democratic party solidify Hispanic support by having a credible (and presumable) Hispanic presidential candidate for 2024. Long-term politics.
If there were a different VP candidate that Hillary thought would boost her chances to win, I’m sure she would pick them. But barring that (and, usually, the VP doesn’t help much), I think a (qualified) Hispanic VP is an obvious choice because of the possible great long-term rewards to the party.
Only if the Hispanic candidate has a record of believing in and working for issues important to a significant majority of Hispanics, as well as meeting the basic requirement of being prepared to be President. One who stands for immigrant-bashing or safety-net-gutting, like Rubio or Cruz on the other side, or who lacks credible experience and preparation, would rightly be seen as tokenist pandering.
Letting an unqualified candidate into law school because of his race is one thing. Letting him into the VP’s office is another.
Hillary already fulfills the affirmative action slot on the ticket. I’m not sure that the moderates who will decide the election look on minority status in the same way that proponents of affirmative action do.
So, for these and other reasons, the idea that he is a lock for VP is a little silly. Hillary wouldn’t say so anyway - she is concentrating on not answering questions and working the “I’m Just Plain Folks” angle at this point and hoping not to engage on anything substantive and hoping no one will notice.
The way the current Republican field is going, I’m guessing the GOP central office is wishing *its *candidates were also concentrating on not answering questions.
That said, and particular wording aside, the point that Clinton already fulfills the “affirmative action slot” is an interesting one. From the point of view of Average Joe Undecidedvoter, is a ticket of two non-white-men more or less attractive than one featuring one non-white-man and one white man? Would having a white guy playing second fiddle to a woman make him look weak (I’m not saying it’s a rational view but considering the current Mad Max kerfuffle it’d be a ‘thing’ anyway) or would he reassure those who ‘aren’t quite sure’ about a female president?
It’s hard to gauge which way the public’s collective irrational unconscious biases will go sometimes.
I freely admit that Castro’s resume is a bit on the thin side. I also think he is intelligent, articulate, and would be a quick study. How many Republicans admitted in 2008 that Sarah Palin was not only unqualified but dumb as a sack of hammers?
I’m sure that whenever Shodan takes a racist/sexist dump like that in a thread, it never occurs to him the the entire history of the United States is affirmative action for white men.