So you say, but I don’t trust your analysis of Democrats as being anything more than wishful thinking. Having the first major party Hispanic VP nominee be sharply and repeatedly personally attacked (especially if the attacker is Trump) might be just the thing to motivate Hispanic voters.
He hasn’t been a candidate in a major campaign yet. It’s entirely possible that he’d be much, much more disciplined running as Veep.
But this is just another possibility, and it sounds like another good one. Now I see three strong possible Hispanic VP picks for Clinton: Xavier Becerra, Julian Castro, and Tom Perez. Plus Cory Booker, perhaps Anthony Foxx, Deval Patrick, and many more, and she has a good field to choose from.
I’ve heard good things about Perez through my membership in the American Constitution Society. A friend of a friend knows him pretty well and thinks highly of him.
True, but as the numbers show, Clinton doesn’t need Latino votes all that much. And against someone like Trump, there will be Republican votes to win, which she’ll need since she’ll be bleeding white working class support. She’s going to need college educated Republicans. Perez has been such a controversial figure in his civil rights role that it’s hard to see Clinton winning ANY whites other than liberals with him on the ticket. If you ever wanted to see Republicans hit 75% in the white vote, that’s one way to do it.
She’ has good people to choose from, but most of that field are obvious AA picks. Booker and Patrick are legit, the rest are reaches. Her health will become quite the campaign issue should she pick someone totally unready.
I just don’t accept that this is anything more than wishful thinking on your part, at least at this point.
“AA picks” (and similar) are good insults to discredit minorities of achievement, but it’s not a legitimate criticism, and doesn’t really resonate with people unless they’re already disinclined towards minorities who achieve things.
Please. There are zero white candidates being considered from Obama’s cabinet. Jack Lew’s qualifications absolutely dwarf Castro, Perez, or Foxx. Ditto for Ash Carter. That goes triple for Tom Vilsack, who Clinton might be considering due to their relationship but who the SDMB and liberal community seem very unexcited about due to him being born the wrong color.
Why are Jack Lew and Ashton Carter not being considered and Castro, Foxx, and Perez are? It’s not just an insult, it happens to be 100% true, and it’s not like liberals are hiding the fact that they don’t want a white guy on the ticket.
If this is true (and I doubt it is), so what? In the vast majority of elections, there were zero black or Hispanic candidates considered. Why would it suddenly be “AA” if, for a single election out of dozens, no white candidates are considered?
Do you have any ability to listen to yourself?
I don’t know if Lew or Vilsack are being considered. I just doubt that they will be picked, and I’m not sure if they would be the best choices to help win the election.
Seriously, why is this suddenly a problem, when for nearly every election, no one but white males were considered?
Sheesh. It’s okay if white males don’t win absolutely everything. They still usually win most things. It’s not discrimination when they (we) go from 100% success to 95% success.
It’s “AA” because the candidates are less qualified than any VP nominees in recent memory. VP nominees are almost always either elected statewide, either as governors or Senators, and if they are cabinet officials they are high cabinet officials who have served with distinction in multiple roles. What happens when Castro, Perez, or Foxx are asked to detail what they accomplished in office? Or do we assume the media won’t be so impertinent and racist as to ask such questions?
They are great choices in that they are uncontroversial, ready to be President on Day 1, and won’t drag the ticket down. Unqualified candidates almost always cause problems. and it’s not like there aren’t qualified minorities if she wants to pick them. There just aren’t any qualified Latino candidates who aren’t quite old. But isn’t that ageism? Is there actually something wrong with Bill Richardson, a man with the most impressive resume living today who hasn’t been President yet?
I’m fine with affirmative action as it’s actually supposed to be: elevating qualified women and minorities. It gets controversial, and rightfully so, when it’s used to justify the promotion of the unqualified over the very qualified. All things being equal, sure, go with the Latino. We’ve never had a Latino VP, so that’s a great thing. But don’t nominate the Secretary of Transportation or Labor from the same administration that has a pretty widely admired budget director and SecDef. The latter two are areas of expertise that are critical to an administration. The former two, not so much.
This is not to say that nominating Castro or Perez is “wrong”. Just that it’s obviously political and not an attempt to choose someone who can step into the Presidency if needed. It’s totally fair game to use that against her.
That’s bullshit, because they aren’t “less qualified than any VP nominees in recent memory”.
Yes, they’re usually Senators or Governors (or House Reps, like Ryan), but that doesn’t mean that Castro/Perez/Becerra (who is also a House Rep) are less qualified than Senators and Governors. It’s entirely reasonable to believe that X years as mayor (or some other state/city position) + Y years as a cabinet secretary is as good as Z years in the Senate or as a state Governor. We can ask the same questions for any Veep nominee, including Quayle, Palin, Ryan, etc. I hold that Castro and Perez are as qualified, or more so, than these three, and more.
It’s politics, and it’s only your opinion that any of these folks are “unqualified”. I don’t hold with that opinion.
I don’t accept or agree with this. I think you’re totally wrong.
Every pick is “obviously political”, even when the politics is to add experience to the ticket. And every pick is “fair game”. It’s bullshit to call a Hispanic nominee an AA nominee just because there are white people with more qualifications – there will always be some white people with more qualifications. It’s bullshit to say that Castro and Perez aren’t qualified because they weren’t Senators or Governors.
I’m actually against affirmative-action as it is practiced on the quotidien level. Down there, it actually does risk putting unqualified people into positions they can’t handle. But at the rarefied level of VP selection or nominations to the Supreme Court, it’s clear that people even with a below average CV for that position are still going to be way ahead of the average person and perfectly well enough qualified.
You seriously think that the issues handled by the Secretary of Transportation or HUD are going to be more important issues than defense and the budget? Seriously?
You responded to a post with a couple of points in it, but that was the last one and you seemed to disagree.
So just to clarify, do you at least agree with me that the expertise gained from being budget director or SecDef is more valuable than that gained at Transportation or HUD?
It depends. But “who has more experience” may not be useful. There are many characteristics to consider when choosing a Veep, and experience is just one. I would expect that there is some minimum experience bar that must be met, but once met, personality, management style, ego (or ability to suborn one’s ego), campaign and political skill, teamwork, policy positions, and other characteristics are just as important as experience. So it can be entirely reasonable to pick Perez or Castro over Lew or Carter or Vilsack, without it being “AA” pick.
I think Perez and Castro both meet the “minimum bar” of experience for Veep, and they may well be the best Veep candidates despite the fact that others might have more years of political experience.
I agree, but I don’t think for a minute, and I doubt that you do either, that anything like that is part of the motivation for tapping any of those guys. With Perez there is at least an ideological case to be made. Perez pleases a lot of Sanders fans that she needs in the fold(he also makes a sound pick for Sanders himself, politically). Castro is mainly a pretty face. If he looked like Thomas Perez, he wouldn’t be on the short list. Foxx I just don’t get, unless Cory Booker is going to say no or something. Foxx is a really smart guy and probably the most qualified SecTrans we’ve ever had(usually it’s just a political posting), but is being a transportation expert really what anyone’s looking for in a President? Booker’s more well rounded.
They might be the best politically, but they are well below past VPs in terms of resume. I just don’t think Clinton will do it. She’s too cautious and picking either of them would be quite ballsy. There are just so many safer bets that get her the same result.
Castro’s a “pretty face” the same (or perhaps to a slightly lesser extent) as Obama was in '04 and '08 – he might have quite a bit more than just appealing looks. If Clinton thinks he’s a special talent, she’ll pick him in a heartbeat.
They’re below some past VPs in experience, and they’re better than some past VP nominees. I think their experience is worlds better than Palin’s, and easily equivalent to Edwards, Quayle, or Ryan.
We know very little about them. They haven’t had to perform on the national stage. And that’s not something you can vet beforehand, thus my belief that Clinton won’t take the risk if she doesn’t have to. There is pretty much zero chance that Tom Vilsack or Cory Booker would let her down. And Booker strikes me as a guy who can juice turnout. Unless he’s not interested, I just can’t see a case for NOT picking Booker.
