If it’s Rubio, Hillary will absolutely need a Hispanic veep to keep and increase the Democratic hold on Hispanic voters. To do otherwise might be political malpractice – even if Booker might be slightly better in the short term, getting a chokehold on the Hispanic vote in the long run is far, far more important.
And if it’s Trump, a Hispanic Veep might be the wisest choice for different political reasons – to goad Trump into viciously attacking a prominent Hispanic, and then reap the political benefits.
These are political reasons, but political reasons are perfectly legitimate in choosing a Veep.
I would love to see Barbara Boxer (who has already announced that she will not seek re-election) as Sanders’ VP. She’s been a damn good Senator for us, and I understand she’s well-respected among her peers.
But there’s been no rumblings about her, so I guess she’s serious about retiring.
And again, it doesn’t matter if the GOP does well among Latinos. If African-Americans turn out and vote like they did in 2008 and 2012, Democrats win unless Republicans see a commensurate increase in white support. The Latino vote just doesn’t matter that much yet, at least not compared to the African-American vote.
I say it’s political malpractice to not pick Cory Booker, if you’re motivated primarily by turnout concerns among minority voters.
It’s not just about this election – the Democrats have a chance to get a hold on Hispanic voters, in the medium and even long-term, close to the support they have among black voters. This is because of the extreme anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic rhetoric from prominent Republicans, including their front runner.
That’s as important, or even more so, then gaining a small advantage in a single election. If a certain Hillary pick means this is more likely to happen, then that’s a cinch to pick.
The way you do that is by developing your promising Hispanic talent, not prematurely promoting them to the majors. If Julian Castro is that big a deal, he should be able to win in Texas. There’s an election for governor coming up in 2018. How much you want to bet the Democrats nominate a white person?
Yes – one way to develop such talent is to give them Cabinet posts, and nominate them as Veeps. You think it’s premature, but that’s just your opinion.
If Castro could win in Texas, the Republicans might as well pack up and move to Somalia, because they’d cease to be relevant as a national political party.
That’s not the problem. Democrats have won statewide in Texas. Liberal activists just wouldn’t be happy with what Julian Castro would have to become to win statewide there. And I do agree that cabinet posts are a good way to elevate young talent. But in order to justify being a heartbeat away from the Presidency, a cabinet official should really have remarkable accomplishments in the post or posts. Dick Cheney was undoubtedly qualified to be VP. All he did was run the Gulf War. Again, what has Castro or Perez done? They will be asked and they’d better have an answer.
This is what wikipedia has on Castro’s time at HUD:
Truly the stuff of legend. And I didn’t realize that he’s barely served 18 months. He’d better get cracking on major accomplishments.
I mean winning the governors’ race or possibly a Senate seat. No, Texas will not go blue in a Presidential election anytime soon, but any state can have a governor of the minority party. Senators are a little tougher, but it does happen.
Looking back at US presidents, I see little correlation between quantity of experience and greatness. Lincoln didn’t have a ton of experience, nor did Kennedy, nor did Obama, and I think all three were pretty good. If Castro or Perez are smart and savvy enough, then they’re as ready as they’ll ever be, at least for VP.
When I look back I have a clear preference for governors, but maybe that’s just me. In terms of approval ratings governors seem to have performed better. The most popular postwar Presidents have been Ike, Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton, two governors, one Senator, and a general. The other guys, the ones with not so popular ratings from the public, were a Senator/VP, Senator/VP, governor, House member, governor, VP, Senator.
So governors are 2 for 4, generals 1 for 1, and Senators 1 for 4. Senators kinda suck.
True, and governors don’t have a big lead. But understand that I grew up in the 80s and 90s, so my experience with well liked Presidents consists exclusively of governors. And they have a case to make. They are the sole person accountable for their state’s performance and actually have to get things done. They end up with real accomplishments to point to. I don’t think being a legislator adequately prepares one for the office. It’s true that Senators get more exposure to national issues than governors, as well as foreign policy, but it’s still a far cry from actually having to be accountable for policy.
Count me very disappointed that the last governor left in the race is doing so poorly, although it looks like he’ll at least take a couple of second places and maybe even one small win.
Kennedy never had a chance to be great and to call him that is dream projection.
Lincoln was great but if he was not thrust into the time he was thrust would anyone have known?
Obama had the promise of greatness. He delivered, IMHO, a very good and extremely competent performance … but not greatness.
I for one am not looking for potential greatness out of a VP but competence. Someone who will be able to, if need be, rapidly assemble the team of advisors and have a smooth transition.