I still say they won’t pick him at all. There’s no way to vet a candidate’s readiness for national exposure. Clinton is just too cautious to let that happen to her. And going by recent history, it’s more likely to happen than not. Quayle and Palin are well known examples, but Geraldine Ferraro was a similar reach(he wanted a woman and was apparently determined to get one) and she was just weak, weak, weak. Not sure if it mattered, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it cost Mondale a couple of states he could have won. Then there was Thomas Eagleton, but that wasn’t exactly the same kind of problem.
We’ll see. Nowadays I think Perez is more likely, but if they think Castro is enormously talented, they won’t hesitate to pick him.
I don’t remember him being keynote speaker, and I’ve read almost nothing about him having a great night the way Obama did. Not that it’s a real qualification for the Presidency, but good performances help and it doesn’t look like his performance was good enough to attract attention the way Obama’s did. We were all talking about this Obama guy in 2004. I was here in 2012, If there was a single thread about Castro, I missed it.
Mayor is a legit thing, but unless Houston saw major positive changes under his watch the way Giuliani did in New York, he was just another mayor. It’s a nice resume item, but not a launching pad to the Presidency. It’s at best an argument for running for governor or Senator, but more likely the House.
Being HUD secretary is a legit thing as well, but it’s such a low priority cabinet post that again, he’d have to point to major accomplishments to justify doing anything greater. I’ve read up on his tenure as HUD Secretary and it pretty much says, “He was appointed Hud Secretary”. Doesn’t seem to be anything further to report on that at this time.
Now if Obama had put him in Treasury, State, Defense, or AG, that would demonstrate a lot of confidence in his abilities. The fact that he put him in HUD, without even enough time to truly change anything or truly screw up, doesn’t say much for his proven abilities.
No, but there are literally a dozen people in the Obama administration(or who previously served) more qualified who would probably say yes: Ash Carter, Jack Lew, Samantha Power, Leon Panetta(and he might actually be picked), Tom Vilsack, Janet Napolitano, Jeh JOhnson, and Kathleen Sibelius. There’s just no compelling reason to vault Castro over all of those. Heck, Anthony Foxx has a similar paper resume, but he’s got more accomplishments to point to both as a mayor and a cabinet secretary.
If Julian Castro genuinely is a future star, he’ll go back to Texas and try to win statewide, or he’ll stay in DC and run a more important department in Clinton’s administration. We haven’t had a Latino Secretary of State yet, have we?
I’d actually rate Castro a little higher because if Clinton is willing to take a chance to excite Latinos, he’s the better option. Perez has some baggage and probably won’t pass vetting. The deal he made with Minnesota to drop a legal case in exchange for promises of funding isn’t technically illegal, but it looks shady and the last thing Clinton needs is more shady. Plus Perez was not totally honest about political interference in the Black Panther voter intimidation case. She just does not need that kind of drama.
So, not Tipper Gore, then?
Keep in mind I’m just making a prediction. I wouldn’t vote for Hillary even if her opponent is Trump.
And it is.
Oh thank god it’s not just me. Maybe it’s just a bad photo, but he looks like a half-melted waxwork of George Takei. Joaquin is definitely more photogenic.
I still lean towards Perez, but here’s some discussion of Tim Kaine’s and Sherrod Brown’s prospects:
I hadn’t even considered Biden, but he’d actually be a great pick if he’s up for it. And he may very well be, seeing as how he seriously considered a run for president. I dare say Biden is the best suggestion I’ve heard so far.
Kaine is getting a lot of buzz, but I note it’s from “donors and party activists”. I don’t think there’s a chance in hell Clinton picks him and he seems to agree, although he puts it more mildly.
Benjamin Netanyahu.
A comparative liberal pacifist will soften her image immeasurably.
I think the ideal vice presidential running mate for Clinton would have these traits, in order of descending importance:
- From the West or Midwest–to balance her strengths in the East and South.
- Strong progressive–to help bring along the leftists of her party, and as a poison pill against impeachment by Republicans.
- Racial minority–to give back to the coalition that most supported her nomination.
- Past or present governor of a state–not a Senator, because she was Senator and to not reduce the soon-to-be majority there.
- Younger–she’s old enough that her running mate should not be older than her. Plus, gives an edge in the 2024 race.
- From a purple or red state–to put as many states into contention as possible.
It’s probably impossible to hit all the check boxes. Does anyone fit? I expect she’ll hit five out of six, though.
Neither of those are Hispanic, though ;).
That’s part of the appeal as well - He would get out the Hispanic vote. Add to that how much Hispanics hate Trump.
- Her “strengths… in the South”? I don’t see it - not in November, anyway. Serving as first lady of Arkansas won’t count for beans.
- Liberal Dems will never, ever, ever go for Trump. They’ll fall in line behind her.
- Probably true.
- Could be - or it could be an Obama Cabinet member.
- Strongly agreed.
- Would be smart, but not vital.
I would add:
- A dude
Asking the average voter to back an all-female ticket for the first time in history would be just too much. She’s not that daring.
How about Martin Heinrich.
As much as I like Tom Perez for her VP pick, I don’t think picking a racial minority is at all necessary this election. Trump’s done enough to not only turn minorities off, but I imagine will actually drive turnout for Hillary. She doesn’t need to reach out to them with a “demographically targeted” running mate.
A boring ol’ white guy would be fine, and might even help her with the sorta-kinda-subtly racist conservative voters who just can’t bring themselves to support Trump.
But it’s not just about this election – it’s about strengthening the party, and trying to motivate Latino voters to turn out and vote Democratic in the long term as much as black voters do.
-
She easily won the Democratic primaries in the South. Picking a running mate from there will not increase the number of votes she gets.
-
Right, but it’s a question of turnout. Not voting for Trump is not the same as voting for her. (I’d prefer she not pick a strong Progressive, but I think from an electoral standpoint, it’s helpful for her.)
-
Good point about choosing a man.
Ah, who even cares about that, any more, outside of Miami?
That’s why it’s a risk. It’s obviously a reach, no one is going to be able to argue in good faith that he was the most qualified person available, or even that he’s qualified at all. He was clearly picked for the “ooh” factor, which wouldn’t be there if any of these three aspects unrelated to qualifications weren’t in place:
- Ethnicity
- Good looks
- Youth
So already he’d start out with the “affirmative action pick” tar that Geraldine Ferraro got, then he’d have plenty of journalists wanting to be the first to expose him as unready. Fortunately for Democrats there are a few “safe” journalists who will throw him softballs because they won’t want to be the ones to ruin the first Latino VP and first woman President, but real journalists are going to want to turn him into Dan Quayle.
Now imagine that Trump picks a military guy, someone with outsider cred and gravitas, like General Mattis or Tony Zinni, and Clinton has thrown away her main advantage plus made her primary weakness worse(her position as the icon of old style politics).