In a conventional GE year I’ll agree there’s not much correlation.
And I’m not expecting that aspect to be different this year.
That said-- I feel that circumstances are just right that if HRC chooses Julian Castro this year-- it could serve to energize the huge Latino population here (in TX) that is eligible to vote-- who have never registered to do so. I’m thinking that if Castro’s selection has such a catalytic effect in Texas by mid-terms in 2018-- it might be a method of inspiring other (D) voter registration efforts in other states.
I’m not certain another Latino VP choice-- such as Bacerra or Perez-- could claim to have that style of potential effect-- considering their bases are CA and MD.
Can we be clear on three essentials? (And I do mean essentials.)
No Senator from a state with a Republican governor. The Senate is ineffably crucial, because Democrats are probably going to lose about five seats in 2018, so there is zero tolerance for needlessly losing a seat now.
VP choices have been clearly demonstrated to have almost zero effect on the presidential vote, neither in total nor with regard to particular states or voter blocs; people vote for the next president and scarcely even know who the VP nominees are.
The VP nominee absolutely, positively must be someone that everyone would be comfortable with as president because stuff—from heart attacks or strokes to assassins to falling asteroids—can happen.
A fourth point, not exactly an “essential” but close to it, is that the VP nominee should be someone who would make a good presidential candidate in eight years (so not too old right now).
Sometimes I think it almost doesn’t matter who Clinton picks because if people are inclined to distrust her, or have bought into the trumpet’s lies, that Veep pick may not change anything. People believe they know her after all these years, and they’ve mostly come down for and against. I’m not sure it’s possible a Warren or a Castro or anyone else would cause people to rethink what they’ve believed all these years.
All very wise and true. But we’re nibbling at the edges here. We need a few votes to get Florida, a few to get Pennsylvania and maybe Ohio – and we’re there!
If it doesn’t matter electorally, then I hope she picks someone credible as a president. They would have to be someone we know well enough and have trust in that they have the experience and gravitas as a leader to pull us through a crisis (because that is exactly what the conditions would be if the VP had to step up.) This is the primary qualification for the job. Castro just doesn’t inspire me with any confidence that he is actually ready for such a job outside the optics. In my opinion, he needs to prove himself in more high profile jobs – preferably one’s he’s elected to. He might become a worthy candidate for president one day, but the VP is not an internship and it would make me very dismayed with HRC’s judgement to appoint such a newby a breath away from the presidency.
I think I’ve been hoping she selects a Latino for all the obvious reasons, but Castro is not the only Latino who would be available. She campaigned with him early so I keep coming back to him, but I’ve been reminded of the others that are out there, Becerra, Perez, a few others.
Clever can be combined with winning!
Which places me in the camp of thinking espoused by @littlegirlblue
I’m convinced that HRC doing what she’s already doing-- she should be elected POTUS.
That the VP pick-- so long as it’s not Quayle/Palinesque-- will be secondary in its’ effect on the actual election result.
So-- as long as Julian Castro isn’t caught with a live boy-- or a dead girl in the next 4 years?
There’s no reason a little proactive cleverness can’t be bolted-on to the ticket-- in choosing Castro.
I disagree. The same could have-- and was said of BHO in 2004-- through some point in 2006.
Castro’s background as Mayor of San Antonio (7th largest U.S. city) gives him executive experience that is hands-on-- that would rival a governorship in a lesser-populous state.
If you need a backgrounder on Julian Castro-- here’s a quick overview in The Atlantic (09/12):
Needless to say, I would be enthusiastic about a qualified candidate who happens to be Latino. Of the three leading latino men (no women?) on the short list, I’ve been more impressed with Perez (who has been out stumping for HRC), but perhaps Becarra would be a valuable asset in moving legislation through congress. Found this article which has some relevance to this discussion:
"The memo, published on Sunday by The Huffington Post, details “Project Pander,” a Republican effort to build “a framework to systematically dismantle the records of Hillary Clinton’s potential running mates.”
“Castro is very inexperienced, … has never had the national (or even state) media spotlight placed upon him for a sustained period of time, leading one to wonder whether his act will hold up over time,” says the memo. “Castro could easily be portrayed as a John Edwards-esque pick, whereby someone with good looks but a thin résumé is viewed as a novice on the national stage.”
On Becerra, the memo says, “Beyond the Beltway and community of Latino activists, Becerra has low name recognition despite twenty years in Congress,” adding, “[He] is an untrustworthy hypocrite. Becerra relishes dividing people along racial lines, supports policies favorable to illegal immigrants, and has been link to radical Hispanic organizations. Becerra is a shameless opportunist and career politician who betrayed key constituencies during his failed run for Mayor [of Los Angeles in 2001].”
The memo mentions Perez as a “career federal bureaucrat” and not someone who is considered “a safe choice” for the Democratic ticket.
“His selection should terrify independents, swing voters, and businesses everywhere as it makes the ticket ultra-liberal. His selection could alienate independents and white voters throughout the critical states of the Midwest,” the GOP memo says."
I realize some would compare him to Obama – however, Obama had written two best selling memoirs from which people could learn about him. He ran and won a high profile senate seat. He was also obviously very brilliant, a compelling speaker and mature in temperament beyond his years. I haven’t seen anything about Castro that impresses me the same way Obama did. I was on board with Obama the moment he announced his bid for president – and I’d already been introduced to him via his speech at the convention and his senate campaign.
To me, that’s Kaine. He was governor of a large state with the swath of Washington suburbs that are very connected to a major American city. He isn’t exciting, but he could convey that he’s calm and would lead us through a crisis with a level head.
