Why are ppl so negative about Castro potentially entering the 2020 primary?

[SCNCmod]

I'm don't have an opinion on whether or not I want Castro to be on the ticket... but I would like to see him in the primary to see how he does.  If he catches fire and is great on the campaign trail connecting with people... then he may be an asset.  If he falls flat- that's good to know also.  The point is we have never seen his ability or lack of ability in a campaign- whichever it may be... but the more people that enter- the better chance of finding the person who can best connect with voters.

After Trump- experience isn't all that important.  Someone with good ideas... and enough experience to understand and appreciate public service and the role of public institutions.  And its not like he has no experience in this realm.  He has been in public office at the local and federal level- enough to have far more understanding of these systems than Trump has.

So why are people so negative about Castro entering the primary?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Let Booker, Warren, Castro and Gillibrand all run. I think Booker will win, but the more, the better.

[Progressive Pessimist]

He just kind of doesn't offer much...

[Mister Mets]

They might see it as a crowded field, and worry about the potential for a lengthy bruising primary that results in a weakened general election nominee, as well as limited opportunities for legitimate contenders to get their message out. This could result in a weaker candidate winning due to high name recognition, or an ability to say crazy things.

Castro's experience is a bit limited. He was mayor in a city where other positions are more powerful, and has never been elected to statewide office.

Booker was also a mayor, but he became a Senator (and has won two statewide elections.) O'Rourke has several terms in Congress, and is proving his chops as a candidate for statewide office. What does Castro offer?

[SCNCmod]

He just kind of doesn't offer much...

Maybe... but maybe not.  I think we will see what the various candidates have to offer once we see them in a national campaign.   There are many others I thought didn't offer much based solely on how voluminous their resume was... then realized I was totally wrong.  Most of the candidates agree on 90% of issues & all have a sufficient amount of experience with public institutions/ government... to show far more understanding and appreciation for the importance of these systems as a whole (esp compared to Trump).  

So the important difference will be who can best convey and sell this message to the voters and who can inspire and generation the most amount of support to win the presidency.  This also includes who can deliver this message with a tone that can both inspire the base ... but without turning off some ind & moderates who may be open to supporting such policies (enough to vote Dem in the next election).

Let Booker, Warren, Castro and Gillibrand all run. I think Booker will win, but the more, the better.

I use to think Booker may very likely be the best nominee/ and win the nomination.  And I will always think that Clinton made a huge mistake in not choosing Booker or Castro as her running mate (esp after coming out of a primary that she won almost solely due to the overwhelming support on minorities... in a primary that she focused heavily on lifting up minorities, etc.)... but that's drifting off subject.  The point is I have been a fan of Cory Booker's potential regarding his future on the national stage.

...But I have grown more and more doubtful about Booker's potential (although I do think he would do a good job in the highest office).  Booker has seemed as if he is trying too hard at times- which rightly or wrongly can come off as opportunistic.  Also- he has almost "tried" too hard "to prove" he is the "most progressive." (a similar issue I have with some of the other top names).  But overall- I question more (lately) his ability to delivery the Dem message with a tone that can appeal to many of the potential crossover/ Ind voters and voters in swing states.  

I do think he may be able to motivate much of the base.... But I think in 2020 Dems are going to need their base AND some swing voters (as I think Trump is going to be a stronger candidate in 2020... since he has pulled in to a sufficient extent, many of the never trump Republicans).

I hope he proves wrong many of my doubts & overall I agree- all should run and see who percolates to the top as the best candidate.
 

[SCNCmod]

They might see it as a crowded field, and worry about the potential for a lengthy bruising primary that results in a weakened general election nominee, as well as limited opportunities for legitimate contenders to get their message out. This could result in a weaker candidate winning due to high name recognition, or an ability to say crazy things.

Castro's experience is a bit limited. He was mayor in a city where other positions are more powerful, and has never been elected to statewide office.

Booker was also a mayor, but he became a Senator (and has won two statewide elections.) O'Rourke has several terms in Congress, and is proving his chops as a candidate for statewide office. What does Castro offer?

I think Dems will be fairly civil this election- as voters will see beating Trump as too important to allow too much bashing of potential nominees.  But I agree with the assessment of the candidates you mentioned.  I actually think Beto would (potentially) be a great dark horse candidate if he loses the Senate election.  Beto has far exceeded my expectations by actually seeing him perform in a big campaign (wider than a congressional district). I think Castro also COULD have this type potential, if Beto does not run.  And although he may not in the end- I think its worth it to see if by chance, he does prove to be such a candidate. 

(as an aside... and its just a small point- I do realize San Antonio mayor is a weak mayoral office- but to his credit he did try to make the most of the position via things like implementing Universal Pre-K... in a City that is much larger than several states).

[LabourJersey]

He's not charismatic and was essentially a figurehead as both Mayor of San Antonio and as HUD Secretary. He has no substantial accomplishments to his name.

He's not even the most politically talented member of his family --Joaquín Castro comes off better on TV and has a better future ahead of himself.

[Grassroots]

Because Castro is a lackluster politician and is just not presidential material. Dems have lot better than him.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

He's not charismatic and was essentially a figurehead as both Mayor of San Antonio and as HUD Secretary. He has no substantial accomplishments to his name.

He's not even the most politically talented member of his family --Joaquín Castro comes off better on TV and has a better future ahead of himself.

This. Also describes why he is not a good candidate for TX Senate.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

He's not charismatic and was essentially a figurehead as both Mayor of San Antonio and as HUD Secretary. He has no substantial accomplishments to his name.

He's not even the most politically talented member of his family --Joaquín Castro comes off better on TV and has a better future ahead of himself.

He's not charismatic and was essentially a figurehead as both Mayor of San Antonio and as HUD Secretary. He has no substantial accomplishments to his name.

He's not even the most politically talented member of his family --Joaquín Castro comes off better on TV and has a better future ahead of himself.

This. Also describes why he is not a good candidate for TX Senate.

[morgankingsley]

It just isn't his time. I feel like 2028 would be his time

[Blair]

Because Castro is a lackluster politician and is just not presidential material. Dems have lot better than him.

This. Castro was talked about as being a star back in 2011 back when A.) Everyone was obsessed with the power of the Latino community B.) The Democrats had virtually no bench.

There's at least 10 politicians I can think of who have a much better story, a much better record of campaigning and have much better ideas.

Let Castro run- if he catches fire in the Primary then he would have done something right

[Orser67]

He'd be a great candidate for congress or a statewide office, but his resume is lacking for a presidential candidate. I agree with other posters that his brother would be a better candidate.

[Chickpeas]

I think the best he can hope for is another cabinet post if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2020.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The guy just doesn't look Presidential. 

Truthfully, in the back of people's minds, they would see Castro as one of Trump's Apprentices rebelling against him, and he'd end up looking bad to independent voters.  He's been a successful pol, but there's no reason to think he's up for the big job as there would be for some of the other candidates.

It's kind of odd.  Jeh Johnson, who has far more Presidential props, is never mentioned as a possible candidate, yet Castro has quite the following.  I don't get that.  Johnson has never been mentioned as a Presidential candidate, yet guys with less substantive experience get more love.  I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the Castro Brothers, but neither is really the kind of top-tier candidate the Democrats need to beat Trump.

[NewYorkExpress]

He was in the Obama Cabinet and progressives hate Obama.

[Mr. Morden]

It's kind of odd.  Jeh Johnson, who has far more Presidential props, is never mentioned as a possible candidate, yet Castro has quite the following.  I don't get that.  Johnson has never been mentioned as a Presidential candidate, yet guys with less substantive experience get more love.  I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the Castro Brothers, but neither is really the kind of top-tier candidate the Democrats need to beat Trump.

Getting mentioned as a presidential prospect usually isn't something that happens organically.  I mean, it happens sometimes, but usually not.  Instead, the candidates themselves are intentionally dropping hints that they're interested in higher office, and this is how they get noticed.  Castro has been doing this for years now, and that's why he's mentioned.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's kind of odd.  Jeh Johnson, who has far more Presidential props, is never mentioned as a possible candidate, yet Castro has quite the following.  I don't get that.  Johnson has never been mentioned as a Presidential candidate, yet guys with less substantive experience get more love.  I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the Castro Brothers, but neither is really the kind of top-tier candidate the Democrats need to beat Trump.

Getting mentioned as a presidential prospect usually isn't something that happens organically.  I mean, it happens sometimes, but usually not.  Instead, the candidates themselves are intentionally dropping hints that they're interested in higher office, and this is how they get noticed.  Castro has been doing this for years now, and that's why he's mentioned.

Well, yes, Castro has been a self-promoter.

I mentioned Johnson because he fits the mold of the type of candidate who could beat Trump; a combination of age, ethnic diversity, and a projection of the kind of competence that leads people to believe that the person could actually do the job.  Perhaps it's his youthful appearance, but Castro strikes me (and, I believe, other people) as a guy who's young and has "potential" but isn't quite up to the biggest job. 

[Koharu]

I also am in favor of him entering the primary is he wants to. I think a variety of candidates could be useful to gauge what Democrats are interested in. I know we this point I don't have any strong feelings one way or another for a candidate other than I don't think Warren would be a good option.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Warren reminds voters too much of Hillary. Same with Sanders, he's too much of Ralph Nadar. That's why Dean got a bum tap in 2004.

But, Booker, Harris or Castro, someone of the Y2K generation are the best. Even Biden should yield

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Establishment. Lack of charisma. Lack of generating enthusiasm among independents, whites and progressive dems. Too much associated with Hillary Clinton.

Would probably lose against Trump.

[The Mikado]

He was in the Obama Cabinet and progressives hate Obama.

What? No. I couldn't stand Julian Castro since he was mayor of San Antonio.

[bagelman]

Establishment. Lack of charisma. Lack of generating enthusiasm among independents, whites and progressive dems. Too much associated with Hillary Clinton.

Would probably lose against Trump.

Also a ladder climbing self promoting smug prick.

[SCNCmod]

I don't think Castro will be the nominee... though I hope he runs (along with any other Dem who wants to jump in the ring)... But...

"Ladder Climbing"... so any other Presidential Primary candidate is definitely not inherently "ladder climbing"    (BTW... some candidates from Red states have less opportunities to build their resumes via Senator and Governor)

[bagelman]

I don't think Castro will be the nominee... though I hope he runs (along with any other Dem who wants to jump in the ring)... But...

"Ladder Climbing"... so any other Presidential Primary candidate is definitely not inherently "ladder climbing"    (BTW... some candidates from Red states have less opportunities to build their resumes via Senator and Governor)

Ladder climbing is bad when a former HUD secretary decides that he's ready for the presidency because he has a massive ego when there are plenty of better candidates for the job. 

Everyone is trying to climb the ladder, but Castro is the type that jumps up in a blatant fashion. It's a negative personality trait associated with narcissism.