Hillary Clinton-Julian Castro ticket

[Mister Mets]

There are some things about Castro that could look bad.

He may not be that bright. He admits that he benefitted from affirmative action, with an SAT score in the 1200s.

He also has close ties to Henry Cisneros, who had a similar background (youngest man ever elected to the San Antonio city council, mayor, HUD Secretary) and some prominent scandals. Cisneros plead guilty to 28 charges of bank fraud, conspiracy to commit bank fraud and obstruction of justice, and was given one of Clinton's midnight pardons.

Castro had lunch with Cisneros and Bill Clinton recently, along with Spurs coach Gregg Popovich.

Being a friend of a friend of Bill probably helps Castro be Clinton's running mate, but it would also give Republicans some new lines of attack.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Even as far as politicians go, he's an empty suit.  She could carry Texas without him.  Sorry to rain on the narcissistic parade, but not everything is about the "ascendant coalition."

She couldn't carry Texas if Sam Houston's corpse was her running mate.

[TDAS04]

Probably not a good choice with his lack of experience in major office.

To be fair, however, the Mayor of San Antonio is the executive of a constituency larger than those of some governors (including Schweitzer).

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't see how this really qualifies him more than it would were he to remain Mayor. HUD is low-key, and there aren't many issues right now that would put it in the spotlight.

It gives him a greater diversity of experience, taking him out of city government where he spent his entire political career. The years he spent as mayor of a city with a population slightly greater than that of New Hampshire are politically useful when combined with a federal post.

It's better that he spent a chunk of Obama's term as mayor, and the rest as HUD Secretary than to have served in either post alone since 2009.

Being a Cabinet Secretary is no way to get on the national ticket.  The guys that did arguably did so for reasons other than their Cabinet service.

The exception is if you have a Cabinet role in National Security/Foreign Policy (Bush 41, Cheney).  Jack Kemp, IMO, was not on the ticket because he was HUD Secretary; he was on the ticket because he was a fading star with celebrity from his days as a tax-cutting Congressman. 

Before Bush 41, you have to go back to Sargent Shriver in 1972 as a guy who got on the ticket because of appointive experience.  Even Shriver was special; he was a Kennedy, and no one else wanted to crawl above McGovern's sinking ship.  Before that, you have Henry Wallace in 1940, and before that, you have Herbert Hoover in 1928.  Before that you have FDR in 1920, who was ASSISTANT Sec. of the Navy; this was a clear-cut celebrity pick.

Being a Cabinet member is rapidly becoming a dead end, politically, IMO. 

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Political calculations are cute and all, but does he fulfill the main role of the Vice President? That is, qualified and ready to be President on Day 1?


The answer is no.

I would expect Hillary to know this and pick someone who is actually qualified. She'll probably take the tried and true Senator or Governor route. With such favorability running up to 2016, she would not open herself up to charges of picking the Veep based on politics.

[retromike22]

I'm worried that Clinton-Castro would look like McCain-Palin.

I'd favor a Governor or Senator.

[The Free North]

Besides being hispanic, what is the appeal for having castro on the ticket?


He's only a mayor (thus far)

[bedstuy]

There are some things about Castro that could look bad.

He may not be that bright. He admits that he benefitted from affirmative action, with an SAT score in the 1200s.

He also has close ties to Henry Cisneros, who had a similar background (youngest man ever elected to the San Antonio city council, mayor, HUD Secretary) and some prominent scandals. Cisneros plead guilty to 28 charges of bank fraud, conspiracy to commit bank fraud and obstruction of justice, and was given one of Clinton's midnight pardons.

Castro had lunch with Cisneros and Bill Clinton recently, along with Spurs coach Gregg Popovich.

Being a friend of a friend of Bill probably helps Castro be Clinton's running mate, but it would also give Republicans some new lines of attack.

He went to Harvard Law School and was a corporate lawyer, he's not dumb. 

[free my dawg]

He may not be that bright. He admits that he benefitted

lol

[Lief 🗽]

Besides being hispanic, what is the appeal for having castro on the ticket?


He's only a mayor (thus far)

Eh, it's the 7th largest city in the United States. Schweitzer is apparently a serious presidential candidate to some degree, and Montana has fewer people in it than San Antonio. Being a mayor of a large city is a big deal.

[badgate]

A Castro VP candidacy will bring out a whole new kind of hilarious republican conspiracies. If you ask me that's reason enough.

Also, a second birther movement would be imminent.

[Mister Mets]

He may not be that bright. He admits that he benefitted

lol

I had an SAT score in the 1400s (out of 1600) and I got a typo. Imagine the mistakes that can be made by someone whose score was in the 1200s.

A Texan with an SAT score that low has been in the White House before, and the results were not good.

[bedstuy]

He may not be that bright. He admits that he benefitted

lol

I had an SAT score in the 1400s (out of 1600) and I got a typo. Imagine the mistakes that can be made by someone whose score was in the 1200s.

A Texan with an SAT score that low has been in the White House before, and the results were not good.

Are we seriously judging potential vice-Presidential candidates based on their SAT scores?

[henster]

Remember neither Castro is fluent in Spanish.

[history nerd]

There are three sides to this in my opinion.

From Castro's perspective I am willing to bet he is thinking two things #1 being that being HUD secretary might help him get the VP slot and #2 where else does a relatively progressive hispanic texan go? He can't go to the house because of his brother and despite what some on the left are saying he has no chance of becoming Governor or Senator... At least without a strong third party presence. So the only place to go is to the Executive Branch.

From Obama's perspective Castro is possibly the most highly qualified candidate for the job and as a bonus the appointment may help Castro go on to bigger and better things both in Texas and the Federal Government but it is a long play not really for 2016.

From Clinton's perspective I doubt that Castro will be her first choice but the fact is that the GOP bench of possible Hispanic candidates is actually really strong right now compared to the Democrats (everyone is too old or scandalous) and having a semi-strong hispanic VP pick in the wings might be the good thing in the off chance that a Rubio/Martinez/Sandoval ticket is polling strongly among hispanics.

[CountryClassSF]

Sarah Palin had more experience at being vice President than what Julian Castro does.   He didn't even finish out the mayorship, talk about a career politician.

[Mister Mets]

The cabinet post is a great move for Castro.

If Hillary Clinton picks someone else for Veep, it still makes him an obvious choice for a more prominent cabinet post in her administration. If she (or the Democratic nominee) loses, he can find some post in the private sector or various non-profits. He'll then have a plausible launchpad for a presidential bid in 2020, or for any statewide office in Texas in the near future when demographics eventually favor Democrats in the state. One problem the party has is that it may take some time to get a suitable bench of people prominent enough to run for the big statewide offices. These spots often go to people elected/ appointed to smaller statewide office (Cornyn's a former AG, Perry's a former Agriculture Commissioner, Kay Bailey Hutchinson was Treasurer, Cruz was Solicitor General) which isn't going to happen until Democrats are able to win statewide elections. When that happens, they want candidates who have the appropriate stature to go for the big offices.

A former cabinet official counts. 60 year old Jim Webb announced his candidacy for Senate eighteen years after leaving a presidential administration and state Democrats were ecstatic.

Besides being hispanic, what is the appeal for having castro on the ticket?


He's only a mayor (thus far)

Eh, it's the 7th largest city in the United States. Schweitzer is apparently a serious presidential candidate to some degree, and Montana has fewer people in it than San Antonio. Being a mayor of a large city is a big deal.

San Antonio does not have a strong mayor system.

However, two years from now Castro won't just be a former mayor. He'll also be a cabinet official.

Sarah Palin had more experience at being vice President than what Julian Castro does.   He didn't even finish out the mayorship, talk about a career politician.

Castro has served two full terms already.

It isn't that unusual for someone to be appointed to another office, or to seek another office while serving in one position.

Ronald Reagan sought the presidency two years into his first term as Governor. George W Bush sought the presidency in the middle of his second term as Governor.

George W Bush offered cabinet posts to Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, and others. Reagan didn't offer as many posts to sitting Governors and congressman (OMD Director David Stockman was a member of congress) although much of that was due to the smaller gap between the previous Republican presidential administration.
 
You can bet that the next Republican President will offer posts to sitting office members, as previous Republican presidents have done.

[badgate]

I'm worried that Clinton-Castro would look like McCain-Palin.

Castro's daughter is too young to get pregnant.

[pbrower2a]

Besides being hispanic, what is the appeal for having castro on the ticket?


He's only a mayor (thus far)

Eh, it's the 7th largest city in the United States. Schweitzer is apparently a serious presidential candidate to some degree, and Montana has fewer people in it than San Antonio. Being a mayor of a large city is a big deal.

Big-city mayors have some of the most impressive experience  possible in American politics. Mayors of giant cities do not have the easiest jobs around. They must deal with pressing concerns close to everyday life.  The experience that Richard Lugar had in Indianapolis or that George Voinovich had in Cleveland would have made for an interesting Presidency. Better than Dubya? That's just too cheap.

We have little experience with mayors of giant cities becoming President, even if through the US Senate or a Governorship. It's easy to see why big-city mayors don't get nominated for President or Vice-President. No big city is a microcosm of America. Maybe cities like Columbus, Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, and Los Angeles have huge tracts of suburban-style development -- but as a strict rule they have no rural areas.

Julian Castro would be a gutty choice as a VP nominee.  The positives are his experience as an administrator, that he would not pose any risk of a House or Senate seat, his potential for holding onto a state with a large Mexican-American population likely to be critical (Colorado). and that his presence near the top of the ballot could swing some House races in Texas (which could be extremely valuable in 2016). He could make the middle-class Mexican-American vote extremely stable for the Democrats for a long time, much like the Jewish vote. The negatives would be that he cannot make Texas swing enough to vote for a Democratic ticket -- and that we have no experience with big-city mayors as Presidential or VP nominees, let alone in the Presidency or Vice-Presidency. 

He is more likely to swing Arizona than Texas -- not that putting Arizona into the D column would be bad for Hillary Clinton.

[eric82oslo]

Besides being hispanic, what is the appeal for having castro on the ticket?


He's only a mayor (thus far)

Eh, it's the 7th largest city in the United States. Schweitzer is apparently a serious presidential candidate to some degree, and Montana has fewer people in it than San Antonio. Being a mayor of a large city is a big deal.

Big-city mayors have some of the most impressive experience  possible in American politics. Mayors of giant cities do not have the easiest jobs around. They must deal with pressing concerns close to everyday life.  The experience that Richard Lugar had in Indianapolis or that George Voinovich had in Cleveland would have made for an interesting Presidency. Better than Dubya? That's just too cheap.

We have little experience with mayors of giant cities becoming President, even if through the US Senate or a Governorship. It's easy to see why big-city mayors don't get nominated for President or Vice-President. No big city is a microcosm of America. Maybe cities like Columbus, Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, and Los Angeles have huge tracts of suburban-style development -- but as a strict rule they have no rural areas.

Julian Castro would be a gutty choice as a VP nominee.  The positives are his experience as an administrator, that he would not pose any risk of a House or Senate seat, his potential for holding onto a state with a large Mexican-American population likely to be critical (Colorado). and that his presence near the top of the ballot could swing some House races in Texas (which could be extremely valuable in 2016). He could make the middle-class Mexican-American vote extremely stable for the Democrats for a long time, much like the Jewish vote. The negatives would be that he cannot make Texas swing enough to vote for a Democratic ticket -- and that we have no experience with big-city mayors as Presidential or VP nominees, let alone in the Presidency or Vice-Presidency. 

He is more likely to swing Arizona than Texas -- not that putting Arizona into the D column would be bad for Hillary Clinton.

I agree on everything. The point is that he could really make a difference; not only in 2016, but for several more elections to come. Perhaps all the way up to 2032 (in the case he as VP would become president himself in 2024, which is not too unlikely actually), his footprints could make considerable impact. What are Republicans to do in 2024 if they've already lost the plethora of states that is Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, New York, New Jersey, California, Virginia, North Carolina and even Texas? Basically they're crushed, even if they would happen to win back most/almost all of the Mid West/rust belt.

[Never]

Besides being hispanic, what is the appeal for having castro on the ticket?


He's only a mayor (thus far)

Eh, it's the 7th largest city in the United States. Schweitzer is apparently a serious presidential candidate to some degree, and Montana has fewer people in it than San Antonio. Being a mayor of a large city is a big deal.

Big-city mayors have some of the most impressive experience  possible in American politics. Mayors of giant cities do not have the easiest jobs around. They must deal with pressing concerns close to everyday life.  The experience that Richard Lugar had in Indianapolis or that George Voinovich had in Cleveland would have made for an interesting Presidency. Better than Dubya? That's just too cheap.

We have little experience with mayors of giant cities becoming President, even if through the US Senate or a Governorship. It's easy to see why big-city mayors don't get nominated for President or Vice-President. No big city is a microcosm of America. Maybe cities like Columbus, Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, and Los Angeles have huge tracts of suburban-style development -- but as a strict rule they have no rural areas.

Julian Castro would be a gutty choice as a VP nominee.  The positives are his experience as an administrator, that he would not pose any risk of a House or Senate seat, his potential for holding onto a state with a large Mexican-American population likely to be critical (Colorado). and that his presence near the top of the ballot could swing some House races in Texas (which could be extremely valuable in 2016). He could make the middle-class Mexican-American vote extremely stable for the Democrats for a long time, much like the Jewish vote. The negatives would be that he cannot make Texas swing enough to vote for a Democratic ticket -- and that we have no experience with big-city mayors as Presidential or VP nominees, let alone in the Presidency or Vice-Presidency. 

He is more likely to swing Arizona than Texas -- not that putting Arizona into the D column would be bad for Hillary Clinton.

I agree on everything. The point is that he could really make a difference; not only in 2016, but for several more elections to come. Perhaps all the way up to 2032 (in the case he as VP would become president himself in 2024, which is not too unlikely actually), his footprints could make considerable impact. What are Republicans to do in 2024 if they've already lost the plethora of states that is Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, New York, New Jersey, California, Virginia, North Carolina and even Texas? Basically they're crushed, even if they would happen to win back most/almost all of the Mid West/rust belt.

First off, this is assuming that the Democrats can win the White House for twenty-four years in a row. Roosevelt and Truman couldn't even do that in a less partisan atmosphere, and the Republicans couldn't do it in the nineteenth century after the Civil War. Even if Democrats are structurally favored to hold the office of presidency, I'd expect at least one Republican to get elected to office between now and 2032.

Next, we also don't know how Castro will perform on a national level. In America, Vice Presidents who run for the presidency often flame out before they can win the election (Al Gore or Richard Nixon in 1960) or they end up having mediocre presidencies and are ousted after one term. See, for example, John Adams, Martin Van Buren, and George H.W. Bush. Even if they are elected and reelected, they can get caught in a scandal during their second term, like Richard Nixon. Oftentimes, Vice Presidents only become advance to the Oval Office when the President dies or is killed. God forbid that should happen again. Even VPs who become President under those circumstances don't have a great track record. For example, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson both succeeded good presidents, but they stumbled while in office and were ultimately replaced by Republicans. Now, you do have great Presidents who were formerly Vice Presidents, like Theodore Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson, but is apparent that they are the exception to the rule.

Also, you are arguing that Democrats can just start expanding their margins even more without pushing out any part of their current base. Even if Hispanics become bloc voters like Blacks (which might not be conducive to political discourse), Asians could leave the Democratic party and go Republican. Asians already have qualms about affirmative action, and there are other issues that could pop up in the future that might make them leave the party. Even if we leave that aside, what if White voters keep becoming more Republican? That could cut off any growth that the Democrats have in the Southern states, and would knock the Democrats out in the Midwest and even parts of the Northeast. While you will always have White liberals, I could see a day when 80% of White voters vote Republican and 80% of minorities vote Democratic. This probably wouldn't happen under Hillary, but under Castro, the risk is very high. I know that Whites as a whole are decreasing percentage wise, but they aren't declining numerically, and it appears that they will be the majority in most states for a very long time, since minorities tend to live in a few large states.

Furthermore, I doubt that Castro would be considered if he were a White mayor. It seems that we are just throwing out his name due to his racial background, instead of any real accomplishments. That seems like pandering to me. If he were a governor or a senator, I would feel differently, but it seems kind of cheap to nominate someone for Vice President just because they are Hispanic. I don't think that Castro is a horrible option, but I prefer that someone who is a heartbeat away from becoming the leader of the free world actually serve in the federal government in some shape, form, or fashion beforehand, or at least operate a state government, which has more responsibilities.

All that glitters isn't gold, and people might want to think twice about Castro as a potential Vice President or President.

[eric82oslo]

I don't think it's likely that Democrats could hold on to the White House for 24 years in a row. The only way I could see that happening is by a still relatively young and very charismatic and likeable Castro following a popular and successful Hillary. Without that particular combination, it's probably 99% unlikely to happen.

Now, the arguments for a latino president is much broader than just the emerging latino/minority electorate. Just as important, if not more, is the way the US has always treated, or rather mistreated, its sourthern neighbours. And under the Obama administration, not so much a mistreatment as a lack of focus on the region. The whole of Latin America is still regarded as a rather uninteresting area for US policy decisions - Europe and Asia both receive far more attention. In fact, the US devoted considerably more attention towards Latin America during the Cold War (though almost exclusively for the wrong reasons, with the exception of Kennedy's Alliance For Progress), than it does even today. W wanted to do something about it and redirect more attention towards Mexico and the rest of Latin America, but unfortunately 9/11 happened and his plans became completely altered thereafter. Perhaps his brother Jeb could rectify what has been so wrong, but he would still have his whole party against him, which would make his job a hell every single day, even more so if they'd obtain the majority in parts of the Congress.

I think the only solution for a sane and prosperous new era of policies towards Latin America and all bilateral relations between the two entities (here including immigration policies & basic human rights and dignity) would be the combination between a latino US president and a Democratic majority in both chambers of Congress. I don't have much faith in Hillary changing the decades and centuries long US tradition towards Latin America all that much (although I'd love to be proven wrong), but I have complete faith in Julian Castro working every day to achieve this, after all, very natural and fundamental goal for the US. After all the US is part of the American continent and not the European or Asian, although almost its entire history pretends otherwise. As of right now, I would say that China holds almost as much power over much of South and partly Latin America as do the US, simply because the US has never wanted a good relationship with Latin America. Oh the irony. The US has continued to treat Latin American countries much the same way as (Western) European countries have treated Africa, and in many cases (during the Cold War) even much worse than that, with a downright hostile attitude and approach, even towards something as basic as it's proclaimed "beloved idea of democracy" (yet nevertheless overthrowing democratically elected governments in Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Brazil and many other countries).

[pbrower2a]

First off, this is assuming that the Democrats can win the White House for twenty-four years in a row. Roosevelt and Truman couldn't even do that in a less partisan atmosphere, and the Republicans couldn't do it in the nineteenth century after the Civil War. Even if Democrats are structurally favored to hold the office of presidency, I'd expect at least one Republican to get elected to office between now and 2032.

Maybe. But the Republican who wins the Presidency could also be very different from the semi-fascist types and libertarian cranks who now dominate the GOP. Nothing forces change in the message of a Party than blow-out losses... if the Party is to survive. Republicans would have to put together the Eisenhower coalition to win the Presidency again -- before the Democrats do.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Julian Castro may be chosen for reasons other than to swing a critical state, much as was Cheney in 2000. If Hillary Clinton has to win Texas, she is in deep trouble. Administrative talent? Ability to deal with an issue (poverty) that Barack Obama dared not touch because he is... you know!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People who could vote for  someone with an African father as President can just as easily vote for a Mexican-American for Vice-President. White people have never had the racial animus toward Mexican-Americans that they have had against blacks.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

San Antonio. One million people, and larger than several states in population. San Antonio has a large military presence, so he may be less of a neophyte on military issues than usual. He likely be completely clueless about farm policy -- but as Barack Obama shows, it is possible to win the Presidency while doing very badly in rural areas.    

You must be logged in to read this quote.

John McCain should have thought several times about Sarah Palin.

[Never]

I don't think it's likely that Democrats could hold on to the White House for 24 years in a row. The only way I could see that happening is by a still relatively young and very charismatic and likeable Castro following a popular and successful Hillary. Without that particular combination, it's probably 99% unlikely to happen.

Now, the arguments for a latino president is much broader than just the emerging latino/minority electorate. Just as important, if not more, is the way the US has always treated, or rather mistreated, its sourthern neighbours. And under the Obama administration, not so much a mistreatment as a lack of focus on the region. The whole of Latin America is still regarded as a rather uninteresting area for US policy decisions - Europe and Asia both receive far more attention. In fact, the US devoted considerably more attention towards Latin America during the Cold War (though almost exclusively for the wrong reasons, with the exception of Kennedy's Alliance For Progress), than it does even today. W wanted to do something about it and redirect more attention towards Mexico and the rest of Latin America, but unfortunately 9/11 happened and his plans became completely altered thereafter. Perhaps his brother Jeb could rectify what has been so wrong, but he would still have his whole party against him, which would make his job a hell every single day, even more so if they'd obtain the majority in parts of the Congress.

I think the only solution for a sane and prosperous new era of policies towards Latin America and all bilateral relations between the two entities (here including immigration policies & basic human rights and dignity) would be the combination between a latino US president and a Democratic majority in both chambers of Congress. I don't have much faith in Hillary changing the decades and centuries long US tradition towards Latin America all that much (although I'd love to be proven wrong), but I have complete faith in Julian Castro working every day to achieve this, after all, very natural and fundamental goal for the US. After all the US is part of the American continent and not the European or Asian, although almost its entire history pretends otherwise. As of right now, I would say that China holds almost as much power over much of South and partly Latin America as do the US, simply because the US has never wanted a good relationship with Latin America. Oh the irony. The US has continued to treat Latin American countries much the same way as (Western) European countries have treated Africa, and in many cases (during the Cold War) even much worse than that, with a downright hostile attitude and approach, even towards something as basic as it's proclaimed "beloved idea of democracy" (yet nevertheless overthrowing democratically elected governments in Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Brazil and many other countries).

Right now, Latin America might not engage the attention of America because the nations in that area aren't necessarily aligned with the U.S., nor are they diametrically opposed (Venezuela and Cuba being the exceptions). Europe and Asia probably impact the world stage to a greater extent, both economically and diplomatically, which is an acceptable reason for America to focus more on happenings there than in Latin America.

I don't think we can judge much of what was done during the Cold War under the same lenses that we view contemporary strategic actions. When socialistic governments popped up just south of our border that could have helped the Soviet Union threaten America, I think our government was well within our right to topple their leadership, even though it was elected. It seems unfair to attack America's leaders for being aware of real threats to our nation and taking measures to confront them. Foreign policy can be ruthless, but it is a fact of life that must be accepted.

By all means a Julian Castro Administration should decide if it will increase engagement with Latin America, as it would probably be very beneficial to both America and its southern neighbors. Still, other events can take time away from what a president would prefer to focus on.

[Never]

pbrower2a,

I think that Americans will vote for a candidate from any racial group, and rightfully so, but I doubt the majority of White voters will vote for a Hispanic candidate because of their background. Should he become the vice-presidential noninee, I suspect Castro could be attacked as a token if he doesn't immediately focus on the issues.

Being mayor of a city that has a military base doesn't really give Castro any authority whatsoever on military issues, unless being able to see Russia from land in Alaska gave Sarah Palin foreign policy experience.

If I'm not mistaken, Fairfax County, Virginia has in excess of a million residents and a military base. Here in Virginia, we aren't even seriously considering the Fairfax County Chairman (Sharon Bulova) for governor or senator, let alone vice-president.