Julián Castro vs. Kevin Faulconer

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Who would stand the better chance of getting elected LIEUTENANT Governor of their respective state in 2018? (I'm not even talking chances of becoming Governor to make this scenario a little more realistic.) Both politicians are considered hopefuls by pundits for their respective thorny home territories.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

0% = 0%. Faulconer is the stronger candidate, but he's running in CA, so that cancels it out.

Even if Antonio Villaraigosa is his opponent?

[Cynthia]

I'd say Castro just because it's the opposition party and TX is significantly less R than CA is D.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

How did Faulconer manage to win the mayoral election in San Diego anyway? Is it a right-wing city? Are surfers especially conservative?

[Lechasseur]

I'd say Castro just because it's the opposition party and TX is significantly less R than CA is D.

[Cynthia]

How did Faulconer manage to win the mayoral election in San Diego anyway? Is it a right-wing city? Are surfers especially conservative?

It's historically conservative and Republican. The city is probably 65-70 D vs 30-35 R today, but when Faulconer was elected it was more R.

[Badger]

How did Faulconer manage to win the mayoral election in San Diego anyway? Is it a right-wing city? Are surfers especially conservative?

It's historically conservative and Republican. The city is probably 65-70 D vs 30-35 R today, but when Faulconer was elected it was more R.

" when he was elected"? While San Diego is indeed trending democratic like much of Southern California due to demographics, Faulconer was only first elected in 2013. It's not like there's been much of a shift since then.

It had to do more with a fact that he is a downright social liberal on the issue of LGBT rights, Pathway to citizenship, Etc. And only moderate on most other issues. The notable one at least as mayor being that he vetoed a city council measure to increase the local minimum wage to $11.50 an hour (though that veto was overturned by referendum). He also had a good record as an effective city council member for some time. Not to mention the Democrat incumbent who had been narrowly elected not long before resigned in disgrace over a sex scandal involving groping and please, interns, Etc. And even with that stain on the local Democratic Party then he squeaked his way in with only 52.5% of the vote. Though he was reelected last year with almost 57% of the vote in a jungle primary.

One advantage faulconer would have over Castro is, as noted, Castro would have to give up his congressional seat to run for governor or senator outside of an odd year special election. Faulconer has to run for reelection during presidential years, where is the governorship and other Statewide offices in California are up for vote in off-years. Thus, he could run and still keep his job.

[Rjjr77]

How did Faulconer manage to win the mayoral election in San Diego anyway? Is it a right-wing city? Are surfers especially conservative?

Hes pretty much a democrat anywhere but California, he was endorsed by the super popular former mayor, San Diego was coming off a scandal where the mayor he ran to replace was arguably a serial sexual predator, he speaks spanish, and hes pretty likable

[Ye We Can]

Why would Faulconer run for an office less powerful than Governor that he doesn't have any higher chance of winning?

[Cynthia]

How did Faulconer manage to win the mayoral election in San Diego anyway? Is it a right-wing city? Are surfers especially conservative?

It's historically conservative and Republican. The city is probably 65-70 D vs 30-35 R today, but when Faulconer was elected it was more R.

" when he was elected"? While San Diego is indeed trending democratic like much of Southern California due to demographics, Faulconer was only first elected in 2013. It's not like there's been much of a shift since then.

It had to do more with a fact that he is a downright social liberal on the issue of LGBT rights, Pathway to citizenship, Etc. And only moderate on most other issues. The notable one at least as mayor being that he vetoed a city council measure to increase the local minimum wage to $11.50 an hour (though that veto was overturned by referendum). He also had a good record as an effective city council member for some time. Not to mention the Democrat incumbent who had been narrowly elected not long before resigned in disgrace over a sex scandal involving groping and please, interns, Etc. And even with that stain on the local Democratic Party then he squeaked his way in with only 52.5% of the vote. Though he was reelected last year with almost 57% of the vote in a jungle primary.

One advantage faulconer would have over Castro is, as noted, Castro would have to give up his congressional seat to run for governor or senator outside of an odd year special election. Faulconer has to run for reelection during presidential years, where is the governorship and other Statewide offices in California are up for vote in off-years. Thus, he could run and still keep his job.

True, but if SD is more liberal (5-10% more D) Faulconer still wouldn't get elected because of machine politics. SD was around 60% D at the time, and his moderate stances with high name recognition delivered him victory. Now he's too popular to beat in SD. PS: OP was talking about Julian, not Joaquin. Julian is out of jobs at this moment.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

One advantage faulconer would have over Castro is, as noted, Castro would have to give up his congressional seat to run for governor or senator outside of an odd year special election. Faulconer has to run for reelection during presidential years, where is the governorship and other Statewide offices in California are up for vote in off-years. Thus, he could run and still keep his job.

I was talking about Julián Castro, not about his twin brother Joaquín.

[Ye We Can]

How did Faulconer manage to win the mayoral election in San Diego anyway? Is it a right-wing city? Are surfers especially conservative?

It's historically conservative and Republican. The city is probably 65-70 D vs 30-35 R today, but when Faulconer was elected it was more R.

" when he was elected"? While San Diego is indeed trending democratic like much of Southern California due to demographics, Faulconer was only first elected in 2013. It's not like there's been much of a shift since then.

It had to do more with a fact that he is a downright social liberal on the issue of LGBT rights, Pathway to citizenship, Etc. And only moderate on most other issues. The notable one at least as mayor being that he vetoed a city council measure to increase the local minimum wage to $11.50 an hour (though that veto was overturned by referendum). He also had a good record as an effective city council member for some time. Not to mention the Democrat incumbent who had been narrowly elected not long before resigned in disgrace over a sex scandal involving groping and please, interns, Etc. And even with that stain on the local Democratic Party then he squeaked his way in with only 52.5% of the vote. Though he was reelected last year with almost 57% of the vote in a jungle primary.

One advantage faulconer would have over Castro is, as noted, Castro would have to give up his congressional seat to run for governor or senator outside of an odd year special election. Faulconer has to run for reelection during presidential years, where is the governorship and other Statewide offices in California are up for vote in off-years. Thus, he could run and still keep his job.

True, but if SD is more liberal (5-10% more D) Faulconer still wouldn't get elected because of machine politics. SD was around 60% D at the time, and his moderate stances with high name recognition delivered him victory. Now he's too popular to beat in SD. PS: OP was talking about Julian, not Joaquin. Julian is out of jobs at this moment.

I doubt San Diego will get a constant machine, even if it trends more D.  The people there still seem to to be open to moderates and it gives me a Massachusetts vibe (i.e, Dem council, but R Mayor maybe)