Cruz can’t beat Clinton, regardless of whether she has Sanders’ endorsement or not.
Slacker, the “revolution” Sanders proposes is, IMHO, unrealistic and selling younger voters a bill of goods on how change occurs (see your Frank thread) but it is not riots in the streets.
As to accessing the voter files … the rules are the rules. You may want there to be a rule about only long term registered Democrats being able to have access to the DNC files but apparently that is not the rule in place. I do not know what the rule is for defining an “affiliated candidate” (therefore allowed access to the voter files) but he met however they defined it.
He absolutely can beat Clinton, and he absolutely will without the support of Millennials. I know people associate Ted Cruz with his silly antics on the floor of the Senate and his radical Tea Party opposition to anything the Democrats propose. However, he is actually NOT associated with some of the other baggage that dogs the republican party, such as the racism. Ted Cruz is a skilled debater, and he is a brilliant tactician, as he has already shown in his handling of the republican party’s Trump crisis.
Clinton could realistically enter the convention having suffered a serious string of losses, to the point where the legitimacy of her super delegate coronation could be a lingering issue in November. In addition to that, national security could become a major factor in the campaign. With a few terrorist attacks, I could see that as an advantage that Cruz could exploit. After all, Cruz will remind everyone that Clinton was the Sec. of State and his argument will be that her policies and Obama’s made the world a more dangerous place – even some moderates and progressives agree with that. I think polls have to be taken with a grain or two of salt. Clinton would bury Donald Trump, but Ted Cruz will be a surprisingly tough candidate. And if Hillary is still dealing with an FBI investigation and possible prosecution, then all bets are off.
I know one thing: Cruz would crush Bernie Sanders.
You are just waaay too confident in your prognostications.
And he will remain harmless if he somehow becomes POTUS and somehow gets every single item on his agenda enacted, which is not true of Clinton, Trump or Cruz.
But, Sanders is the only one in the race who could have a lock on the Millennial vote.
Shrug. Whatever, make that change. Do you genuinely think it would have changed anything except that Sanders would have registered as a Democrat a few months earlier? But if it makes you happy, propose that.
Looking at DSeid’s post:
…I’m entirely comfortable with my use of the word “nobody.” With the clarification that you yourself don’t count, since you were already convinced of your silliness.
Even if you grant that it worked (and there’s some doubt about that), it’s anecdotal. The experiences in one city, even NYC, do not extrapolate to the entire country.
Relevant interview from today:
So, yeah. Entirely reasonable response. If he declares right now, unilaterally, that he’ll support Clinton when she wins, it comes across as an early concession. If Clinton and Sanders both issue a declaration of support for the other given the other’s ultimate victory, it comes across as party cohesion.
One of the things I’m not crazy about is Sanders’s campaign’s consistent overstatement of their chances of victory. However, I recognize that anyone in any competition who wants a hope of winning must engage in this sort of overconfidence, so it’s not something I can get too upset about. It’s how games are played.
I’m in my early 30’s. I couldn’t care less about the democratic party, if the democratic party wants to appeal to me and the vast majority of people like me, they would be supporting progressives like Sanders. In other words, can you explain to me why I should care about democratic party loyalty? :dubious:
You seem like a party first kinda guy, which is interesting because I meet so few people like you who actually have some kind of emotional attachment to the big 2 instead of a pragmatic one.
You should care about loyalty to your society, your nation, your civilization, and yes, their loyalties to you. You should then carefully decide what actions those loyalties should induce you to perform. It isn’t about loyalty to party above all, and it definitely should never be.
Correct, which is why I am voting for Bernie. I’m waiting for the counter-argument for why I should value fealty to the Democratic machine more than society at large, so that I can carefully re-evaluate. 
That comes after Clinton gets the nomination. Your loyalties will then induce you to select either her or Trump/Cruz. And really, the reasons for your selection would be pretty much synonymous with party affiliation, because party affiliation is mainly along the lines of people’s views of loyalties to society and country etc. But it’s still not loyalty to the institution as such, only to the ideals and goals you share with it.
Yes, a much better response. Not perfect from my POV but close enough. Very satisfactory.
It really wasn’t so hard to do or to ask for was it?
Not sure why you are “not crazy” about the bravado. Of course you expect that. I had my hypothetical-Sanders saying almost the same thing. You have to reinforce your expectation that you will win and that you expect that the question of support will be your opponent supporting you.
But here’s a question - to my read he seems a bit surprised that Team Clinton “has said we’ll be done by the end of the month” … if so is he surprised that they think they would say anything other than that it won’t be done until the convention or that they are saying it won’t be done until after all of WI, NY, and PA?
Elvis … don’t know about rogerbox but many who post like that do not appreciate that passively-aggressively not voting is making a decision as well and is in fact increasing the risk of a Trump or Cruz win. They prefer to make their statement that “they” should have given me the candidate I more ideally want and not my fault that they did not.
Absolutely - and, if you press them for their reasoning, you’ll often get some version of “candidates who have actually participated and engaged and compromised and made differences are too impure”. :rolleyes: Most who think that outgrow it by junior year, as do the Randians, but not all.
Loyalty to Bernie Sanders is fine as long as he’s a viable candidate. I think people worry about what happens if (when) Bernie is no longer in the race and it’s a choice between Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz. If you value society at large, then you support the candidate who is more likely to enact policies that would protect the welfare of society at large. Not voting for that candidate just because you feel that the ideal candidate didn’t want is in effect failing to support the candidate that would be more likely to protect the welfare of society at large.
Ralph Nader voters who voted for Nader in 2000 because they didn’t think Al Gore was the ideal candidate voted for George W Bush. They voted for the Iraq war. They voted for the financial crisis of 2008. If Hillary wins, not voting for her would be a vote for whatever Ted Cruz supports.
Mostly agreed, and come August, barring exceptional circumstances, you’ll see me around here arguing as persuasively as I know how that folks should be voting for Clinton.
Here’s my nitpick: this is only true for states in which the election was in doubt. Voters in California or Alabama who voted for Nader probably had more of an effect than voters in those states who voted for Gore.
Vote for Bernie. It won’t help or hurt anything. But if you supported a Democratic candidate in the primary yet refuse to support the other candidate in the general, then you are a naive unserious child who deserves nothing but scorn.
Not saying that’s you, just a general observation on the hypothetical Democrats threatening to stay home in the general if their candidate doesn’t win.
Barriers to entryism are un-American. Yes, literally. As far as the Big Two go, we don’t have Euro-style cadre parties with membership cards and membership rolls and membership dues and revocable memberships and barriers to joining – we don’t even have parties one can “join.”
One thing to keep in mind. A lot of the people claiming they won’t vote for HRC are not Democrats. A lot of them registered as Dem for the first time simply in order to vote for Sanders in closed primary states. That’s what I’ve been doing recently in PA in preparation for the primary later this month.
The Democratic party will have to earn their votes in the GE; they have no loyalty to the party.