Who would you rather have as president?

[IceSpear]

A topic of fierce debate among the Atlasian left.

[IceSpear]

Doesn't matter, as both would be puppets of the capitalist class.

For someone who claims to be a champion of the working class, you sure seem blase to the prospect of millions of working class Americans losing their health insurance due to President Cruz.

Anyway, it will be quite interesting to see whether there ends up being more Republican crossover for Hillary or True Left crossover for Cruz.

[IceSpear]

Doesn't matter, as both would be puppets of the capitalist class.

For someone who claims to be a champion of the working class, you sure seem blase to the prospect of millions of working class Americans losing their health insurance due to President Cruz.

Anyway, it will be quite interesting to see whether there ends up being more Republican crossover for Hillary or True Left crossover for Cruz.

Lol, why would Cruz repeal a law that the health insurance industry loves?

One might be able to make the argument that other Republicans may keep Obamacare mostly intact, but Cruz? He's clearly shown that he desperately wants to repeal it. He's a Tea Partier and that's priority number 1 on the Tea Party wishlist.

[IceSpear]

Doesn't matter, as both would be puppets of the capitalist class.

Anyway, it will be quite interesting to see whether there ends up being more Republican crossover for Hillary or True Left crossover for Cruz.

You're delusional. Please stop.

Do I seriously need to dig through the archives and find multiple examples of left wing posters suggesting Democrats are better off losing in 2016 if they nominate Hillary? Or would you prefer to admit you're wrong now and save us both some time?

[IceSpear]

Doesn't matter, as both would be puppets of the capitalist class.

Anyway, it will be quite interesting to see whether there ends up being more Republican crossover for Hillary or True Left crossover for Cruz.

You're delusional. Please stop.

Do I seriously need to dig through the archives and find multiple examples of left wing posters suggesting Democrats are better off losing in 2016 if they nominate Hillary? Or would you prefer to admit you're wrong now and save us both some time?

Moderate Republican cross-over away from Cruz would be a g pandemic if he were nominated, no doubt.

The number of leftists that would actually go cast a vote for Ted Cruz would be like 6.

Of course. But I was referring to the forum/this poll, not the real world.

[IceSpear]

Doesn't matter, as both would be puppets of the capitalist class.

Anyway, it will be quite interesting to see whether there ends up being more Republican crossover for Hillary or True Left crossover for Cruz.

You're delusional. Please stop.

Do I seriously need to dig through the archives and find multiple examples of left wing posters suggesting Democrats are better off losing in 2016 if they nominate Hillary? Or would you prefer to admit you're wrong now and save us both some time?

Moderate Republican cross-over away from Cruz would be a g pandemic if he were nominated, no doubt.

The number of leftists that would actually go cast a vote for Ted Cruz would be like 6.

Of course. But I was referring to the forum/this poll, not the real world.

You actually think that liberals on this forum would genuinely prefer Ted Cruz to Hillary Clinton as President

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I never said that, nor did I say the majority did. But some have certainly said so. Here's some examples:

Thread: "Would it be better for the left if Hillary lost?"

Seriously, if we had four years of a President Walker with the GOP potentially in control of both houses of congress maybe you'd actually get a more robust Democratic primary field in 2016 and a more genuine clash of ideas between the DLC and the more progressive wing of the party.

When Bush was president liberals actually gave a sh**t about things like civil liberties. Now I wonder if they would have been okay with waterboarding if it had been done under Obama, given there acquiescence to drone strikes.

Thread: "Should Democrats throw the 2016 presidential race?"

I don't think having some centrist 3rd way President is worth having us getting destroyed in the House, Senate, Governorships, and local races. I think the Democrats might be best losing, but not too badly. They can probably net a couple of Senate seats, keep the House about the same. Then spend the next 2 years attacking the Republicans non-stop for everything they do. If all goes right, 2018 and 2020 can be good years for the Democrats, and they can ungerrymander the states.

I know this sounds crazy, but this last election calls for drastic action.

[IceSpear]

IceSpear is starting to lose his grip on reality.

I eagerly await your artful dodge of the actual evidence.

[IceSpear]

Doesn't matter, as both would be puppets of the capitalist class.

Anyway, it will be quite interesting to see whether there ends up being more Republican crossover for Hillary or True Left crossover for Cruz.

You're delusional. Please stop.

Do I seriously need to dig through the archives and find multiple examples of left wing posters suggesting Democrats are better off losing in 2016 if they nominate Hillary? Or would you prefer to admit you're wrong now and save us both some time?

Moderate Republican cross-over away from Cruz would be a g pandemic if he were nominated, no doubt.

The number of leftists that would actually go cast a vote for Ted Cruz would be like 6.

Of course. But I was referring to the forum/this poll, not the real world.

You actually think that liberals on this forum would genuinely prefer Ted Cruz to Hillary Clinton as President

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I never said that, nor did I say the majority did. But some have certainly said so. Here's some examples:

Thread: "Would it be better for the left if Hillary lost?"

Seriously, if we had four years of a President Walker with the GOP potentially in control of both houses of congress maybe you'd actually get a more robust Democratic primary field in 2016 and a more genuine clash of ideas between the DLC and the more progressive wing of the party.

When Bush was president liberals actually gave a sh**t about things like civil liberties. Now I wonder if they would have been okay with waterboarding if it had been done under Obama, given there acquiescence to drone strikes.

Thread: "Should Democrats throw the 2016 presidential race?"

I don't think having some centrist 3rd way President is worth having us getting destroyed in the House, Senate, Governorships, and local races. I think the Democrats might be best losing, but not too badly. They can probably net a couple of Senate seats, keep the House about the same. Then spend the next 2 years attacking the Republicans non-stop for everything they do. If all goes right, 2018 and 2020 can be good years for the Democrats, and they can ungerrymander the states.

I know this sounds crazy, but this last election calls for drastic action.

Perhaps it is you that is being deliberately obtuse. You have found two examples of left-wing  suggesting that a Hillary presidency would be worse than a Republican presidency, neither of which endorse the idea that they would vote for Ted Cruz in the poll, but rather bringing up the idea that a DLC president is bad for the party's interests.

Returning to your original post, you wondered whether Cruz crossover from Republicans would be larger than leftist crossover to Cruz.

Surely you cannot think that these two quoted posts demonstrate that the number of leftists who feel this way is anywhere near the obviously high number of moderate Republicans that would refuse to vote for Ted Cruz?

No, they both bring up the idea that Democrats should throw the 2016 presidential election if Hillary is nominee. If Ted Cruz is the nominee, that indicates tacitly or actively supporting Ted Cruz. It's not rocket science.

And like I already stated in the other post, we're not discussing the real world here. Obviously there would be tons more Republicans for Hillary than leftists for Cruz. We're discussing this specific poll on uselectionatlas.org. I posted two examples of leftists for Cruz. So far in this thread, 3 Republicans have indicated they would vote Hillary. So it's a completely fair question.

[IceSpear]

Doesn't matter, as both would be puppets of the capitalist class.

Anyway, it will be quite interesting to see whether there ends up being more Republican crossover for Hillary or True Left crossover for Cruz.

You're delusional. Please stop.

Do I seriously need to dig through the archives and find multiple examples of left wing posters suggesting Democrats are better off losing in 2016 if they nominate Hillary? Or would you prefer to admit you're wrong now and save us both some time?

Moderate Republican cross-over away from Cruz would be a g pandemic if he were nominated, no doubt.

The number of leftists that would actually go cast a vote for Ted Cruz would be like 6.

Of course. But I was referring to the forum/this poll, not the real world.

You actually think that liberals on this forum would genuinely prefer Ted Cruz to Hillary Clinton as President

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I never said that, nor did I say the majority did. But some have certainly said so. Here's some examples:

Thread: "Would it be better for the left if Hillary lost?"

Seriously, if we had four years of a President Walker with the GOP potentially in control of both houses of congress maybe you'd actually get a more robust Democratic primary field in 2016 and a more genuine clash of ideas between the DLC and the more progressive wing of the party.

When Bush was president liberals actually gave a sh**t about things like civil liberties. Now I wonder if they would have been okay with waterboarding if it had been done under Obama, given there acquiescence to drone strikes.

Thread: "Should Democrats throw the 2016 presidential race?"

I don't think having some centrist 3rd way President is worth having us getting destroyed in the House, Senate, Governorships, and local races. I think the Democrats might be best losing, but not too badly. They can probably net a couple of Senate seats, keep the House about the same. Then spend the next 2 years attacking the Republicans non-stop for everything they do. If all goes right, 2018 and 2020 can be good years for the Democrats, and they can ungerrymander the states.

I know this sounds crazy, but this last election calls for drastic action.

Perhaps it is you that is being deliberately obtuse. You have found two examples of left-wing  suggesting that a Hillary presidency would be worse than a Republican presidency, neither of which endorse the idea that they would vote for Ted Cruz in the poll, but rather bringing up the idea that a DLC president is bad for the party's interests.

Returning to your original post, you wondered whether Cruz crossover from Republicans would be larger than leftist crossover to Cruz.

Surely you cannot think that these two quoted posts demonstrate that the number of leftists who feel this way is anywhere near the obviously high number of moderate Republicans that would refuse to vote for Ted Cruz?

No, they both bring up the idea that Democrats should throw the 2016 presidential election if Hillary is nominee. If Ted Cruz is the nominee, that indicates tacitly or actively supporting Ted Cruz. It's not rocket science.

And like I already stated in the other post, we're not discussing the real world here. Obviously there would be tons more Republicans for Hillary than leftists for Cruz. We're discussing this specific poll on uselectionatlas.org. I posted two examples of leftists for Cruz. So far in this thread, 3 Republicans have indicated they would vote Hillary. So it's a completely fair question.

You're suggesting that on this site, as all members have access to the poll, there may be more leftists that prefer that Cruz wins than Republicans that would refuse to vote for Cruz. Your methodology is now digging through to find two people who in the past suggested that they preferred Hillary lose to generic Republican, not even Cruz specifically.

This would be analogous to going back and finding the instances in which forum Republicans suggested that they would not support Ted Cruz, making it fair, as that is what you have done for the leftist/Hillary option.

It is clear that the number of forum Republicans that would not vote for Cruz is much higher than the number of leftists that would vote for Cruz against Hillary. Your premise is ludicrous and indicative of your recent crusade against anyone in the Democratic Party that doesn't favor Hillary Clinton over all else, as if we owe her our unending love and support.

How is it clear? Where's the evidence? You could very well be right, that's why it was a question. I never stated "there's more leftists for Cruz than Republicans for Hillary on this forum." You're the one making grand pronouncements here, not me.

So either prove me wrong, or acknowledge that it was a fair question. Maybe if tons of Republicans were indicating their support for Hillary in this thread or the result was 90-10, then it would be very clear what the answer is, but that's not the case as of right now.

[IceSpear]

Doesn't matter, as both would be puppets of the capitalist class.

Anyway, it will be quite interesting to see whether there ends up being more Republican crossover for Hillary or True Left crossover for Cruz.

You're delusional. Please stop.

Do I seriously need to dig through the archives and find multiple examples of left wing posters suggesting Democrats are better off losing in 2016 if they nominate Hillary? Or would you prefer to admit you're wrong now and save us both some time?

Moderate Republican cross-over away from Cruz would be a g pandemic if he were nominated, no doubt.

The number of leftists that would actually go cast a vote for Ted Cruz would be like 6.

Of course. But I was referring to the forum/this poll, not the real world.

You actually think that liberals on this forum would genuinely prefer Ted Cruz to Hillary Clinton as President

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I never said that, nor did I say the majority did. But some have certainly said so. Here's some examples:

Thread: "Would it be better for the left if Hillary lost?"

Seriously, if we had four years of a President Walker with the GOP potentially in control of both houses of congress maybe you'd actually get a more robust Democratic primary field in 2016 and a more genuine clash of ideas between the DLC and the more progressive wing of the party.

When Bush was president liberals actually gave a sh**t about things like civil liberties. Now I wonder if they would have been okay with waterboarding if it had been done under Obama, given there acquiescence to drone strikes.

Thread: "Should Democrats throw the 2016 presidential race?"

I don't think having some centrist 3rd way President is worth having us getting destroyed in the House, Senate, Governorships, and local races. I think the Democrats might be best losing, but not too badly. They can probably net a couple of Senate seats, keep the House about the same. Then spend the next 2 years attacking the Republicans non-stop for everything they do. If all goes right, 2018 and 2020 can be good years for the Democrats, and they can ungerrymander the states.

I know this sounds crazy, but this last election calls for drastic action.

Perhaps it is you that is being deliberately obtuse. You have found two examples of left-wing  suggesting that a Hillary presidency would be worse than a Republican presidency, neither of which endorse the idea that they would vote for Ted Cruz in the poll, but rather bringing up the idea that a DLC president is bad for the party's interests.

Returning to your original post, you wondered whether Cruz crossover from Republicans would be larger than leftist crossover to Cruz.

Surely you cannot think that these two quoted posts demonstrate that the number of leftists who feel this way is anywhere near the obviously high number of moderate Republicans that would refuse to vote for Ted Cruz?

No, they both bring up the idea that Democrats should throw the 2016 presidential election if Hillary is nominee. If Ted Cruz is the nominee, that indicates tacitly or actively supporting Ted Cruz. It's not rocket science.

And like I already stated in the other post, we're not discussing the real world here. Obviously there would be tons more Republicans for Hillary than leftists for Cruz. We're discussing this specific poll on uselectionatlas.org. I posted two examples of leftists for Cruz. So far in this thread, 3 Republicans have indicated they would vote Hillary. So it's a completely fair question.

You're suggesting that on this site, as all members have access to the poll, there may be more leftists that prefer that Cruz wins than Republicans that would refuse to vote for Cruz. Your methodology is now digging through to find two people who in the past suggested that they preferred Hillary lose to generic Republican, not even Cruz specifically.

This would be analogous to going back and finding the instances in which forum Republicans suggested that they would not support Ted Cruz, making it fair, as that is what you have done for the leftist/Hillary option.

It is clear that the number of forum Republicans that would not vote for Cruz is much higher than the number of leftists that would vote for Cruz against Hillary. Your premise is ludicrous and indicative of your recent crusade against anyone in the Democratic Party that doesn't favor Hillary Clinton over all else, as if we owe her our unending love and support.

How is it clear? Where's the evidence? You could very well be right, that's why it was a question. I never stated "there's more leftists for Cruz than Republicans for Hillary on this forum." You're the one making grand pronouncements here, not me.

So either prove me wrong, or acknowledge that it was a fair question. Maybe if tons of Republicans were indicating their support for Hillary in this thread or the result was 90-10, then it would be very clear what the answer is, but that's not the case as of right now.

Please stop playing a game with this. You found these two posts from the past where I can just point to four posts in this thread Smilo, Goldwater, stegosaurus, and Torie, three Republicans that said that they would prefer Hillary and one that is undecided. And that's just in this thread - ignore all of the ones that I would have to go back and find in other threads, as you had to do because you had zero examples in this one.

So if by "prove" you wrong, you meant find more than two posts of Republicans saying that they would prefer Hillary to Cruz, it's right in front of your face.

Three posts is not compelling evidence, particularly when there's 80 votes in the poll. I do agree with you that I think there are more Republicans voting for Hillary than leftists voting for Cruz in this poll based on what little evidence is available. But it's not conclusive. And it was even less conclusive when I originally posted that message, considering only two Republicans had indicated their support for Hillary at the time. Therefore your absolute confidence that it is true is unwarranted.

[IceSpear]

Doesn't matter, as both would be puppets of the capitalist class.

Anyway, it will be quite interesting to see whether there ends up being more Republican crossover for Hillary or True Left crossover for Cruz.

You're delusional. Please stop.

Do I seriously need to dig through the archives and find multiple examples of left wing posters suggesting Democrats are better off losing in 2016 if they nominate Hillary? Or would you prefer to admit you're wrong now and save us both some time?

Moderate Republican cross-over away from Cruz would be a g pandemic if he were nominated, no doubt.

The number of leftists that would actually go cast a vote for Ted Cruz would be like 6.

Of course. But I was referring to the forum/this poll, not the real world.

You actually think that liberals on this forum would genuinely prefer Ted Cruz to Hillary Clinton as President

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I never said that, nor did I say the majority did. But some have certainly said so. Here's some examples:

Thread: "Would it be better for the left if Hillary lost?"

Seriously, if we had four years of a President Walker with the GOP potentially in control of both houses of congress maybe you'd actually get a more robust Democratic primary field in 2016 and a more genuine clash of ideas between the DLC and the more progressive wing of the party.

When Bush was president liberals actually gave a sh**t about things like civil liberties. Now I wonder if they would have been okay with waterboarding if it had been done under Obama, given there acquiescence to drone strikes.

Thread: "Should Democrats throw the 2016 presidential race?"

I don't think having some centrist 3rd way President is worth having us getting destroyed in the House, Senate, Governorships, and local races. I think the Democrats might be best losing, but not too badly. They can probably net a couple of Senate seats, keep the House about the same. Then spend the next 2 years attacking the Republicans non-stop for everything they do. If all goes right, 2018 and 2020 can be good years for the Democrats, and they can ungerrymander the states.

I know this sounds crazy, but this last election calls for drastic action.

Perhaps it is you that is being deliberately obtuse. You have found two examples of left-wing  suggesting that a Hillary presidency would be worse than a Republican presidency, neither of which endorse the idea that they would vote for Ted Cruz in the poll, but rather bringing up the idea that a DLC president is bad for the party's interests.

Returning to your original post, you wondered whether Cruz crossover from Republicans would be larger than leftist crossover to Cruz.

Surely you cannot think that these two quoted posts demonstrate that the number of leftists who feel this way is anywhere near the obviously high number of moderate Republicans that would refuse to vote for Ted Cruz?

No, they both bring up the idea that Democrats should throw the 2016 presidential election if Hillary is nominee. If Ted Cruz is the nominee, that indicates tacitly or actively supporting Ted Cruz. It's not rocket science.

And like I already stated in the other post, we're not discussing the real world here. Obviously there would be tons more Republicans for Hillary than leftists for Cruz. We're discussing this specific poll on uselectionatlas.org. I posted two examples of leftists for Cruz. So far in this thread, 3 Republicans have indicated they would vote Hillary. So it's a completely fair question.

You're suggesting that on this site, as all members have access to the poll, there may be more leftists that prefer that Cruz wins than Republicans that would refuse to vote for Cruz. Your methodology is now digging through to find two people who in the past suggested that they preferred Hillary lose to generic Republican, not even Cruz specifically.

This would be analogous to going back and finding the instances in which forum Republicans suggested that they would not support Ted Cruz, making it fair, as that is what you have done for the leftist/Hillary option.

It is clear that the number of forum Republicans that would not vote for Cruz is much higher than the number of leftists that would vote for Cruz against Hillary. Your premise is ludicrous and indicative of your recent crusade against anyone in the Democratic Party that doesn't favor Hillary Clinton over all else, as if we owe her our unending love and support.

How is it clear? Where's the evidence? You could very well be right, that's why it was a question. I never stated "there's more leftists for Cruz than Republicans for Hillary on this forum." You're the one making grand pronouncements here, not me.

So either prove me wrong, or acknowledge that it was a fair question. Maybe if tons of Republicans were indicating their support for Hillary in this thread or the result was 90-10, then it would be very clear what the answer is, but that's not the case as of right now.

Please stop playing a game with this. You found these two posts from the past where I can just point to four posts in this thread Smilo, Goldwater, stegosaurus, and Torie, three Republicans that said that they would prefer Hillary and one that is undecided. And that's just in this thread - ignore all of the ones that I would have to go back and find in other threads, as you had to do because you had zero examples in this one.

So if by "prove" you wrong, you meant find more than two posts of Republicans saying that they would prefer Hillary to Cruz, it's right in front of your face.

Three posts is not compelling evidence, particularly when there's 80 votes in the poll. I do agree with you that I think there are more Republicans voting for Hillary than leftists voting for Cruz in this poll based on what little evidence is available. But it's not conclusive. And it was even less conclusive when I originally posted that message, considering only two Republicans had indicated their support for Hillary at the time. Therefore your absolute confidence that it is true is unwarranted.

I'm using the standard of evidence that you have produced, seeing as you paraded out two posts from other threads (not even this one).

That wasn't evidence that there were possibly more leftists voting for Cruz than Republicans voting for Hillary, it was evidence that the former actually existed and not something I made up out of thin air.

[IceSpear]

Doesn't matter, as both would be puppets of the capitalist class.

Anyway, it will be quite interesting to see whether there ends up being more Republican crossover for Hillary or True Left crossover for Cruz.

You're delusional. Please stop.

Do I seriously need to dig through the archives and find multiple examples of left wing posters suggesting Democrats are better off losing in 2016 if they nominate Hillary? Or would you prefer to admit you're wrong now and save us both some time?

Moderate Republican cross-over away from Cruz would be a g pandemic if he were nominated, no doubt.

The number of leftists that would actually go cast a vote for Ted Cruz would be like 6.

Of course. But I was referring to the forum/this poll, not the real world.

You actually think that liberals on this forum would genuinely prefer Ted Cruz to Hillary Clinton as President

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I never said that, nor did I say the majority did. But some have certainly said so. Here's some examples:

Thread: "Would it be better for the left if Hillary lost?"

Seriously, if we had four years of a President Walker with the GOP potentially in control of both houses of congress maybe you'd actually get a more robust Democratic primary field in 2016 and a more genuine clash of ideas between the DLC and the more progressive wing of the party.

When Bush was president liberals actually gave a sh**t about things like civil liberties. Now I wonder if they would have been okay with waterboarding if it had been done under Obama, given there acquiescence to drone strikes.

Thread: "Should Democrats throw the 2016 presidential race?"

I don't think having some centrist 3rd way President is worth having us getting destroyed in the House, Senate, Governorships, and local races. I think the Democrats might be best losing, but not too badly. They can probably net a couple of Senate seats, keep the House about the same. Then spend the next 2 years attacking the Republicans non-stop for everything they do. If all goes right, 2018 and 2020 can be good years for the Democrats, and they can ungerrymander the states.

I know this sounds crazy, but this last election calls for drastic action.

Perhaps it is you that is being deliberately obtuse. You have found two examples of left-wing  suggesting that a Hillary presidency would be worse than a Republican presidency, neither of which endorse the idea that they would vote for Ted Cruz in the poll, but rather bringing up the idea that a DLC president is bad for the party's interests.

Returning to your original post, you wondered whether Cruz crossover from Republicans would be larger than leftist crossover to Cruz.

Surely you cannot think that these two quoted posts demonstrate that the number of leftists who feel this way is anywhere near the obviously high number of moderate Republicans that would refuse to vote for Ted Cruz?

No, they both bring up the idea that Democrats should throw the 2016 presidential election if Hillary is nominee. If Ted Cruz is the nominee, that indicates tacitly or actively supporting Ted Cruz. It's not rocket science.

And like I already stated in the other post, we're not discussing the real world here. Obviously there would be tons more Republicans for Hillary than leftists for Cruz. We're discussing this specific poll on uselectionatlas.org. I posted two examples of leftists for Cruz. So far in this thread, 3 Republicans have indicated they would vote Hillary. So it's a completely fair question.

You're suggesting that on this site, as all members have access to the poll, there may be more leftists that prefer that Cruz wins than Republicans that would refuse to vote for Cruz. Your methodology is now digging through to find two people who in the past suggested that they preferred Hillary lose to generic Republican, not even Cruz specifically.

This would be analogous to going back and finding the instances in which forum Republicans suggested that they would not support Ted Cruz, making it fair, as that is what you have done for the leftist/Hillary option.

It is clear that the number of forum Republicans that would not vote for Cruz is much higher than the number of leftists that would vote for Cruz against Hillary. Your premise is ludicrous and indicative of your recent crusade against anyone in the Democratic Party that doesn't favor Hillary Clinton over all else, as if we owe her our unending love and support.

How is it clear? Where's the evidence? You could very well be right, that's why it was a question. I never stated "there's more leftists for Cruz than Republicans for Hillary on this forum." You're the one making grand pronouncements here, not me.

So either prove me wrong, or acknowledge that it was a fair question. Maybe if tons of Republicans were indicating their support for Hillary in this thread or the result was 90-10, then it would be very clear what the answer is, but that's not the case as of right now.

Please stop playing a game with this. You found these two posts from the past where I can just point to four posts in this thread Smilo, Goldwater, stegosaurus, and Torie, three Republicans that said that they would prefer Hillary and one that is undecided. And that's just in this thread - ignore all of the ones that I would have to go back and find in other threads, as you had to do because you had zero examples in this one.

So if by "prove" you wrong, you meant find more than two posts of Republicans saying that they would prefer Hillary to Cruz, it's right in front of your face.

Three posts is not compelling evidence, particularly when there's 80 votes in the poll. I do agree with you that I think there are more Republicans voting for Hillary than leftists voting for Cruz in this poll based on what little evidence is available. But it's not conclusive. And it was even less conclusive when I originally posted that message, considering only two Republicans had indicated their support for Hillary at the time. Therefore your absolute confidence that it is true is unwarranted.

I'm using the standard of evidence that you have produced, seeing as you paraded out two posts from other threads (not even this one).

That wasn't evidence that there were possibly more leftists voting for Cruz than Republicans voting for Hillary, it was evidence that the former actually existed and not something I made up out of thin air.

I don't remember ever suggesting that they did not exist.

So basically what you're arguing at this point is that because neither of us have the evidence to prove respectively that we are right, it is therefore a fair question. What an inconsistent assertion.

Indeed, that is what I've been arguing the whole time. Glad we finally see eye to eye.

[IceSpear]

Doesn't matter, as both would be puppets of the capitalist class.

Anyway, it will be quite interesting to see whether there ends up being more Republican crossover for Hillary or True Left crossover for Cruz.

You're delusional. Please stop.

Do I seriously need to dig through the archives and find multiple examples of left wing posters suggesting Democrats are better off losing in 2016 if they nominate Hillary? Or would you prefer to admit you're wrong now and save us both some time?

Moderate Republican cross-over away from Cruz would be a g pandemic if he were nominated, no doubt.

The number of leftists that would actually go cast a vote for Ted Cruz would be like 6.

Of course. But I was referring to the forum/this poll, not the real world.

You actually think that liberals on this forum would genuinely prefer Ted Cruz to Hillary Clinton as President

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I never said that, nor did I say the majority did. But some have certainly said so. Here's some examples:

Thread: "Would it be better for the left if Hillary lost?"

Seriously, if we had four years of a President Walker with the GOP potentially in control of both houses of congress maybe you'd actually get a more robust Democratic primary field in 2016 and a more genuine clash of ideas between the DLC and the more progressive wing of the party.

When Bush was president liberals actually gave a sh**t about things like civil liberties. Now I wonder if they would have been okay with waterboarding if it had been done under Obama, given there acquiescence to drone strikes.

Thread: "Should Democrats throw the 2016 presidential race?"

I don't think having some centrist 3rd way President is worth having us getting destroyed in the House, Senate, Governorships, and local races. I think the Democrats might be best losing, but not too badly. They can probably net a couple of Senate seats, keep the House about the same. Then spend the next 2 years attacking the Republicans non-stop for everything they do. If all goes right, 2018 and 2020 can be good years for the Democrats, and they can ungerrymander the states.

I know this sounds crazy, but this last election calls for drastic action.

Perhaps it is you that is being deliberately obtuse. You have found two examples of left-wing  suggesting that a Hillary presidency would be worse than a Republican presidency, neither of which endorse the idea that they would vote for Ted Cruz in the poll, but rather bringing up the idea that a DLC president is bad for the party's interests.

Returning to your original post, you wondered whether Cruz crossover from Republicans would be larger than leftist crossover to Cruz.

Surely you cannot think that these two quoted posts demonstrate that the number of leftists who feel this way is anywhere near the obviously high number of moderate Republicans that would refuse to vote for Ted Cruz?

No, they both bring up the idea that Democrats should throw the 2016 presidential election if Hillary is nominee. If Ted Cruz is the nominee, that indicates tacitly or actively supporting Ted Cruz. It's not rocket science.

And like I already stated in the other post, we're not discussing the real world here. Obviously there would be tons more Republicans for Hillary than leftists for Cruz. We're discussing this specific poll on uselectionatlas.org. I posted two examples of leftists for Cruz. So far in this thread, 3 Republicans have indicated they would vote Hillary. So it's a completely fair question.

You're suggesting that on this site, as all members have access to the poll, there may be more leftists that prefer that Cruz wins than Republicans that would refuse to vote for Cruz. Your methodology is now digging through to find two people who in the past suggested that they preferred Hillary lose to generic Republican, not even Cruz specifically.

This would be analogous to going back and finding the instances in which forum Republicans suggested that they would not support Ted Cruz, making it fair, as that is what you have done for the leftist/Hillary option.

It is clear that the number of forum Republicans that would not vote for Cruz is much higher than the number of leftists that would vote for Cruz against Hillary. Your premise is ludicrous and indicative of your recent crusade against anyone in the Democratic Party that doesn't favor Hillary Clinton over all else, as if we owe her our unending love and support.

How is it clear? Where's the evidence? You could very well be right, that's why it was a question. I never stated "there's more leftists for Cruz than Republicans for Hillary on this forum." You're the one making grand pronouncements here, not me.

So either prove me wrong, or acknowledge that it was a fair question. Maybe if tons of Republicans were indicating their support for Hillary in this thread or the result was 90-10, then it would be very clear what the answer is, but that's not the case as of right now.

Please stop playing a game with this. You found these two posts from the past where I can just point to four posts in this thread Smilo, Goldwater, stegosaurus, and Torie, three Republicans that said that they would prefer Hillary and one that is undecided. And that's just in this thread - ignore all of the ones that I would have to go back and find in other threads, as you had to do because you had zero examples in this one.

So if by "prove" you wrong, you meant find more than two posts of Republicans saying that they would prefer Hillary to Cruz, it's right in front of your face.

Three posts is not compelling evidence, particularly when there's 80 votes in the poll. I do agree with you that I think there are more Republicans voting for Hillary than leftists voting for Cruz in this poll based on what little evidence is available. But it's not conclusive. And it was even less conclusive when I originally posted that message, considering only two Republicans had indicated their support for Hillary at the time. Therefore your absolute confidence that it is true is unwarranted.

I'm using the standard of evidence that you have produced, seeing as you paraded out two posts from other threads (not even this one).

That wasn't evidence that there were possibly more leftists voting for Cruz than Republicans voting for Hillary, it was evidence that the former actually existed and not something I made up out of thin air.

I don't remember ever suggesting that they did not exist.

So basically what you're arguing at this point is that because neither of us have the evidence to prove respectively that we are right, it is therefore a fair question. What an inconsistent assertion.

Indeed, that is what I've been arguing the whole time. Glad we finally see eye to eye.

Yes and as I said, that is an inconsistent assertion. Is it a fair question to wonder whether Jill Stein received more votes from registered Republicans or registered Greens in 2012? No? Prove it then.

There's far more uncertainty in a low turnout election. On a small niche forum such as Atlas, the difference between which side is larger could literally come down to a few votes.

However, if you really wanted to know, you could look at the places where Stein did best. They tended to be areas where Republicans are essentially irrelevant (such as the SF Bay Area), so that would be an extremely unlikely proposition. We have no such data to sort through for an Atlas Forum poll.