• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If Ted Cruz Ran As a Democrat Should Democrats Support Him?

Winston

the enemy within
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
27,095
Reaction score
29,073
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
With all this talk about Bloomberg running for the Dem nomination. J/w how we all feel about Ted Cruz representing our values as left leaning people?

Personally if Bloomberg is in the running for the Dem nomination, I figure why not just nominate Ted Cruz to really appeal to the NeverTrumpers and moderate Republicans.
 

Would he switch his party to Dem? If so, of course! Vote blue no matter who!
 
:inandout:
 
Why would Ted Cruz run as a democrat?
 
I was just thinking to myself how ironic it would be if the Democratic party who I had always heard was against money in politics let the nomination be bought by an oligarch. I can't help but imagine that many will stay home rather than vote Bloomberg should he "win" the nomination.
 

Sorry, that's a dumb criticism. Would you rather election was bought by PAC money or candidate's own money? Even Bernie, who is the "cleanest" of all, has some PAC-like structures behind him, including an org he had setup in the past that don't have to report amounts and donors over then $2800 limit.
 
Virtually everything you’ve asserted and presumed above is wrong.
 
If Ted Cruz Ran As a Democrat Should Democrats Support Him?
Click to expand...

nah. he's not a billionaire nanny stater. that's the price for admission, apparently.
 
Nap said:
That Democrats are allegedly against money in politics and that someone is attempting to buy the nomination?
Click to expand...
I’ll make it simple enough (hopefully) for you to understand:

Everything in bold is where you’re wrong.
1. No party let’s a candidate buy a nomination. Idiotic notion.
2. By definition, Bloomberg is not an oligarch.
3. The number one priority of most voters is getting the orange idiot out of office, regardless of who they have to vote for.

The underlined portion is very questionable.
 

It is called hyperbole......

As far as your 3rd point, the number #1 priority may indeed be to get rid of Trump but that doesn't change the fact that a Bloomberg nomination would further entrench the "Bernie or Bust" types. The entire point of this thread is about that very question.
 

No one on Earth is as corrupt as Trump in every way. This is not election that will be won by the squeaky clean and who cares as long as he wins. Bloomberg is not the most electable in many ways.
 

I agree, I don't personally care what he does with his money. I was just using some of the same hyperbolic language some on the far left like to use. I think it is hilarious.
 

You've got to be kidding. Although if it is Trump vs. Bloomberg we'll have an ex-Democrat, twice in Trump vs. an Ex-Republican in Bloomberg, once. Trump's party history,

Until 1987 Trump was a Democrat
From 1987-1999 he was a Republican
In 1999 Trump became an Independent
2000 to 2001 Trump was a member of the Reform Party
2001 to 2009 he was a Democrat again
2009 to 2011 he became a Republican
2011 to 2012 Trump was a registered Independent
2012 to present he became a Republican again.

Bloomberg's.
Until 2001 he was a Democrat
2001-2007 Republican
2007-2018 Independent
2018 Bloomberg became a democrat again.

Seems both are willing to join any party that give them a shot at winning. Few know Trump ran for the Reform Party nomination in 2000 for the presidency. While Bloomberg was a Republican Mayor of New York.

Sanders is interesting too.

Until 1977 Liberty Union
1977-2016 Independent
2016-2017 Democrat
2017-2019 Independent?
2019 Democrat once more, maybe.

The ? and maybe - On the 2016 campaign trail, he affirmed that he was a Democrat running for the Democratic nomination. But both his Senate website and press materials continued to label him as an "independent" during and after the campaign. In October 2017, Sanders said he would run for reelection as an independent in 2018 though he was pressured to run as a Democrat. His party status became ambiguous in March 2019 when he signed a formal "loyalty pledge" to the Democratic Party stating that he is a member of the party and will serve as a Democrat if elected president. He signed the pledge the day after he signed paperwork to run as an independent for reelection to the Senate in 2024.
 

Yeah, I am aware of this. Where are the centrists whining about Bloomberg "not being a Democrat"?
 
Winston said:
Yeah, I am aware of this. Where are the centrists whining about Bloomberg "not being a Democrat"?
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean centrists. But if you mean moderates or those non-affiliated voters, independents perhaps, I think they accept the fact that Trump is a Republican along with Sanders and Bloomberg being Democrats running for the Democratic nomination.

All the party switching Trump did was an issue, at least for me in the GOP primaries. I still accuse Trump of having no political ideology or not knowing what he was or is. Sanders has voted the democratic party line more than any other democratic senator except one since he entered the senate. With Sanders I have a problem with him claiming to be an independent which he isn't. Bloomberg, an oddity.

In fact this whole thing is an oddity. It use to be one had to be pretty much a life long Republican or Democrat just to be considered for the nomination. The only exception prior to Trump that I can think of was Reagan who switched once. He switched from democrat to Republican in 1963. 2020 may be the year of the party switchers. I don't know what to make of party politics these days.
 




The prospect of Cruz running as a dem is absurd.

Why waste your mental energy fantasizing about something that is so absurd and will never happen?


Why?
 
Nap said:
That Democrats are allegedly against money in politics and that someone is attempting to buy the nomination?
Click to expand...


I"m against too much money from a single source influencing outcomes creating a situation where a politician is beholden to big donors.


Self - financing doesn't really meet that concept. So, I"m not against self - funding.
 

But he also has to appeal to Dem voters, too. You might lose more dems than you pick up nevertrumpers.
 


I agree with you, but on #2, a empire owner super rich guy with tons of political influence is considered an oligarch.

But, I agree that the term is normally associated with concentrated power and corruption by a few, not sure that that describes Bloomberg.

But, to be honest, I wouldn't know.

Buying an election literally means paying people to vote for you, and no, no candidate is going that.

That being said, having billions at your disposal does give one an advantage, as ads do persuade.

Say Bloomberg wasn't rich, and had to depend on grass roots small donations like Bernie has, how would Bloomberg fair, then?

He wouldn't have gotten anywhere, he's has no charisma, and is unknown ( will he's buying name recognition, which anyone with money can do ) On the other had, I suppose he earned his money legitimately, but I really don't know that, either. I would have to research it more, but Harry Reid had nice things to say about him. So, I reserve judgement of Bloomberg. IF he is the nominee, I will have to vote for him, begrudgingly. I don't think Trump wants to run against him, so that's good news.
 

I agree, it would be better to nominate Bernie than to nominate Bloomberg.

The young and idealistic progressives would not vote for Bloomberg, and that's a larger number than the mods who would sit it out.

Mods are older, more politically active, and more pragmatic, and are far more likely to hold their nose and vote for Bernie, than the idealistic youth would vote for Bloomberg if he were nominated.

From either side of the spectrum, you get a section that wouldn't vote, but the largest sector that wouldn't vote would be the young and idealistic progressives, so, in short, Bernie would get more votes than anyone, which the polls do not reflect.
 
There is a world of difference between the ideological and political views of Bloomberg and those of Cruz. Completely disingenuous to compare them.
 
btthegreat said:
There is a world of difference between the ideological and political views of Bloomberg and those of Cruz. Completely disingenuous to compare them.
Click to expand...

I would imagine Bloomberg is much closer to Cruz than Bernie Sanders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…