Support NeoGAF

[Dreez]

Many Bernie supporters are simply not equipped to view the world in shades of grey. They make these grand proclamations about Bernie and all the things he has not even a one percent chance of ever passing thanks to the make up in Congress, but many actively refuse to even acknowledge that their candidate is, ya know, an asshole on some issues. Just like Hillary, just like every candidate. And so many use that cringe worthy line, "well if Black folk only took the time to get to know Bernie..."

how condescending can you get, ya know?

It's not condescending, but benign ignorance. They're usually people with good hearts, but may not really talk to black people in their everyday lives or yet understand black people aren't a monolith.

It's much better than the hateful kind of ignorance from the other side.

 

[soundscream]

Just as reductionist as Sanders critics saying he has only one issue: income inequality.

Maybe he hasn't done a good job of soundbyting more complicated racial issues better, sure, but if you've listened to even one of his rallies, he constantly brings up a multitude of policy proposals, many of which touch on improving fairness for blacks.

Now, he certainly hasn't brought up any tangible solutions to racism itself (is there any?) but in the meantime he seems damn passionate about improving wealth, health, and education among poor black communities, and this passion I think was represented in his civil rights activity in youth, but of course less so while governing his lily white state.

Those are definitely valid topics for debate, but this reductionist handwaving of Sanders as only interested in income equality is a shortcut to stifle positive conversation about what Sanders could bring to the table.

Isn't the point of the whole article that he has only recently started expanding his answer to the issues, now that he's running for president.?And that his answer to the issue in 2006 was his typical stump speech answer?

 

[dave is ok]

Second, Hilary has been speaking and fighting for minorities issues for a LONG time. She supported BLM at the start and didn't hand wave it away or talk about how "All lives Matter."

Except when she literally said that. She's not some superhero for minority issues, she didn't even mention Michael Brown for three weeks and there were opinion articles like this one being written. She does what is politically expedient at the time, like she always has.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Your profile indicates you're Canadian, so who is "we"? Is their opinion on Bernie not valid because some say otherwise?

Yes, I am; which is why I can't help but roll my eyes when I get accused of being a Berniebro or a Clintonstan, I don't care who wins.

By "we" I meant GAF. And I never talked about valid, I'm talking about being representative. People always go to "community leaders" to get opinions on what everyone of that "community"/ethnic group is thinking. It's a form of stereotyping to me and I never liked it.

edit: yes I did just finish Stephen Fry's book LOL

 

[Crimson_Gold]

Are we going to let two people represent the entire black population of Vermont? There are even two "Black leaders" who support him, not that their opinions are the same as every other black person either. Just because a "black leader" says something doesn't mean it's representative. (like those Black pastors that were about to endorse Trump).

They are speaking about their experiences with him. They are free to do so. They don't speak for every black person. They usually speak for their organizations and most importantly themselves. They said how they were treated. So again, your question left a lot to be desired.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

What qualifies as being responsive enough? Do people want him to attend X number of meetings hosted by black leadership? Are there very specific policy concerns that a politician is not not explicitly for is labeled not responsive?

His voting record and economic policies look like they would be fantastic for minorities.

The way this is phrased is part of the problem, from what I can tell. "Responsive enough," as if black issues are a bullet point in the overall liberal list of "things to do" rather than as a urgent global issue that impacts everyone all the time.

I think Bernie supporters forget that politicians aren't trusted, no matter who they are, and just saying "but we can trust this guy" isn't enough for people who aren't already on your side. That story's been told hundreds of times before in our lifetimes.

It's not condescending, but benign ignorance. They're usually people with good hearts, but may not really talk to black people in their everyday lives or yet understand black people aren't a monolith.

It's much better than the hateful kind of ignorance from the other side.

I mean, not really. At least with Republicans, some will tell you to your face what they're really thinking about race. I've met some super liberal people who exposed themselves quick when it came to what they really felt, and it's always really frustrating like it is any time someone fully bullshits you.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

What makes someone a Black Leader?

Someone who is black?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

It's not condescending, but benign ignorance. They're usually people with good hearts, but may not really talk to black people in their everyday lives or yet understand black people aren't a monolith.

Ignorance can often be condescending.

It's much better than the hateful kind of ignorance from the other side.

No, it's not much better. Both are fucking infuriating.

 

[foxtrot3d]

Except when she literally said that. She's not some superhero for minority issues, she didn't even mention Michael Brown for three weeks and there were opinion articles like this one being written. She does what is politically expedient at the time, like she always has.

Read my prior post.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Now, he certainly hasn't brought up any tangible solutions to racism itself (is there any?) but in the meantime he seems damn passionate about improving wealth, health, and education among poor black communities, and this passion I think was represented in his civil rights activity in youth, but of course less so while governing his lily white state..

As senator, sanders doesn't govern anything about vermont specifically. He is one of two individuals appointed by Vermont to contribute to legislating the country in one of its two legidlative chambers.

 

[lastflowers]

meh, whatever

 

[JustenP88]

ok so let's talk about this. President Sanders has been elected, and has just been sworn in. What can he bring to the table at this juncture?

Lmao. Beautiful bait.

 

[BowieZ]

Isn't the point of the whole article that he has only recently started expanding his answer to the issues, now that he's running for president.?And that his answer to the issue in 2006 was his typical stump speeach answer?

Absolutely. But as usual the dialogue digresses into criticism of his current political messaging. If his message is on point now (which of course is up for debate), why does it matter? The only reason it should matter (IMO) is if we don't trust that he will act on his mandate. So that's another debate: is he genuine or not, and based on his campaigning for fairness since youth, I personally trust him. But of course that trust needs to be earned and I recognise the difficulty black people have in trusting someone new to the discussion rather than someone who has been at the root of the discussion for 25 years (although before that... :/ ).

 

[Oriel]

Hes done

He never got started to begin with.

 

[Amir0x]

Lmao. Beautiful bait.

Hehe...

Bait that, as usual, is elegantly skipped over due to the answer being ridiculously obvious and damaging to his candidacy. I prefer Bernie's policies but until that question I posed can be answered adequately by even a single Bernie supporter (or Bernie himself), they're never going to win converts.

 

[Messofanego]

You're right. Why hasn't Bernie Sanders solved institutional and cultural racism yet. He's had like, years.

Ugh, what garbage sarcasm is this.

 

[kirblar]

That income inequality as the answer to racism, needs to disappear from his go to answers if he wants to make any real inroads.

He's had every opportunity to alter it and he hasn't changed as of the recent forum in Minneapolis.

He's actively uninterested in expanding his worldview, which is a horrible trait in a leader. (see: Dubya)

 

[vicissitudes]

This makes no sense since Blacks will always be a small minoirty. If he can't even pretend to listen to the vocal few in his state, what chance do the rest of us have?

The black population is about 13% nationally. That's a lot more than the 1% in Vermont. So I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this. Do I wish he were more responsive in Vermont compared to the other Senator? Sure. Do I agree he's not perfect on racial issues? Of course. He has some work to do in this area, no doubt about it.

I'll give another example: why is it that no one pays attention to Asian issues in the US? Outside of the fact that they are not as vocal, could it have anything to do with how the US is 5% Asian and 13% black? If it were the other way around, would you expect more attention paid to the Asian community, relative to the black community? Probably. So when you have a state that's 1% black compared to 13% nationally, would you expect the government to pay less attention to that community? I certainly would.

Look, Bernie's record on black issues isn't perfect, no doubt about it. But to suggest that he would be dismissive of black issues on a national level by looking purely at his record in Vermont, I find to be disingenuous.

 

[King Tubby]

Second, Hilary has been speaking and fighting for minorities issues for a LONG time. She supported BLM at the start and didn't hand wave it away or talk about how "All lives Matter." I don't remember Bernie Sanders making a statement when Trayvon Martin was shot and killed

Speaking =/= fighting for. What is Hillary's record on minority issues? Without going more in depth into it, best I can find right now is that she was rated 96% on the issue of Affirmative Action by the NAACP in 2006, a great figure that dwarfs Sanders' 97% rating.

ok so let's talk about this. President Sanders has been elected, and has just been sworn in. What can he bring to the table at this juncture?

For starters, work to decriminalize marijuana on the federal level and institute reforms of United States policing and oversight through the department of justice.

 

[BowieZ]

As senator, sanders doesn't govern anything about vermont specifically. He is one of two individuals appointed by Vermont to contribute to legislating the country in one of its two legidlative chambers.

Sorry I was more so comparing his civil rights activist youth to when he first became mayor and obviously for a long while became less in touch with black people... which seemingly lasted through congress and the senate.

 

[soundscream]

Absolutely. But as usual the dialogue digresses into criticism of his current political messaging. If his message is on point now (which of course is up for debate), why does it matter? The only reason it should matter (IMO) is if we don't trust that he will act on his mandate. So that's another debate: is he genuine or not, and based on his campaigning for fairness since youth, I personally trust him. But of course that trust needs to be earned and I recognise the difficulty black people have in trusting someone new to the discussion rather than someone who has been at the root of the discussion for 25 years (although before that... :/ ).

But that's it, if your own black constituents say you don't work for/with them in comparison to the other senator in your state, what chance does he have in convincing black voters?

 

[JustenP88]

Hehe...

Bait that, as usual, is elegantly skipped over due to the answer being ridiculously obvious and damaging to his candidacy. I prefer Bernie's policies but until that question I posed can be answered adequately by even a single Bernie supporter (or Bernie himself), they're never going to win converts.

Warning: incoming "but, hillary"

I don't think that question could be adequately answered by a supporter of any candidate. The limits of the office, and the obstruction from the opposition, apply to anyone that gets elected. The difference between Hillary and Sanders, to me, is I think we'd benefit more from having an unashamed economic progressive in the highest office in the land than we would from having another third-way Democrat.

 

[finowns]

Hehe...

Bait that, as usual, is elegantly skipped over due to the answer being ridiculously obvious and damaging to his candidacy. I prefer Bernie's policies but until that question I posed can be answered adequately by even a single Bernie supporter (or Bernie himself), they're never going to win converts.

Wait, no one took your bait and you still pulled some vaguery bs.. that is a flag on the play, you can't do that.

 

[Amir0x]

Wait, no one took your bait and you still pulled some vaguery bs.. that is a flag on the play, you can't do that.

This is politics, not a playground scuffle. If people can't answer this MOST IMPORTANT question, it's gonna repeatedly be emphasized and called out. I'm waiting for that to be answered, and if it cannot be Bernie does not deserve any new converts. And we all know it cannot be answered, which is the point of the bait. Acknowledging that nothing can be done by Bernie destroys the very idea of his candidacy.

Warning: incoming "but, hillary"

I don't think that question could be adequately answered by a supporter of any candidate. The limits of the office, and the obstruction from the opposition, apply to anyone that gets elected. The difference between Hillary and Sanders, to me, is I think we'd benefit more from having an unashamed economic progressive in the highest office in the land than we would from having another third-way Democrat.

Yup, nobody can do much of anything. Which is the point... all this arguing about which candidate has better economic policies then the other amounts to shit when the only goal we are capable of reaching is actually electing a Democrat who can nominate Supreme court justices, make some appointments, and deal with some foreign policy emergencies.

For starters, work to decriminalize marijuana on the federal level and institute reforms of United States policing and oversight through the department of justice.

By doing what, exactly? What does "work" in this context mean? You mean, make speeches about getting it done as Congress fails to pass any legislation on this issue due to the make up of that branch of government?

 

[Valhelm]

Except the motto of America is "I might be poor, but at least I ain't black"

Absolutely, but think how closely race and class are correlated in this country. Sanders' policies would help black people disproportionately, as they're most in need of livable wages.

Fiscal and social legislation would both go a long way to fight racism.

Giving Black people more income when 95% of businesses operating in Black communities aren't Black just means that money is going to go right back out the community as soon as it comes in. It changes nothing substantial.

I personally want to see more Black owned businesses in Black communities. That requires more than better income. It requires access to capital. Which gets limited by racism. I go to hoods and I rarely see a Black face that owns it. I see a bunch of people that can't stand me but will snatch my dollar quick (after following me around in the store).

And let's not even go into the housing market where some won't even show you a house in a "nice" neighborhood. Or like my parents when they were looking for their house they had the money and looked in a "nice" area and the guy flat out told them "Hey, I'll sell you the house but they will burn it down in less than a month..."

Giving black individuals more access to capital makes them immediately more able to own their own businesses.

 

[King Tubby]

By doing what, exactly? What does "work" in this context mean? You mean, make speeches about getting it done as Congress fails to pass any legislation on this issue due to the make up of that branch of government?

Nominate an Attorney General who would then have it removed from the schedule of controlled substances (or rescheduled). Congress' only input on the matter would be confirming his nominee.

 

[Amir0x]

Nominate an Attorney General who would then have it removed from the schedule of controlled substances. Congress' only input on the matter would be confirming his nominee.

That's not the same as decriminalizing Marijuana. So, you should correctly use these terms.

 

[King Tubby]

That's not the same as decriminalizing Marijuana. So, you should correctly use these terms.

That's why I said "work to", not unilaterally make the decision. Rescheduling cannabis would be a huge step in that direction.

 

[JustenP88]

By doing what, exactly? What does "work" in this context mean? You mean, make speeches about getting it done as Congress fails to pass any legislation on this issue due to the make up of that branch of government?

His nominations, his cabinet, one would assume, would be more in line with his policies than Hillary's. Also, the makeup of Congress and Senate absolutely need to change. I prefer to pursue that change by electing people who symbolize it, instead of voting for stagnation.

This country was pulled sharply to the right by a strong, well-liked conservative figurehead. I'm not ready to accept that liberals are so spineless to believe they can't gain back some of the significant ground they've lost. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...homas-piketty-bernie-sanders-us-election-2016

 

[captainnapalm]

This is politics, not a playground scuffle. If people can't answer this MOST IMPORTANT question, it's gonna repeatedly be emphasized and called out. I'm waiting for that to be answered, and if it cannot be Bernie does not deserve any new converts. And we all know it cannot be answered, which is the point of the bait. Acknowledging that nothing can be done by Bernie destroys the very idea of his candidacy.



Yup, nobody can do much of anything. Which is the point... all this arguing about which candidate has better economic policies then the other amounts to shit when the only goal we are capable of reaching is actually electing a Democrat who can nominate Supreme court justices, make some appointments, and deal with some foreign policy emergencies.

I wonder if there would have ever have been any social change or progress in society if everyone during all points in history had this ridiculously defeatist attitude towards the system they faced.

Also, with regards to the thread topic, who do people think Bernie was fighting for in the video below, back in 1991. Just white people? Remind me what the Clintons were saying about this issue back in the 90s?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZJ7f-3XGB4

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

The ability to have influence w/ large amounts of Black people and to use that influence to make deals or influence policy with the White power structure.

Unfortunately communities that don't have their own base of power or their own home country specifically tend to utilize leaders in their communities to speak for them as a whole.

A more apt term would be "Black negotiators".

Good post, I agree.

 

[Amir0x]

His nominations, his cabinet, one would assume, would be more in line with his policies than Hillary's. Also, the makeup of Congress and Senate absolutely need to change. I prefer to pursue that change by electing people who symbolize it, instead of voting for stagnation.

This country was pulled sharply to the right by a strong, well-liked conservative figurehead. I'm not ready to accept that liberals are so spineless to believe they can't gain back some of the significant ground they've lost. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...homas-piketty-bernie-sanders-us-election-2016

I believe we can get back that ground, but that we need to understand when the opportunities actually properly arise to make up that ground. Sanders isn't getting nominated, but if he was he's going to have to deal with the intense red hot scrutiny from the Republican party - something he has been blissfully able to avoid to this point, and something which he has less than zero idea how bad it will get. Neither do many of his supporters, frankly, who genuinely believe his trip to the USSR and his proclamations of "Democratic Socialism" won't hurt him immensely with the general electorate.

To make up the ground we need, we need to re-gerrymander the districts in Democratic favor, or we need to end gerrymandering once the court is in the liberal favor and we know we can win. This is gonna take years (2020 is the next US Census).

I believe that in the infinitesimally small chance that Bernie were to be elected, the backlash against this pie-in-the-sky Democratic Socialist who gets literally zero pieces of legislation passed would be so immense that we'd lose our chance to get a REAL socialist in office who can actually pass legislation for the next thirty or forty years easily. I'm not willing to take that risk on Bernie.

I wonder if there would have ever have been any social change or progress in society if everyone during all points in history had this ridiculously defeatist attitude towards the system they faced.

It's not defeatist, it's reality. Instead of calling people defeatist, please define how Bernie is going to pass a single piece of legislation through Congress. Come on! It'll be fun.

 

[dave is ok]

I wonder if there would have ever have been any social change or progress in society if everyone during all points in history had this ridiculously defeatist attitude towards the system they faced.

It's really weird to see progressives arguing for the less progressive candidate because it's 'more realistic'. It's like the opposite of 2008.

 

[atr0cious]

The black population is about 13% nationally. That's a lot more than the 1% in Vermont. So I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this. Do I wish he were more responsive in Vermont compared to the other Senator? Sure. Do I agree he's not perfect on racial issues? Of course. He has some work to do in this area, no doubt about it.

I'll give another example: why is it that no one pays attention to Asian issues in the US? Outside of the fact that they are not as vocal, could it have anything to do with how the US is 5% Asian and 13% black? If it were the other way around, would you expect more attention paid to the Asian community, relative to the black community? Probably. So when you have a state that's 1% black compared to 13% nationally, would you expect the government to pay less attention to that community? I certainly would.

Look, Bernie's record on black issues isn't perfect, no doubt about it. But to suggest that he would be dismissive of black issues on a national level by looking purely at his record in Vermont, I find to be disingenuous.

Asians are becoming a part of the white majority, so they're being taken care of in the long run. Blacks are only shrinking as more and more dangerous policies that only really hurt low income communities hit from all sides.

All we can go off is records, but with all the doubt Hillary gets, bernie really isn't doing much better when it comes to us.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

It's really weird to see progressives arguing for the less progressive candidate because it's 'more realistic'. It's like the opposite of 2008.

Who seriously measures who they're voting on by how "progressive" they are? Stricter gun control is more important to me than battling the nebulous banks. So I'll vote for the candidate who seems more likely to address that issue even if they're the "less progressive" option.

 

[Coffee Dog]

Who seriously measures who they're voting on by how "progressive" they are? Stricter gun control is more important to me than battling the nebulous banks. So I'll vote for the candidate who seems more likely to address that issue even if they're the "less progressive" option.

You think gun reform will happen without getting NRA influence out of congress?

 

[captainnapalm]

It's really weird to see progressives arguing for the less progressive candidate because it's 'more realistic'. It's like the opposite of 2008.

People think it's ok to settle, but at some point it's not going to be anymore.

 

[jonnymj]

Better Call Saul is a better show IMO with more complex characters.

 

[King Tubby]

Who seriously measures who they're voting on by how "progressive" they are? Stricter gun control is more important to me than battling the nebulous banks. So I'll vote for the candidate who seems more likely to address that issue even if they're the "less progressive" option.

Is this a serious question? Lots of people. The only thing your position means is that you think gun control is generally more important than income inequality or financial regulation.

Better Call Saul is a better show IMO with more complex characters.

They never should've gotten rid of the old writing staff. It was so much better in 2012. Now in 2016 you look at the Republican subplot and it's not believable anymore. It's like they ran out of ideas.

 

[Amir0x]

It's really weird to see progressives arguing for the less progressive candidate because it's 'more realistic'. It's like the opposite of 2008.

They might as well be equally progressive, because they're equally going to pass progressive legislation.

 

[dave is ok]

They might as well be equally progressive, because they're equally going to pass progressive legislation.

Well if we're going to assume continued obstructionism and nothing getting done then every candidate is completely equal and I might as well vote blindfolded.

 

[captainnapalm]

It's not defeatist, it's reality. Instead of calling people defeatist, please define how Bernie is going to pass a single piece of legislation through Congress. Come on! It'll be fun.

Let's say he gets nothing done and is blocked at every turn. Maybe then the conversation changes again: Our vote did nothing, maybe we need a stronger voice. Maybe we need to engage in civil action, protest, whatever. Governments should fear the power of the people, not the other way around.

Surely the important thing is to make that first step in the right direction. Every journey starts with a single step.

 

[Dreez]

I mean, not really. At least with Republicans, some will tell you to your face what they're really thinking about race. I've met some super liberal people who exposed themselves quick when it came to what they really felt, and it's always really frustrating like it is any time someone fully bullshits you.

Ignorance can often be condescending.

No, it's not much better. Both are fucking infuriating.

I can't speak on those super liberals you've met. I can only speak on the ones I've met that were still malleable and can be checked when they say ignorant statements like the one I originally quoted. Which would be better than a Republican who can't even hear you.

 

[Amir0x]

Well if we're going to assume continued obstructionism and nothing getting done then every candidate is completely equal and I might as well vote blindfolded.

I'm not assuming anything. We have the evidence for it and we know the break down of Congress has no chance of changing until after the 2020 Census at earliest.

Therefore, they might as well be equally progressive. You can vote based on a dream it will be different...buuuuut it won't be different. So I'm voting for who I feel has a much better shot at actually being elected and nominated Justices. The end.

 

[Principate]

It's not defeatist, it's reality. Instead of calling people defeatist, please define how Bernie is going to pass a single piece of legislation through Congress. Come on! It'll be fun.

TBF what legislature would likely Hilary succeed in passing that Sanders wouldn't. If Hilary is not likely passing anything other than policies the person disagrees with, that's likely reason enough to vote for Sanders.

The whole realist arguement is vey weak if your candidate of choice isn't demonstrably better in getting through policies you agree with in comparison to the other candidate. Otherwise it's a clear case of a irrelevant smokescreen.

 

[Guevara]

They might as well be equally progressive, because they're equally going to pass progressive legislation.

I can't help but think Hillary will be more effective in such a scenario.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

You think gun reform will happen without getting NRA influence out of congress?

Yes. Even if the NRA were to up and vanish tomorrow I do not predict a reasonable conclusion for gun control to be for another decade minimum. I'm far too pragmatic for some sort of silly wishful thinking in one term being enough to curb a giant issue in this country.

 

[Amir0x]

Let's say he gets nothing done and is blocked at every turn. Maybe then the conversation changes again: Our vote did nothing, maybe we need a stronger voice. Maybe we need to engage in civil action, protest, whatever. Governments should fear the power of the people, not the other way around.

Surely the important thing is to make that first step in the right direction. Every journey starts with a single step.

Yes, because that's what happened with Obama, someone who is 10x more charismatic then Bernie, was blocked at every turn. These are dreams, fantasies at best.

TBF what legislature would likely Hilary succeed in passing that Sanders wouldn't. If Hilary is not likely passing anything other than policies the person disagrees with, that's likely reason enough to vote for Sanders.

The whole realist arguement is vey weak if your candidate of choice isn't demonstrably better in getting through policies you agree with in comparison to the other candidate. Otherwise it's a clear case of a irrelevant smokescreen.

It's not weak at all if you actually understood the argument.

The argument is such:

1. Bernie supporters try to convince others to vote Bernie, by discussing all his radical policy initiatives.
2. Realist understands none of those policies are getting passed in Congress.
3. Therefore, vote this time really is for Justices, appointments and some foreign policy.
4. Thus, I'm voting Hillary because I believe she has a much better shot at actually winning the general election and doing #3.

Not complicated, and not a weak argument at all.

 

[JustenP88]

I can't help but think Hillary will be more effective in such a scenario.

What leads you to that conclusion?

 

[Principate]

Yes, because that's what happened when Obama, someone who is 10x more charismatic then Bernie, was blocked at every turn. These are dreams, fantasies at best.

The same Obama that was trying to the trans pacific partnership. Has it occured to you that maybe Bernie supporters would rather not have a corporatist President regardless

Yes, because that's what happened with Obama, someone who is 10x more charismatic then Bernie, was blocked at every turn. These are dreams, fantasies at best.



It's not weak at all if you actually understood the argument.

The argument is such:

1. Bernie supporters try to convince others to vote Bernie, by discussing all his radical policy initiatives.
2. Realist understands none of those policies are getting passed in Congress.
3. Therefore, vote this time really is for Justices, appointments and some foreign policy.
4. Thus, I'm voting Hillary because I believe she has a much better shot at actually winning the general election and doing #3.

Not complicated, and not a weak argument at all.

The better shot is an equally limited arguement, the Republican candidates are as weak as they've ever been considering trump is front runner who has pissed off hispanics, isn't getting the black vote and is now in the feud with the Pope over whether he s actually a Christian. He has a miniscule chance of winning, that's barely a concern. Cruz also has many, many holes to pick at.