Again, a Catholic can, in good faith, vote for Sanders. If the GOP put Adolf Hitler up for nomination, then clearly Sanders would be the lesser of the two evils. Depending on how much faith you have in Donald Trump's word, it could be argued that Sanders would be better than Trump, too. Again, depending on how much stock you put in Trump's integrity and honesty about where he stands on life issues versus where he stood only a few short years ago.
But that's about it. Cruz may be nutty and come off like an abrasive jerk, but his policies are ones open for disagreement, not intrinsic evils. Plus, how does one gauge rhetoric versus action? Would he really do the things he says he will, or is it just blowing hot air. As opposed to Sanders who has made it clear he puts his money where his mouth is regarding intrinsic evils.
The issue with Mark Shea wasn't that you can't vote for Sanders in any universe. It's that he took such a hard line approach against 'voting for the lesser evil' as a viable option, and considered it only for the weakest Catholics. At least on his blog. Now, however, he was all about 'Sure, voting for Bernie could be a beautiful thing.' The name behind the change was noteworthy. For the record, I don't know if Fr. Longenecker ever said anything other than you can vote for the lesser of evils and still do so in good faith.
What I do notice is that much of the discussion revolves around Sanders versus Trump. I would be interested to see what would happen if someone else, like Rubio or even Cruz, was to get the nomination. That would help to determine if Catholic apologists really do distinguish between intrinsic evils and issues with which we can agree to disagree, or if they simply define intrinsic evil as not following lockstep behind a liberal, Democratic narrative.