Clinton/Bush damage control, or an intriguing insight into the flaws of primary polling?
I found it pretty interesting myself. Especially the fact that only 16% of people polled say they're actually paying attention to the primary three ring circus right now, and that that number only reaches 60% when the election actually happens.
People don’t want Trump to be the nominee to fix anything, they want Trump to be the nominee for the resulting establishment circus that would surely follow.
>tfw they could all instead vote 3rd party and cripple the establishment, ushering in the Sixth/Seventh Party System but instead will vote for a pompous blowhard who is virtually guaranteed to lose
Sometimes, I really hate the GOP electorate.
Bernie’s tangible determination to unwind the shit that the 1980s brought.
I still don't understand this mindset. The president gets to do jackshit. Congress are the ones that actually pass laws and do policy changes. And while it's likely the Senate will go blue again, the House will almost certainly stay red. If Bernie does get elected, I doubt he'll actually ever get to do any of the progressive wet dreams he talks about.
I guess this is a reoccurring problem. Candidates promise the moon, voters vote for them expecting the moon, and then get disillusioned when the moon stays firmly in the night sky. Realistically, unless the candidate is a bipartisan moderate, the only thing you're really voting for is the chance of tipping SCOTUS in your ideological favor--assuming your party controls the Senate.
Bernie Sanders is someone to take seriously on the Democrat side.
If he was the GOP candidate, I'd agree, but if you want the Dem nomination, you need the minority vote, and he's doing terribly with them right now. Until he overcomes that, Hillary will maintain her advantage. It's all well and good leading in a state that's 94% white, but that says very little about the majority of the Democratic voting base.
Bernie Sanders’s policies are moderate changes…
For a liberal? Sure. But for the other half of the population, they're very, very extreme. Free college tuition would either mean bloating out the national debt by trillions more, or totally redoing the tax code and reverting it back to 1950's levels. And while tax reform is something almost everyone likes to flap their gums about, the donkeys and the elephants have very different definitions for what a "reform" would entail.
Citizens United was decided by SCOTUS. If you want to overturn that, you either need a constitutional amendment or Scalia to kick the bucket and get replaced with a liberal. An amendment is impossible--it's more likely the United States Communist Party will win in 2016--and getting a new justice would be a long process in the Senate. Not to mention the fact that a lawsuit would then have to wind its way up the appealite ladder.
Publicly funding PP would have to overrule the Hyde Amendment, which would trigger a very, very bitter fight in Congress that would probably permanently severe any chance at bipartisanship from that point until Sanders leaves office.
We're seeing what energy and corporate policies are doing right now, with half the states rebelliong against the EPA's new rules and lawsuits springing up left and right over them. Materity leave is just about the only policy I could see being "moderate" for both parties.
TL;DR: "moderate changes" are in the eye of the beholder.