There's a world of difference between the two candidates' positions. Sanders has a history of stubborn, unwavering commitment to his progressive ideas, whereas Clinton has only recently aligned herself with some of the popular ideas championed by him. (Many of these ideas were truly radical when they were first proposed, even fringe.) Clinton, like most politicians, maneuvers for votes when convenient, and when required by her deep, complex ties to industries with their own, decidedly non-populist agendas.

As for reality – if I had to define the dialogue of this election, at least on the Democratic side, it wouldn't be a focus on modest, incremental, or "practical" approaches, but rather achieving ambitious, populist goals, demanded by those with a deep frustration with and even sense of injustice about the state of politics and the world. There's a very real desire for these kinds of changes, so much so in my view that implementation will necessarily follow from such strong demand.

As a European, I have great respect for Bernie Sanders. Some of the policies he's pushing forward are actually (by his own admission) inspired by some concepts that were implemented in part of Europe (Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, France, etc) and proven to be successful in those countries (and at scales that are not ridiculous like some people in the USA posit, see France and Germany, big economies with dozens of millions of citizens).

But to be honest, he seems to be more of an idealistic that is only driven by ideology, an ideology of the common good. Because we're on HN, I can use the following metaphor: he's (kind of) the Haskell of American politics.

To compare his views to those of Clinton is unfair to her, because just like in programming, there shouldn't be scorn and contempt for someone trying to accommodate reality and pragmatism into their views, because as awesome as Bernie Sanders' ideas are, he's pushing so far to the left of American politics that finding common ground with moderate Republicans in the general election will be extremely hard. I relish that he's setting an agenda of social progress and economic justice, but do take into account that chivalrous theories are evidently great until you actually have to act upon them and draft legislation, find consensus, navigate Washington, forge alliances.

All of which is extremely hard if you don't have the kind of flexibility that Hillary Clinton possesses. I say both candidates are important for the Democrats and I'm glad they present slightly different facets of the liberal ideals in 2016 America.

> Sanders has a history of stubborn, unwavering commitment to his progressive ideas

Does that sound as a positive quality for the presidential candidate?

I don't know much about american politics in particular, but I always presume that the role of the president is based on finding compromises between different parties, slightly nudging them to what he believes is right, and making the whole political machine works.

To elect someone who is known for his inability to compromise as a president sounds like a good way to get your government completely locked. Even if you think that any other candidate is evil and this one is fighting for what you believe for, it still doesn't sound like a good idea.

If the other option is someone who will take whatever position is most politically convenient, then yes, I will choose the one who has been advocating for the things I believe in for the past 30 years over the one who just got on the bandwagon.

It's also pretty disingenuous to suggest that one of the few independents in the Senate can't work with both sides.

> It's also pretty disingenuous to suggest that one of the few independents in the Senate can't work with both sides.

If you actually read my comment, you'll notice that I not only don't mention Sanders, I don't mention US at all. I specifically construct my arguments to be abstract, because it's easier to reason about abstract model that approximate some certain aspects of reality, than trying to argue about a complex situation as a whole.

You did mention Sanders, by using him as the example which you quoted. You used him as a basis for your model, except that you used a flawed interpretation of him:

> To elect someone who is known for his inability to compromise as a president...

Having "stubborn, unwavering commitment" to ones ideals does not mean that one is incapable of compromise. That's a separate axis that may be correlated, but is not the same as commitment to your ideals.

> Having "stubborn, unwavering commitment" to ones ideals does not mean that one is incapable of compromise.

Good point. However, I haven't used Sanders as a whole for the model, I only used the quoted property — and I did implicitly assume that these two properties are closely correlated.

So, wouldn't you agree, that by default, a person A who with "stubborn, unwavering commitment can be expected to have problems reaching compromises? And that if he wishes for people to think that he's able to reach a compromise and be a peacemaker, he has to do more convincing than a person without said quality? Once again, I'm not talking about any particular politicians here.

Over-privileged 18-30 white males is not the same thing as populist. They just are they controlling voice on places like HN and Reddit.

You should put that tired narrative to bed. 50% of Sanders' donations have come from women. 69% of women under 45 voted for Sanders in New Hampshire.