"Political revolution" is admittedly a vague term but it seems like you're taking some liberty with the way Sanders thinks the mechanics of it would work. I don't assume he thinks Republican congressman would feel any pressure from people out of their district. If memory serves, he blamed Obama for failing to harness the energy behind his presidential campaign into driving up midterm turnout. Which to me suggests he does view "political revolution" as including (but not limited to) a Democratic wave. Which is the reason why young voters should be more disillusioned in themselves than with Obama. The drop-off of in their turnout (and that of minority voters) in 2010 impeded Obama as much as anything.
What I don't see if Hillary supporters who (correctly) point out that Sanders can't pass his agenda acknowledging that she can't either.
If you pressed him, he would probably say both (elect Democrats and protest), however when he talks about it, he is generally vague about this and I have heard him speak about wanting people to literally protest en masse. So if his ultimate goal is generating a wave, he should be more clear to his supporters about that. Enough people still split their tickets (vote D for president, R for House/Senate) that it makes a difference, and I bet some of his followers will inevitably do that this November as well. He should tell them NOT to do that, like, specifically. Also, this doesn't change the fundraising aspect - He needs to raise money for them now, not later, as his momentum could slow and fundraising will slow with it.
As for Clinton - Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought she could get it done too. She can't get most of hers done, but seeing as a lot of her agenda is more moderated, I think she could get possibly paid leave passed if they at least take back the Senate and make a big dent in the Republican House majority. Bernie's agenda is a massive non-starter with this generation of Republicans, period.
Lastly, it's fair to say that this could be a Democratic wave year with Trump on the ticket. Before, I'd say there was a 99% chance the House stayed with Republicans, but now I think the chances are split. IF Democrats rode a wave to take back both chambers, they could, and SHOULD either significantly lower the cloture vote requirement, or get rid of it entirely.
We watched Republicans obstruct anything and everything for 6 years. Enough is enough. I don't think Democrats should put up with that anymore if Republicans intend to carry on their unprecedented level of obstructionism, at the expense of the well-being of this country. If they got rid of the 60-vote requirement, Sanders/Clinton agenda suddenly becomes
significantly more viable.
