The difference - Hillary is actually culpable for massive corruption, and the gridlock that would happen wouldn't be Sanders's fault, rather Congress's.
Look, I'm not getting into Clinton corruption stuff. I'm talking about her potential presidency, which obviously has not occurred. So it's just speculation right now.
As for Sanders - I didn't say or intend to imply
he would be responsible for the gridlock, but he's an ideologue with a very liberal agenda. Unless he takes back all of Congress and gets the filibuster thrown out, he will faced obstruction that makes Obama's tenure look like mild disagreements. Free college? Singlepayer? 1 trillion dollars of infrastructure? Republicans would have a heart attack over this.
I'm all for those ideas, but only if we can actually get them done, and that requires full federal control. Sanders would be a good president in that situation, but without that, it's debatable.
Hmmm... maybe I'm jaded but both of those sound a lot like Obama's presidency to me!
Somewhat, except the sh**t Hillary would eat would be from liberals as well. Obama was mostly demonized by Republicans. Believe it or not, but Hillary could actually drive young voters
(18-22) away from the party much like Nixon drove young voters to Democrats during his tenure. She doesn't really have to do anything corrupt, because young voters already think she is shady.
Sanders has
big plans, far bigger than Obama, and he is far more dogmatic and persistent about them.
Unless we take back Congress, we need someone who will settle for incremental change, because Republicans will never allow his major proposals to pass if they have
any say in it. We need to get government working again. I'm not sure we can get that with Sanders and a divided/Republican Congress.
