I think that with Clinton we're in good shape from a progressive point of view.  She doesn't lack backbone, really.  She is, however, an opportunist.  If we give her good reasons to move left, which is the direction she probably wants to move, she will.

To say this is bigger than parties and presidents is fine but then it is, by definition, way bigger than Bernie Sanders. I voted for him, I like him, but it's time for him to get out of the way.  This claiming victory by losing schtick is just no good.

Where are the Bills and the sponsors? Where is the public support?

For instance, support for cutting our national oil production in half and by 2/3 for natural gas?

The resulting price increases and job losses would kill the movement overnight.

Cut the military by how much and where? Vermont? Bernie hasn't supported that.

These are fanciful platitudes.

This is a nation with states litigating on the use of bathrooms, and the same actors control Congress, for which Bernie shows little interest except in revenge attacks against Democrats he dislikes.

I'm with NCD on this. It doesn't appear to me that Sanders is leading a revolution. He's just articulating the far left position on issues that the democratic party basically agrees on.

1) Universal single-payer healthcare.

Universal affordable healthcare has long been a goal of the democratic party. We've tried several times, made some progress, but didn't get the whole way there. The argument that Sanders makes is that the only way to get there is single payer. Most see that as one of several ways to get to universal healthcare.

2) No more "free trade" deals.

This is an absolutist position. It's just throwing red meat at those on the far left that lack the ability to deal with nuance. No free trade deals with not solve the problem of a lack of good paying middle class jobs. We must trade with other nations. A more nuanced discussion would be about how trade deals can be less harmful to American jobs. Or what arrangements can we make to more effectively deal with the global economy.

3) $15 minimum wage.

Everybody in the democratic party has wanted to raise the minimum wage for years. Hillary wants to raise it to $12.  We're fighting a revolution over a difference of three dollars? Really?

4) Tuition-free college education.

Making college more affordable is a democratic goal. Hillary has a good plan. Sanders has a good plan. Of course for Sanders there's only one way and one plan. It must be tuition free.

5) Reinstating Glass-Steagall.

Regulating banks is another democratic goal. Dodd Frank was a good start and Hillary has a more comprehensive plan to build on it. We can argue whether Glass Steagall is better than other regulatory schemes or even necessary with a comprehensive legislation but controlling big banks is a democratic goal.

6) Taking corporate money out of politics through a Constitutional Amendment.

Another democratic goal. Some hope that with a more liberal Supreme court Citizen's United will be overturned. I'd prefer a more broad ruling that corporations are not people and do not have the rights that a person has.

7) Cutting back military spending.

Another general goal of most of the democratic party.

8) Outlawing private prisons.

Private prison contribute to but are not the main source of the problem. The largest part of the problem is the criminal justice system. The racism in the system, it's focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation, and the lack of opportunities for paroles. Eliminating private prisons won't solve any of those problems and if we solve those problems it might not matter whether the prisons were privately run.

9) Legalizing marijuana.

Marijuana is on the way to being legalized. 20 years ago we could have used a revolution but now we can just let the process play out to reach the goal.

10) Banning fracking.

I suppose you could fight a revolution to ban fracking. I don't see it succeeding. To much to get into here but I don't support a ban on fracking.

I just don't see the Sanders revolution. I see democratic goals. If more people had voted in the midterms and democrats hadn't lost the house and the senate Obama would have made some progress in most of these areas.

More than that though is the idea of Sanders leading such a revolution. There's a paragraph from one of my favorite books that I think fits the so called Sanders revolution. From The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson.

The difference between ignorant and educated people is that the latter know more facts. But that has nothing to do with whether they are stupid or intelligent. The difference between stupid and intelligent people, and this is true whether or not they are well educated, is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. They are not baffled by ambiguous or even contradictory situations, in fact they expect them and are apt to become suspicious when things seem overly straightforward.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this quote. But it's an interesting hypothesis and it often fits with the way I think. One of the biggest problems I have with Sanders and his revolution is it's lack of subtlety. The lack of nuance in his policy proposals. His one way only policy proscriptions for each problem we face. The world I live in seems more complex than that.

There will be no single payer

There will be no free college, and Hillary is alread working on tuition relief

Glass-Steagall  - wont happen - look at the industry's changes and the reforms implemented.

There will be no amendment for "no corporate money in politics" - it's a pretty undemocratic blanket idea

Private prisons hold only 9% of prisoners, including only 6.x% of the larger state population that Bernie cant regulate. They grew because states and the fed couldnt handle numbers and costs of growing population, not to cause more.incarceration.  Additionally, maybe 70% of state prisoners are violent offenders, and almost all drug prisoners are there for dealing (or plea-bargained down to possession), with .3% for pot possession - these facts apply largely to federal level as welll, where pot possession only is .7% and usually a lesser plea. Since states are leading our pot legalization and medical marijuana efforts quite well, it's hard to see what pushing it at federal level will accomplish except give Washington types more room to grandstand about evils of derugs and marijuana dispensaries.

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/13/8913297/mass-incarceration-maps-charts

It should also be remembered that more attention to an issue is not necessarily good. Conservatives turned back Dont Ask Dont Tell to make it a honeypot attack rather than relief, while conservatives have focused on "protecting police just doing their jobs" post-Ferguson rather than reforming racist process and obvious police abuse like in Chicago.

>50% of oil and gas is pulled out via fracking. That ship has sailed, unless we find $10 trillion lying around unused, and banning it would give a huge competitive advantage to everyone from Canada, Norway, Holland, UK and Russia to Saudi Arabia, Venezuela Iran, et al. Economic suicide. A gun's faster and less painful.

Hal.

1.Good job of being specific.

2. Yes ,just as you say these are clearly stated objectives

3. No they are not arguments in favor of a Revolution. Nothing is. They are arguments for choosing the nominee who has the highest probability of achieving the largest percentage of these. BTW maybe that would be Bernie . If Hillary is indicted before the convention I think the super delegates ought to switch.