That’s not even really the point though. Economically speaking, Obama and Clinton are vastly different. Reagan’s view of government and his desire for acceptable tax rates have repeatedly denied and refused by Obama and Clinton wants to continue the Obama legacy on those matters and others. Don’t even get me started on what Reagan would think about the ACA.
A bit melodramatic of a death scene I must say.
THAT SAID, 
Yes, work on state legislatures! And congressional seats! Build an actual movement.
And meanwhile appreciate what Bernie, assuming he loses, has accomplished. It is not insignificant. He has shifted the Overton window some. “Socialist” is not quite as toxic as it was and the EU models of social democracy are much more acceptable as part of the Democratic conversation. Hillary has overtly endorsed quite a few progressive concepts. Assuming she wins the nomination then work to get her in and work with Bernie to holding her to it, and to enabling them to happen despite an obstructionist Congress. Is the Progressive movement a cult of personality? Does the revolution of which Sanders speaks, people marching on Washington, phoning their Congressional representatives, require him in the White House?
No question that the final destination you want to get to and the one I want to get to are not the exact same spot. But they are right now in the same direction.
I readily admit that I perceive many Sanders supporters as self-serving privileged White Millennials a bit panicked that the system is no longer rigged in a way that includes them. Now it’s important to address it and to do it all right away. And if what is to be done does not give them all of what they want now then they don’t particularly care what happens to all the various others who have been dealing a system rigged against them forever.
Maybe I am wrong, but then I hear Sanders supporter wishing Trump or Rubio or Cruz upon us …
Well, it’s the fiscal issue, or “economic realities re: taxation and the social safety net” to which I refer. Clintonism is really squishy on that stuff. I think the party would be stronger with a more New Dealer stance on poverty & labor economics.
Reagan had good points personally, outside his fiscal fantasies. (Well, a couple of good points; he had a lot of other issues he got wrong, too.) I can see what you mean.
Fair enough. The DLC Dems haven’t completely embraced supply-side economics yet. That said, they do tend toward a political economy of bubble creation, with low wages. Getting Hillary to support even a $12 minimum wage was like pulling teeth.
Obama and Clinton? Typo?
This does not jive at all with my memory – what I recall is that the Clintons, and the Democratic party in general, have been in favor of raising the minimum wage for a long time.
When the labor movement is saying 15, someone who says 12 is lagging. Can you tell me her reason for that?
She might have concluded 12 is a more appropriate number. I don’t know – I just recall that the Clintons, and the party in general, has favored raising the minimum wage (if sometimes disagreeing on the best target value) for a long time.
Presumably, for those in favor of raising the minimum wage, there’s an ideal minimum wage – one that does the best job of balancing any potential discouragement for businesses to hire while also providing a decent living wage for workers. I don’t know if 12 or 15 or some other number best balances this.
Planet Money assembled something like 25 economists from across the spectrum to judge various presidential candidates’ proposals, and IIRC they couldn’t find any who supported a $15 minimum wage. I think around half of them were for a minimum wage higher than the one we have now, but not that high.