First politician evah to promise more than he can deliver? Oh, noes!
There are complaints from credible sources that Sanders economic proposals are over-optimistic, and not just from a few cranks. They probably are, but, hey, if you ask for a pony you just might get something good, even if you don't get a pony.
Look at what the other candidates will deliver. Clinton, we may reasonably expect to deliver war and nothing on employment, health care, and housing. The Republicans will deliver even more wars, a police state, and an economic collapse or else military Keynesianism. I'll take a Sanders compromise any day, though I will admit that Clinton is likely to fight the good fight for women's rights and against the radical right, which she has every reason to hate. Still, I don't want to vote for a candidate who defends that war criminal Kissinger. Is there no point at which the lesser evil is too evil to abide?
Lawrence Summers thinks we are in a prolonged period of low growth and high unemployment — what economists call "secular stagnation" — is real and advocates fiscal policy to fight it. This major mainstream economist is now advocating redistribution as policy.
Returning to the subject at hand, which of the Presidential candidates is most likely to support non-military fiscal policy as a response to secular stagnation?
(Adapted from my remarks in comments at Balloon Juice.)