Regarding the first point, how likely is it that Clinton can implement her key policies?<p>Because if they are equally likely, then which is the more real, incremental progress?<p>I find this topic of &quot;idealism&quot; rather curious, because it carries with it the idea of impractical. It feels like it&#x27;s used as a slur against Sanders, so without looking at either candidate&#x27;s platform, which of the following are &quot;idealism&quot; and which are &quot;real, incremental progress&quot;?<p><pre><code>  1) targeting the shadow banking sector
  2) cut the red tape holding small businesses back
  3) invest $1 trillion over five years to modernize our infrastructure
  4) 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave
  5) Expand support for young and beginning farmers
  6) Secure affordable treatment for people living with HIV and AIDS
  7) Restore Glass-Steagall
  8) Keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other
        violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill
  9) Cap credit card interest rates at 15%.
  10) Ensure that every 4-year-old in America has access to high-quality
        preschool in the next 10 years
  11) Stop the Federal government from making a profit on student loans
  12) Ensure no student has to borrow to pay for tuition, books, or fees to
        attend a four-year public college in their state
  13) End the era of mass incarceration, reform mandatory
        minimum sentences, and end private prisons
  14) Impose a tax on high-frequency trading
  15) Increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020.
</code></pre>
If you consider some of Clinton&#x27;s proposals idealistic, does that mean she is sacrificing the chance for real, incremental progress?<p>Unless you think that none of Clinton&#x27;s proposals are idealistic, what&#x27;s an appropriate balance between proposals with a chance of &#x27;real, incremental progress&#x27; vs. those which are idealistic?<p>Otherwise it seems like &quot;idealism&quot; is a code phrase for something else.