I think the idea that Clinton would be able to get signficantly more done is an interesting one. It’s not clear that it’s true, Mike Caulfield; as Christopher D. Cook argues here - http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-pragmatic-case-for-bernie-sanders/462720/?utm_source=SFTwitter - it’s not as if more centrist Democrats aren’t *also* opposed by Republicans at almost every turn. If either candidate can only achieve a fraction of their programme in government, as seems likely either way, isn’t it better to choose the one for whom that doesn’t amount to so much of a compromise on a compromise?
As for the idea that Sanders doesn’t understand how politics works outside of Vermont, that really doesn’t stack up. The man’s been in the House of Representative for 16 of the last 26 years and in the Senate for the other 10, and he has a long history of working with politicians from both of the big parties to get things done, as well as people outside of the formal power structures —and I think that’s important.