I was all-in for Obama back in '08 despite being unable to vote then (old enough to have watched and understood all the crap from Bush's presidency and know I wanted change, but still young enough to have that fervent idealism). After watching how the events of the past ~9 years have played out (i.e. since Obama first launched) and following/studying politics way more than any person should need to, I've come to identify as a liberal second but a pragmatist first. I will take liberal policies and political strategies over conservative ones any day of the week, but I want them to be liberal policies/strategies that are well-devised and can actually work... and at the end of the day, I would rather have a well-functioning country that keeps the status quo than a country that tries to make a dramatic shift to the left and fails miserably in the process. Clinton can deliver on this, Sanders cannot.

In terms of policy, I'm not against plans that are "more liberal", I'm against plans that are bullshit. While I don't expect either candidate to get their policy beyond the GOP House, Clinton's proposals are at least realistic and demonstrate her understanding that change in the U.S. exists almost exclusively in the form of incrementalism, whereas Sanders' are not only pie-in-the-sky baloney but could legitimately have serious negative consequences if enacted. Planning to require health insurance coverage to allow three sick visits per year, limiting out-of-pocket costs, and providing some tax credits towards such is real progress that makes sense and doesn't really "rock the boat"; planning to nuke that whole sector as we know it and replace it with something whose plan severely overestimates coverage and underestimates costs is an awful idea. Making college education more affordable and student loans easier to pay off (while still generally requiring people to make solid contributions to pay for it while attending) makes sense; promising that it will be made "free" is bullshit and the FTT that would pay for it will cause far more damage than student loans do. Raising the federal minimum wage makes sense; ignoring regional differences in cost-of-living and raising it to $15 everywhere does not. Sanders' platform is like the equivalent of promising everyone a horse, but omitting to say the horses will be provided by stripping them all away from the crop fields they help plow to grow our food (not to mention there aren't even enough horses anyway). It all sounds nice on paper but it's incredibly short-sighted.

Disregarding policy, along with the obvious fact that Clinton simply is far more prepared to deal with foreign affairs, I simply believe Clinton will be a far more effective leader in the government than Sanders could ever hope to be. Has Clinton changed stances over the years? Sure. Can she be pretty damn shady? Sure. Is she head-deep in the "establishment"? Sure. But at the end of the day when things need to get done, I see her pulling the strings and using the connections and making the backroom deals to accomplish it. Sanders may be much more "honest" and hold true to his ideology, but that doesn't help make an effective president. Pretty early on in 2017 we'll be looking at another budget/debt ceiling battle. I see Clinton wheeling and dealing with the GOP and solidifying something that works and can be voted through; it'll be kinda ugly, there will be some unpalatable stuff that makes it through, but ultimately she'll keep the wheels on the country rolling. I see Sanders digging in his heels and refusing to compromise on his values, either sending us into a shutdown or having to be overridden by a bipartisan gang of congressmen/senators who will effectively castrate the remainder of his presidency. Furthermore in this regard, I think the GOP knows that even the Dems won't fall in line behind Sanders and therefore isn't particularly afraid of dealing with (more accurately, dominating) him. On the other hand they are scared shitless of Clinton... partially because she has hoards of allies, partially because she can wheel and deal and retain the power position, and—if that October Benghazi hearing was any indicator—she won't take their shit and isn't afraid to slap them down and make them look like fools.

Overall Clinton simply has a far higher "Do/Say" ratio than Sanders, and that's what really matters. Sanders' modus operandi largely is just to point fingers and yell at problems, but do none of the work to solve those problems or even come up with solutions. Clinton has nearly the whole Democratic Party behind her and can already start on day one with plenty of allies, not to mention she's raised >$18m for downticket races to support the chances of winning back the Senate (or who knows, perhaps even a longshot chance at the House). Sanders doesn't really have any allies and claims that he needs a "political revolution" to vote in progressive majorities, yet he hasn't raised a dime for anyone besides himself and hasn't even endorsed progressive Dems... rather, he spends his time railing against the "establishment" whose support he would need in the first place! Once the crisis in Flint came into spotlight, Sanders spent his time on TV calling on Snyder to resign; Snyder pretty much just says "lolno" and Sanders' "influence" is spent and over. Clinton spent her time on TV calling on Snyder to accept federal emergency funds (which he stupidly hadn't), which he then does within a matter of hours, and also sent some of her aides to Flint to assist the mayor in getting the help she needed. Putting yourself in the spotlight and making the news for "saying what everybody is thinking" is a nice and pretty gesture of populism, but it doesn't do jack to help anybody. Clinton doesn't focus her time on telling people what they want to hear (and in the process can come off as distant and shady), but at least she does stuff to help.