I have a degree in economics. Just undergrad and my own continuing education which consists of reading at least one econ paper a week and hanging out in econ communities with working and published economists. This is only really enough education to realize how deeply complex economics is and how much I don't know about the subject. However I greatly respect economists and economic consensus. I support Hillary Clinton because her economic platform was crafted by qualified economic advisors and the majority of what she proposes is well within economic consensus. The majority of what Trump and Sanders have proposed falls far outside of economic consensus.
In general I support most of Bernie's goals, but he is picking terrible proposals to attempt to achieve those goals. For instance, in regards to financial his proposed solution is to create a list of too big to fail banks and then do... something with it. Well there is already a government maintained list of TBTF banks, showing he is either just spouting rhetoric or he hasn't done any real research on the implementation of his proposal. On the other hand, Hillary has proposed creating a host of regulations on shadow banking, which is a much bigger issue when it comes to preventing 2008 style financial meltdowns.
Now lets look at his platform from here. Please keep in mind that I am not trying to change your view on Bernie's policies, but am trying to change your view that Clinton supporters don't know what they are talking about and haven't done their research.
Where possible ill use the IGM panel to show where consensus stands on issues, where that is not possible ill try to explain what consensus looks like (or indeed if its lacking).
Rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure.
The US has somewhat under-invested in infrastructure (perhaps mis-invested is a better phrase, the amount of spending we should have been doing is likely around what we have been spending, we have just been spending it on the wrong things) but this problem is overstated significantly, particularly by those using the "crumbling infrastructure" phrase.
ASCE use the DOT's red list as the basis of their analysis (not to mention the analysis itself its not impartial given who they represent) which largely relies on a misunderstanding on what the phrase "structurally deficient" means. While its interpreted as "dangerous" it simply means "does not meet current construction standards", in many cases (almost all bridges that appear on the list) this is simply that the infrastructure was built prior to an increase in construction standards. Most of the items that appear on the DOT red list offer no value to replace, they are servicable infrastructure which will continue to function safely until the end of their operational windows.
IGM have asked the infrastructure question twice, here and here, and both times the results were very similar both times; there are some high multiplier projects available to congress but congress have trouble figuring out what a useful infrastructure project actually is.
Addressing Climate Change
No meat on these proposals but this is not a contentious issue among economists (unfortunately IGM have only addressed this indirectly here and here). You use a Pigouvian tax, you impose it as an excise tax on production & import of goods and that's it (paper dealing with the various policies available here). Direct subsidies (EG additional public spending for green energy) are unnecessary, inefficient and and tend to be externality generating themselves. Correcting the pricing of carbon is mostly sufficient to deal with this issue.
The only additional policy we should consider is reworking regulatory burden on non-FF energy sources as some (notably nuclear) almost certainly have a regulatory burden much higher then is required to meet public safety concerns.
Real Tax Reform
Lots of problems in here;
There is nothing close to consensus that income inequality is actually increasing in the US (see this), CPS doesn't accurately measure incomes, CPI doesn't accurately measure inflation across all income groups and as such a straight gini on real incomes results in inequality growth only through data bias (more discussion of this here). Even if it was there is nothing close to consensus that its actually an issue that would need addressing, its not clear there are any negative economic outcomes that result from inequality in advanced economies.
Corporation taxes consensus absolutely does exist that they are terrible, they are paid by neither corporations nor the wealthy (long-run labor is responsible for the majority) and they are extremely distortionary; in the case of the US distortionary cost is well in excess of revenue. Eliminating them entirely would result in wage growth and other desirable improvements, the revenue could be offset by a small tweak in the top rate of income tax.
A good tax proposal which Sanders would never support would be the X-Tax system discussed in here. The problem with having strong opinions about how specific taxes function is that people tend to be unwilling to consider they may be mistaken.
Protecting the Most Vulnerable Americans
Also lots of problems in here.
On the poverty issue I have no idea if the US has the highest rate of poverty in the world and neither does anyone else, no one actually measures real poverty as their official poverty measure and everyone measures it differently (EG US uses a basket of groceries from 1955 indexed to CPI-U, much of the rest of the world uses a function of median income). We do know that real poverty is declining in the US, more should absolutely be done but i'm not sure arguing from the false starting point that the US has the highest rates of poverty in the world is particularly useful.
Social Security desperately needs replacing with something else. Most countries migrated to multi-tiered system decades ago where they combine a means tested public pension system to ensure an income floor exists for retirees with mandatory retirement savings. There are lots of designs which would work well, Australia started migrating to such a system in the 90's which is particularly interesting.
Ill address Medicare/aid in a later point.
For the more generalized poverty point while there are certainly programs which should continue to exist consensus on poverty management is very much we should replace all current forms of cash transfer with an NIT, this is something that has been evident since the 60's.
Health Care as a Right For All
Now in to my area and most of his points here are either incorrect or misrepresenting reality.
On the spending side the absolute amount or the PC amount are largely red herrings, estimates for the US "premium" stand at between 20 and 30 percent, are largely unchanged over the last generation (almost all the increase in cost is technology related) and its causes (and solutions) are typically misunderstood.
On the outcomes side its largely impossible to directly compare countries as once you reach the advanced economy point health outcomes will be modified by lifestyle factors much more strongly then they will be health efficacy. Some very limited useful comparisons have been made which suggest the US may do well if we could actually control for the lifestyle bias effect.
The US pays the most PC for drugs because we consume the most drugs, on a per-drug-unit basis both Germany & Japan are comparable in cost to the US (US is slightly higher then both for on-patent drugs, us is slightly lower then Germany for generic drugs and much lower then Japan for generics). One of the ways we end up paying more is that we don't limit the drugs available to physicians like other countries do, some drugs available in the US don't meet cost/efficacy standards elsewhere and as such are only available in the US.
The form of single-payer which is possible in the US (insurance) would do very little to deal with the inefficiencies inherent in the system, would likely increase the cost of healthcare and more generally doesn't make sense. Most of the world uses multi-payer universal systems because they lend more flexibility to healthcare and don't compromise health outcomes in the name of cost performance. A meaningful reform package would be to replace the entire system with a German style MP insurance model, no more Medicare/aid.