I don't know if all of Bernie's supporters believe that he can deliver on his promises, but I expect many do. Frankly if I thought he could I would probably be supporting him.

kdog: "Actually[,] many believe there are two who were in a position to run who could lead us to a more promised economic land...Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. [...] On the flip, are you saying there are many who could lead the moderate pragmatic revolution (brought to you by Acme Corp.)?  When I've called Hillary a boiler-plate Dem I've been told how unique and special she is, not like those other bums."

You're wasting your time looking for one in either Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren -- and Sen. Warren, at least, would likely not hesitate to tell you so. You really ought to start looking for the good in all of our candidates, rather than focus inordinately upon whatever you perceive Mrs. Clinton's faults to be. Otherwise, you risk revealing yourself to be nothing more than a boiler-plate cynic.

All it will do is piss off said Bros as the same thing in 2008 pissed off said  Hos, and we remain in our circular firing squad.

When we were young we were like this. White middle class males will be particularly aggressive and entitled (as opposed to PUMAs who seemed more older and weary) but it is what it is.

"I want to thank everyone who voted for me, and apologize to everyone else for making your Facebook feeds so, so annoying. I mean, I love my supporters, but they're too much, right? I'm great, but I'm not five posts a day great! With all due respect to my supporters -- get a life!"

I wrote last week that Bernie Sanders's campaign had changed my mind and convinced me that he is right to set tuition-free college at public universities as the goal for higher education policy.

But I also noted that I wasn't sold on the implementation details of his plan, and that in my experience Sanders enthusiasts were not especially aware of the content of his plan.

Big-picture principles are important, but implementation is important too. It's worth reading Sanders's actual plan, since not only is there a lot of nitpicking one could do but there's also an enormous glaring flaw. It pretty clearly wouldn't achieve its goal of making the United States a country where students pay zero tuition to attend public colleges.

This matters because it's not so much a design flaw as a concession to some practical realities that Sanders doesn't admit to on the campaign trail -- realities that his supporters would be well-advised to pay more attention to.

So even if the idea of free college is exciting, there are a lot of reasons to doubt it would ever happen.

Sanders's own summary of his College for All Act makes it pretty clear that the act would not, in practice, eliminate college tuition. What it would do instead is offer federal matching funds on a 2-to-1 basis to states that want to increase higher education spending in order to eliminate tuition:

This legislation would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public colleges and universities.

Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost.

To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition, colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.