It's attractive to talk about free college, tax the rich, or even universal health care. The reality is to make those things happen require tough choices and sometimes to make these things happen seems almost impossible and in the long run seems more like a difficult maze. So with Stossel here he looks at the various arguments made in the name of Sen. Sanders.
To be honest in the Dem primaries of 2016, I voted for Sanders and primarily because I never relished Mrs. Clinton getting even close to the nomination which she did anyway that year. As a matter of fact in 2008, I voted for Barack Obama in the primaries of 2008 for roughly the same raen and as it turns out that WAS his year.
Would Sanders have been my vote in 2016? Probably not, his economic policies left a lot to be desired. It's great that you want to look after those left behind by the economy, but to help them you grow the economy not resort to taxation to grow the government. When you want free college or universal healthcare, you're growing the government and thus raising taxes.
While Sen. Sanders is the leftist populist answer to President Donald Trump and his right-wing populism (and I admire both for being able to connect with voters directly and amass a solid following) at the same time Sanders could just become another President Obama. Trump can say the economy is doing well under him as he cut regulations and cut taxes. It's hard to say what Obama has done for the economy especially with the auto maker bailouts for example - though feel free to correct me if this was more late Bush administration policy.
Though hopefully if Sanders did become President I hope he doesn't fall for the fallacy of too big to fail. And yes I'm sorry to say I have a solid Hillary Clinton bias and it has been there since she ran for US Senator from New York.