1) Because they dislike HRC for her apparent dishonesty and her long-running history of being financed by Wall Street.

2) Because they are true believers in socialism and perceive Sanders to be the one carrying water honestly for the cause.

or

3) Because young people like underdogs.  This is a bigger thing than you may realize - I remember, in my voting-aged youth, I was always attracted to the conservative candidate that was considered an outsider/underdog, because I wanted to be part of something big.  Sanders is calling his campaign a "political revolution"...young people want to be part of a revolution because it makes their lives feel purposeful.

A foreigners perspective, but, yup. I think you nailed it on the head. It's about authenticity, what a breath of fresh air. He may be as hamstrung as any other president to make any real change but he's someone you can trust. Is there dirt on him?

Doc, you wanted to hear what is drawing college aged young folks to Sanders' campaign:

https://reason.com/blog/2016/02/05/new-hampshire-students-democratic-debate

I present it, not for the commentary from the author of the piece (it has an obvious political viewpoint), but for the quotes from the students at UNH that they interviewed.  I think it is representative of what most of the young people at my place of employment (a young, hungry start-up meteorology firm mostly populated by employees much younger than me) are saying about Sanders.

I just do not believe that this is the case, at least for the vast majority of legislators.  I've known more than my share (state and federal), still do, on both sides of the aisle, and I just don't find folks in those offices who are beholden enough to financial backers to do their nefarious bidding.  Even when I disagree with them, I'm not blaming it on some shadowy cabal.  It is a cheap trick for other candidates to do so and then say the lack of evidence highlights the mysterious power of that unseen cabal.  Amn, this is the Illuminati thing, brought forward into the modern age.

Hey, if you're a Republican you likely believe in such things as the 2nd Amendment (with reasonable limitations) and free market.  You likely vote, when the option arises, in a way that tends to supports those beliefs.  Why wouldn't you?  Folks who share those opinions are more likely to support you, both financially and with the vote.But that doesn't mean you've been bought.  It just doesn't work that way, generally.

Ditto for Democrats and the environmental lobby, trial lawyers and the abortion industry...and all their supporters. 

But elected officials have no less principle than you or I, and quite often have  more than some of the general hoi polloi.

It offends me when any candidate, Republican, Democrat or loony Socialist (tongue in cheek) levels that accusation against the entire congress then is unable to come up with even one specific example.

Democrats vote the Democratic line (often) because they are Democrats....not because George Soros pays them off.  Ditto the GOP and the Kochs.

I don't know why we expect congress to cross the aisle a whole bunch.  When they do, it often isn't the power of an idea but  the power of a personality (Oval Office/Speaker/Majority Leader) that gets them there.  

See Lyndon Johnson on the above.

The appeal of Bernie is the result of two things: 1) a general frustration with the establishment and 2) a specific disliking of Hillary. And yes, the establishment had no clue at how angry at it people are. That's why the establishment thought it could shove Jeb Bush down the Republican voters throat even though they don't want him at all.

Votes cast by Millennials (aged 30 and under):

1) Sanders (13,000)

2) Trump (6500)

3) Cruz (6000)

4) Rubio (5000)

5) Hillary (4000)

Pulled from an analysis done by Real Clear Politics yesteray.

Hillary has an ENORMOUS problem with millennials...if she is the nominee, their turnout will crater.

I'm with Moe on this. I've worked in political campaigns, covered state legislatures in three states, covered three presidential elections in the US, a few more in Asia, and just don't see the level of cynicism implied by the idea that politicians do everything for money. Some do, of course, but for the majority it is closer to the opposite. A Speaker of the House in a state legislature told me once that when he was first elected he had one goal: I have the truth and I came to deliver it.

Most politicians at least start at this end of the spectrum. They get tarnished a bit, some more than a bit, but most never go full bore the other way. They almost all end up somewhere in the middle; they do some things they feel they have to but generally act according to their beliefs not their polls. I worked for a guy one time who when he got poll results that didn't coincide with his beliefs would, rather than change his vote, fire the pollster. Most politicians genuinely care about their jobs and their country. I personally think George W. Bush was the worst president of my lifetime and the invasion of Iraq the worst foreign policy decision in American history, but I don't doubt for a second he was completely sincere and patriotic. 

A sidenote on Matt's numbers: He's absolutely right. Clinton lost 18 to 29 year old voters to Sanders by 84 to 13 percent. This would be a huge problem in November if she gets there.

And yes, Saunders' appeal is primarily not ideological but a sort of protest. The first three elections I was able to vote, I didn't vote for a presidential candidate who finshed higher than fourth. But, of course, I vote for losers. I'm a Mariner fan.

Every time congress votes on a piece of legislation these days, there's at least a 50% chance that that bill is over 500 pages long and that none of them have actually read it.  Why do they take the emotionally-charged positions that they take on a bill if they haven't read it and have no idea what it does?

Their lobbyist friends and their business contacts and their strategists are TELLING them what the bill does...and they're voting on THAT.  And that...is how Washington is bought and paid for.  Not because politicians aren't trying to vote their conscience...but because they have absolutely no idea what they're voting on.

When Ronald Reagan proposed a complete re-write of the tax code in 1986, his fellow Republican and head of the Senate tax-writing committee, Bob Packwood, responded: I kinda like the tax code just the way it is.

The tax code is used for a lot of things that have nothing to do with taxes. To help poor families, to promote alternative energy, to build bridges, to promote diversity, to grow food, etc., etc. That's a major reason why it's as ungainly as it is.  It's also true that it is filled sith special interest provisions protected by often just one US senator or powerful congressman. Many of these do benefit particular interests, often businesses who profit from them but also provide jobs for constituents of the representative protecting the provision. Scoop Jackson was not called the senator from Boeing for no reason. He protected Boeing jobs like a lion.

This does not, to be sure, result in a set of laws that are completely rational. Nor does it mean there ought not be reform. Just trying to explain why that reform is so hard to come by. I would bet that the military commands would cut at least a third of the Defense budget because it funds stuff they don't want or need. Take a look at the VTOL Osprey aircraft for example. It falls out of the sky with frightening regularity and has no obvious mission, but contracts to build it are spread across dozens of states.

Just as a point of information, Doc. The DNC and RNC have very little influence on presidential primary campaigns, especially so on who should or shouldn't run. Their primary ability is financial and they don't usually give money in primaries. They do have impact in setting the ground rules for primaries but even there their influence is muted by the states. They have much more impact on general election campaigns and on congressional races, where they can give a lot of money.

Modern individual presidential campaigns are pretty insular. They do more or less what they want and what they think will help them attract votes. Pretty sure the Obama campaign in 2008 looked at the DNC the way Apple looks at GM - future road kill.

I'm all for a Flat Tax on individuals with an elimination of all deductions.  Well, I think I might allow two to stay, but two becomes four becomes eight....and so on.

Such a tax is as simple as it gets.  But I have good friends, Democrats, who wish to "simplify" the code in a way that is way more progressive than the code we have today.  They also want certain deductions retained.  And they want to raise corporate taxes.

So what does "simplify" mean?  Everybody wants to "simplify," but the meaning of that term is where folks get hung up.  The devil is in the details.

Matt, I do agree with your point about the length of bills.  I also hate huge omnibus packages.  Were I to make one change to Congress, I would require that they have adopted a full fiscal year budget by the beginning of the fiscal year, or begin to forfeit pay proportionally. 

I hate this continuing resolution stuff.  

Sigh,

but we do get the congress we vote for.  Years ago some congressional observer noticed that we tend to think OUR Senators and Representatives are doing fine jobs, but it's the other guys/gals who are no good so-and-so's.  

Sigh, again.

As a first-time voter in 1968, I could not have been a more enthusiastic supporter of Gene McCarthy.  That also held true for ALL of my friends.  However you observe college/youth support for Bernie, think an order of magnitude higher back then.  It was astounding.

The commonality the two eras have is issue appeal, plain and simple.  Bernie woud have no more of less support (IMO) if he called himself a Martian rather than a socialist.   Even the young poly sci majors may not be able to define what socialism is.  It doesn't matter what he looks like, or how old he is.  

Back then, the Vietnam war threatened every young person.  They already knew many who had been drafted...some who had already come back physically or phsychologically damaged...and even some who never came back at all.  It was not uncommon.  We did not want our friends killed.  And we did not want to be killed.  Pretty simple.  Didn't matter what old men said about the threat of Communism and the domino theory...what they said about the nefarious nature of the North Vietnamese...what they said about America's role in the world.  Just leave us alone.

What is resonating now (as Vietnam did for McCarthy back then) is also the reality of what directly impacts Bernie's yound supporters. I can't imagine their reality--but I can hear them tell it.  What sense did it make to take on a six figure college debt when no one will hire them--at least at a rate that opens the reality of EVER paying back that amount?  Society tut-tuts at all the young millionaires on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley, while the other 98% are hitting brick walls.  Microsoft tells them, we won't hire you as an employee, but we might as a contractor--poof goes the health care and paid time off.  Boeing says we might hire you...but you're not going to get the same deal your Dad did--and by the way, we're shipping your job off to South Cariolina.  The government says, yeah, we will pay your Social Security (we hope)...but you're going to have to work a year or two longer to get it.  

Now, for all the rabid Hillary haters, there is a silver lining here.  When McCarthy did not win the nomination, many young people just went hope and sulked.  Humphrey wasn't our idea of a hero.  He was standing watching from the top floor penthouse of the Hilton Hotel on south Michigan Avenue while the police used night sticks to beat the heads of protestors below him.  

Will that kind of thing happen again?  Well, I don't think Bernie has a chance to win the nomination.  But Hillary has to make sure he winds up as her friend and endorser...and takes up his cudgel against Big Money.  The kids know the system is rigged, and she has to own that.  That's her path to victory.

i remember when this topic came up before on a long forgotten thread, and when Matt weighed in (as he has above), I found myself nodding my head and saying, "right!"  (No offense, Matt, but this doesn't happen that often! :)  )

I can not recommend strongly enough a new book called Dark Money by Jane Mayer.  I think conservatives may look at the book jacket at first glance and say, "oh yeah, Koch brothers again, whatever...".  But I'm thinking maybe both Matt and I would strongly endorse it? 

It really is an outstanding history book in its own right.  I'm only half way through, so I can't give any final conclusions.  Maybe some would say it was just left wing propaganda (although at this point it seems entirely non-partisan and non-screechy.) But I can't imagine anyone reading it and not feeling substantially more educated on how money influences politics in America.  

Three thumbs up (as if that were possible...)