Hillary is more of a centrist than a liberal. Sanders has pulled her to the left in the primary, but primary speeches mean nothing. She'll likely govern in a manner similar to Bill, by waiting to see what the polls say before acting.
Isn't that pretty much all of them?
I'd argue that Sanders doesn't fit, though I will admit bias. I would recommend checking him out and then remembering to vote in the primaries AND the midterms.
Though you're free to make your own choice if his views fit yours or not, I would give the following argument. We have a voter turnout problem in the country. Young people don't vote, burned out and disillusioned by a gerrymandered system and politicians who "play the game" and make it a job rather than a service. Old people vote in mass and lockstep with their parties. For the longest time, this has skewed things rightward towards the aging conservative population.
Right now, there is an excited youthful base all set up for Sanders. Hillary meanwhile is more status quo, she'll probably be ok, but it's more of the same. If Hillary wins the primary, do you think the energized base who have been asking for "actual hope and change this time" will suddenly drop that and vote for her? Some of them will, sure, will vote out of fear to keep the GOP out. But some of them, I'd argue a lot of them, will not vote out of disillusionment again since "Hillary is inevitable" has been chanted in our ears since 2008. And because Sanders has drawn independants and even some moderate republicans who respect his integrity and are disgusted by the state of the GOP, some of them may decide to go accelerationist and vote for the craziest guy in hopes for massive backlash in 2020. While I don't agree with that logic, I know it exists, and I have to consider it. Just remember, high voter turnout is good! Not only is it good for democracy to work in the first place, also remember that when voter turnout is high, Dems win. When it's low... Republicans win. Just look at 2014 midterms. That was a trainwreck.
