He wants to reduce the risk of global economic recessions (like we had in 2008) due to high risk trading by huge banks that don't separate consumer products from high risk investment portfolios; he wants to do this by re-introducing tighter regulations, as well as breaking up the big banks into consumer and investment banks.
He wants to reduce the cost of healthcare by introducing a single payer healthcare system, a system which across the globe proves that when implemented properly (i.e. not like Obama-care) leads to lower healthcare costs for everyone.
He wants to bring back more power the the electorate by taking money, lobbying and corruption out of politics
He wants to bring more and better paying manufacturing jobs back to the US by doing away with foreign trade agreements, ensuring that US manufactured goods can effectively compete with goods manufactured in low-wage countries.
He wants to increase US' competitiveness in higher educated professions by making public college tuition free.
He wants to increase the number of jobs in construction, building, etc... by fixing America's crumbling infrastructure.
He wants to redistribute some of the wealth in the US from the top 1% to the middle class and richest corporations by closing tax loopholes and reducing corporate subsidies on the one hand; by partially lifting the cap on taxable income and raising capital gains taxing to the level of income taxes for the rich (to counteract the "having money makes more free money" syndrome). Although to MisterID's point it's not like he is against rich people or the more affluent, he simply wants them to cary their proportionate share of the burden.

All of the above are policies that when implemented would have a positive impact for the broader American middle-class. Based on polling for each of these individual policies, the US population is overwhelmingly supportive of Bernie's economic platform (with most policies easily scoring favorability ratings of more than 65%). Whatever you do, don't believe the bullshit claims that he's going to tax the middle-class up to 90%. The highest income tax bracket in his tax plan is 54.2% on all yearly income above $10.000.000. Everything up to (roughly) $200.000 is subject to a relatively moderate 30.2%.

There is probably more room for debate on his social and ethical policies. His morales and ethics are (like all democrats) very liberal, being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc... Although he does seem to favor gun ownership more than any other democrat. He is very much in favor of personal freedom and liberties, as well as freedom of speech and privacy. His moral compass seems to be derived from a deep feeling of empathy for his fellow people, instead of being a moral code derived from a specific religion or religious denomination.

The rest of your post is thoughtful enough, although I don't agree with some of the statements I would with others. This here though, is plain nonsense. Greece failed because of corruption within the government, not because of an ideology. Greece failed because of pandering by the government to special interest groups, which is exactly the same reason why America pushed the world into a deep recession in 2008. No 'system' is going to hold up under a deeply corrupt government, from communism over socialism to capitalism and anything in between.

Agreed, and that is exactly what Bernie is proposing.

It's unlikely that public colleges will ever be able to compete with private ivy league style schools. When socialist countries talk about helping people out, it is by providing the bare minimum, the basics. A public college education beats the hell out of no higher education, and wouldn't be a drop in the bucket that is the overall budget.

Although I'm all in favor of lowering income taxes, what you actually NEED is to increase the buying power, which can be achieved by other means as well. Such as abolishing student debt and super-expensive private healthcare.

That's a matter of trade policies, not taxation.

I agree with all of this, so we both seem to be saying we need more regulation on Wall Street. As long as the big banks can buy out politicians, nothing will change though. Sounds like you need to vote for Bernie...

This! And the only way to change this is through regulation, you can't expect the free market to protect the less informed.

I hate these Alex Jones-style nutjob conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, but the result of the coin tosses are not inconsequential, they are the difference between a narrow victory and a narrow loss. PR-wise, that's a world of difference. It is very clear that the Hillary reps did every small thing they could to skew the results in her favor, but that's par for the course in an asinine, old-fashioned voting system like a caucus. It's nothing illegal, but it is plain retarded.

I think the real story here is how Trump's numbers are so far off from his polling averages. Makes me think that either (1) instead of a silent majority, Trump voters are more of a vocal minority than people are ready to accept (although admittedly, his numbers are probably too high to use the term 'minority') or (2) his voters just don't care enough to show up. If someone is really as angry with the establishment as is being said about Trump voters, those two to four hours needed to participate in a caucus shouldn't be a problem. Trump supporters should be worried and probably take more responsibility and go out and actually fucking vote if they want him to stand a chance. If this discrepancy repeats itself in the upcoming states, he's a goner.

On the Democrats' side, Bernie basically matched or slightly beat his poll numbers. It's going to be tough, but a landslide victory in NH and a strong showing in SC might give Bernie's candidacy the wings that it needs to sway the southern states in his favor. And now that O'Malley is out, he'll be picking up some of those anti-Hillary votes as well.

I'm hoping Bernie is going to take it, but he might have needed a bigger upset in Iowa.