The most diverse states have voted for Clinton

[KitSileya]

50. Well, if you're read my post number 17, you'd see I didn't disregard Hawai'i.

As for policy issues? Yes, I am proud to be associated with many of Hillary's issues. You might not know it, but I live in Norway. Now, Sanders has used Denmark as his example of a Scandinavian country he wants the US to become more alike, but I'll use Norway as my example. After all, Norway has been ranked as the best country to live in several years running.

Let's take the two heaviest hitters - health care and education. In Norway, we have universal health care. That means that all individuals have health coverage, and insurance companies have no say in most medical decisions.I have used that system several times, and am very satisfied. How can I square that with Hillary's position, which is for defending ACA and gradually making it universal coverage and cracking down on drug prices? I do that because I realize that the Norwegian health care system cannot be implemented in the US over night. It cannot. That would mean the federal government buying all the hospitals and staffing them. It would mean lifting all political health care decisions to the federal level. Single payer is something Hillary fought for in the 90s, and I think that makes her a better judge on whether it is possible to get in the US today. In Vermont, it failed. Using the ACA as a basis is the way to go, because if you toss that out and try to implement a totally new system, it will create mayhem.

The same with education. In Norway, college is practically free, regardless where in the country you go. I am currently taking a 200-level class in Nordic literature (about half a semester's worth of credits) alongside work and it cost me less than $85. There are some private colleges, mostly for business school, but the state system has equally good alternatives for that. Hillary wants the same thing for public colleges. She wants to make in-state tuition free, and make out-state tuition dependent on family earnings. To get the Norwegian system, you have to raise college education to the federal level, and make all universities federally owned. That's isn't feasible.

Climate change? Norway is 100% self-supplied with clean energy in the form of hydroelectricity. However, since the electricity companies are independent companies, even though the state owns large parts of them, we end up using electricity from dirty coal, because the companies sell clean energy to Europe at a profit in peak seasons, and buy dirty energy from the UK in off-seasons. Not to mention the oil we sell - it's not clean, now is it. Yes, the profits go to the Norwegian people, but that's because the oil industry is nationalized. Do you think it is possible to nationalize all coal, oil, and fracking companies in the US? I don't, so I think Hillary's position of cutting emissions and investing in clean energy is smart.

A lot of what Sanders promises isn't possible to do in the time frame he promises simply because the US is divided into 50 states. Norway is like one state - Vermont is probably the state that is most similar to Norway. Small population, not very diverse, big advantages from that lack of diversity. When the US gets rid of states' rights, and the federal election system of first-past-the-post, then we can start talking. Until then, Bernie wants mostly the same things as Hillary, but Hillary has a more realistic approach to getting them.