I honestly don't see Sanders and Clinton's policy as being too different from each other (And that might be me not knowing enough), from what we know so far. I'd rather wait until we get debates and solid stances from both candidates before pushing or backing one over the other.
On the $15 Minimum Wage:
Sanders: Unequivocally in favor of $15 minimum wage, and also wants to make it a living wage.
Clinton: Double speak. Told some protesters that she supported their fight for the $15, and when reporters tried to ask her if she was endorsing the $15 minimum wage, her campaign aide told them she wasn't endorsing the $15 minimum wage specifically, just the fight to get it.
On Health Care:
Sanders: Single Payor.
Clinton: Has not endorsed single payor. Evidence suggests she is open to it but is not willing to fight for it. In the 90s, two doctors approached her (as she was First Lady) and pitched single payor. She told them they had a convincing case but how are they to fight the millions of dollars the insurance companies would spent to lobby against it? The doctors said the President could lead the people. She said "Tell me something real."
On the Trans-Pacific Partnership:
Sanders: Unequivocally against it.
Clinton: Despite pushing it 45 times as Secretary of State, she now says she can't take a hard stance on it until she sees the final text, although she did say that Obama should address Pelosi's concerns about it.
On Breaking up the Banks:
Sanders: Unequivocally for it.
Clinton: Has said that Wall Street should be held accountable, but has not called for breaking up the banks.
On Free College Education:
Sanders: Unequivocally for it.
Clinton: Has not endorsed this idea, though she does say that college should be affordable.
On the Patriot Act / NSA surveillance:
Sanders: Wants the Patriot Act repealed or at least to majorly reform and the NSA curbed majorly.
Clinton: Has not endorsed either action although says the NSA should be more transparent and should act "lawfully."
Beyond that, there are other differences:
1) Clinton is better at messaging, assuming she is willing to get behind the message instead of equivocating.
2) Clinton's donors are Wall Street individuals. Sanders' are Union PACs, but the thing is, Union members donate to the PAC and the PAC donates to the candidate, so it's really union individuals where his money came from. A union member is not an "employee" of the union and therefore individuals that are part of a union (but don't work for the actual union) that choose give money will not be listed under the union.
3) Method of passing agenda. Clinton obviously has a record of compromise with Republicans. Sanders does too, despite public perception. But one major difference is that Sanders also intends on keeping the public involved, and using public pressure (demonstrations, marches, protests, etc) to get Republicans to give in.
4) For me personally, the biggest difference is Clinton's past presents consistency/sincerity issues:
Clinton only backed gay marriage in 2013, after the public opinion was in majority support. Sanders backed full gay rights since 1972.
Clinton as First Lady was a huge proponent of Tough on Crime policies, which escalated the same mass incarceration she is now saying she will fight. Tough on Crime started with Reagan and Bush Sr., and Hillary and Bill happily continued it.
Clinton's donors presents an issue with believing that she really intends on fighting money in politics.
Lastly, I want to add that even though there are articles out there claiming that presidents generally try to keep their promises, the methodology used to determine what constitutes and "attempt" is heavily flawed. Anyone can wait until the opposing party takes over Congress and then introduce a bill you know that will fail and then claim credit for trying to keep their promise. And even if their bill passes, it's the fine print (not literally fine print, just the legislation that goes unadvertised) that gets tacked on during committees that allows loopholes. How else do so many major companies pay next to nothing in corporate income tax? All the hard ways to detect corruption can't be fought with making politicians promise this or that. It has to be fought by voting out politicians that take money from Wall Street.
