3.  I really don't think it's plausible that BOTH major parties would implode at the same time in the way you're suggesting.  More likely one would go, leaving the other temporarily strengthened by filling some of the power vacuum and one or more third parties growing to real national importance (or a new one springing up) to fill the rest.  Possibly after that shook out the other one might also collapse but I don't see them both collapsing within a decade of each other. 

4.  How does that 11% number compare with similar polls done in the past?  In other words, is this really such a remarkable number of people claiming support for Libertarians or is it "the Ron Paul effect" (vocal minority disproportionately represented by polling method or otherwise evaporating by election day)?  This is an honest question because I don't know. 

5.  I do agree that there are such forces at work influencing the President's policymaking but saying they tend to lean that way once in office doesn't mean they all end up at the same place.  In other words, where they started affects where they end up.  I disagree that Obama and Bush acted in exactly or substantially the same way, while I agree that it was too close to being so. 

6.  I think that local RCV methods being implemented (which they have been in various places) produces public acceptance, and obviously proves its practicality, leading to increased ability to pressure for it at higher levels.  I would love to implement it nationally without having to do a patient bottom-up campaign but I don't see it as a practical possibility.  I would love to see myself proven wrong. 

This is not the sole reason why physicians make as much as they do. A physician makes more money because: The supply of doctors with respect to their demand is much lower than that of manufacturers. Why?

Because of Trade Deals which opened the floodgates in terms of supply of manufacturing workers but not doctors.

Mostly because becoming a doctor takes at least 8 years of education, and often doctors end up with 100k -200k in student loan debt. Additionally doctors have to pay malpractice fees, and it just isn't easy to become a doctor overall. We know the supply is low because many doctors work 24-48 hours shifts.

The supply of doctors is certainly lower than it should be, this leads to a tigher labor market, and thus more quickly growing wages. Add that to the problem of the cost of higher education rising and that does explain a lot of their wage. 

In order to become a doctor, you need to be intelligent and dedicated to studying, which most people aren't in that way. You also need to do well on tests and maintain an almost perfect GPA in high school, undergraduate, and medical school. Manufacturering jobs on the otherhand can be done by many different types of people, and the cost of entry is low (low enough that employer's train people rather than making them pay for school.) There are fewer regulations on the manufacturers as well, and just fewer natural limitations overall. 

This does not mean that manufacturers don't work as hard, if not harder, than a doctor. Wages are not determined by how hard you work though. I can dig 100 ditches in a day and fill them up. That doesn't mean I should be paid for it. They are determined by the value your work provides others (which is assessed subjectively by them.) While I do agree that some protectionist laws have made it harder for foreign doctors to come to the U.S and compete, I doubt the substantial portion of the $200,000 a physician makes is due to the relatively miniscule supply constraint caused by this.

You call it a minimal supply restraint but then go on to cite those same restraints:

A lot more has to do with the U.S government and private medical licensing authorities requiring much more skill and qualifications from their doctors than those abroad. This is mostly out of fear of law suits, but also because Americans demand it, due to safety. The equivalent scenario in the car industry would be to say that American cars are better than foreign cars, but that is something in dispute. 

Let's be clear, Average American Joes do not lobby congress and the president to maintain protections for doctors and lawyers, their representative industry groups do this. The two positives to be had in such a policy is more highly trained doctors and higher wages for those doctors, the negatives are fewer doctors overall, less treatment overall (because those high wages mean high costs for consumers of healthcare), and a growing of the gap between the doctors and lawayers and everyone else.

As for Bernie not supporting tarriffs, I can see how he doesn't support the large free trade bills that do much more than open markets, but specific bills like the following I really don't understand why he'd oppose.  Also I will admit it was Hillary who supports the exit taxes, and Bernie didn't say he supported them specifically, but I can definitely see him getting behind it from what he said about tax inversion. 

http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Bernie_Sanders_Free_Trade.htm

Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement.

Vote to pass a bill that would put into effect a trade agreement between the United States and Singapore. The trade agreement would reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the United States and Singapore. The agreement would remove tariffs on goods and duties on textiles, and open markets for services The agreement would also establish intellectual property, environmental and labor standards.

Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile.

United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act: Vote to pass a bill that would put into effect a trade agreement between the US and Chile. The agreement would reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the US and Chile. The trade pact would decrease duties and tariffs on agricultural and textile products. It would also open markets for services. The trade pact would establish intellectual property safeguards and would call for enforcement of environmental and labor standards.

and he signed a bill to impose tariffs on countries who manipulate currency, which is practically every country (yes, including the U.S.) 

Impose tariffs against countries which manipulate currency.

Sanders signed Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act

• Amends the Tariff Act of 1930 to include as a "countervailable subsidy" requiring action under a countervailing duty or antidumping duty proceeding the benefit conferred on merchandise imported into the US from foreign countries with fundamentally undervalued currency.
• Defines "benefit conferred" as the difference between:
  1. the amount of currency provided by a foreign country in which the subject merchandise is produced; and
  2. the amount of currency such country would have provided if the real effective exchange rate of its currency were not fundamentally undervalued.
• Determines that the currency of a foreign country is fundamentally undervalued if for an 18-month period:
  1. the government of the country engages in protracted, large-scale intervention in one or more foreign exchange markets
  2. the country's real effective exchange rate is undervalued by at least 5%
  3. the country has experienced significant and persistent global current account surpluses; and

the country's government has foreign asset reserves exceeding the amount necessary to repay all its debt obligations.

Q: So what does Bernie propose we do?

A: Instead of passing such trade deals again and again, Bernie argues we must "develop trade policies which demand that American corporations create jobs here, and not abroad."

Also I find quotes like this quite non-progressive. Bernie is very progressive when it comes to the United States, but he doesn't want people in China to come out of poverty if it means the American domestic largesse can't grow further. That is probably one of greatest things about free trade. It allows people all over the world to become as wealthy as people in the U.S. The other great thing about free-trade is that it creates international peace because the countries have entangled interests. If I attack you, I lose a lot. Sorry, the quotes above are indeed protectionist. I don't see how you can distort that to he supports "free-trade" more than other people in politics on the right. 

Notice the last part of the quote, " in practice, it's a lot more difficult to distinguish one from the other.  While this doesn’t necessarily mean we should disregard currency manipulation as a meaningful concept, it does highlight some of the more biased views that are only recognized when some other country is doing the manipulating" 

I think that describes it pretty well. Whose to say China is even consciously undervaluing its currency, while the U.S is not distorting its for other reasons (maintaining its status as the world reserve currency is beneficial to U.S's oil escapades)? Certainly it can be a side-effect of their monetary policy. And honestly, you mention it as a "beggar-thy-neighbor" policy as if the U.S has never done anything that comes close to "beggar-thy-neighbor." (see: post Great-Depression.) Although I guess it doesn't have to today, because it outright invades countries and ignites coups to enhance its interests. If every country installed tariffs because  they perceived the other as playing unfairly, we'd be living in a new age of mercantilism (and consequently warfarism.)  

This last line is flatly incorrect, we currently have many tariffs which function in precisely this manner as do other countries. We haven't descended into a new age of mercantilism just because we are prepared to counter bad acting with protectionist policy. What we are talking about here is not a new practice, we are talking about expanding an accepted practice towards CM specifically. Also, China has not explictly stated it is engaging in deliberate CM, however western academics have plenty of reason to believe they are, not the least of which is the known popularity of literature promoting the concept of CM as necessary amongst the upper members of the CPC.

As for the US engaging in unfair trade practices in the form of QE altering the exchange rate: you'd have to prove this was done deliberately for the economic benefits to our exporters. Since the objectives of the FRS are low inflation and low unemployment then this would imply they sought this policy to increase job growth, but then you'd have to contend with the fact that promoting exporters is laregly the promotion of manufacturing and the fact that US manufacturing is increasingly automated, means that as a policy tool it would be much weaker here than in a country with labor intensive manufacturing, like say China. In fact it would pretty much be useless here because all the growth in manufacturing production has occurred with almost no increase in manufacturing employment. You could make the case that such policies were sought to benefit the growth in GDP but not in jobs, and therefore, since the fed does not target GDP, it seems an unlikely case that monetary policy in the US is really currency manipulation.

In terms of post-depression BtN policies I have to admit I am not sure what you are referencing, the time period is generally associated with trade liberalization such as the creation of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act (RTAA)

It is also important to realize there is a comparitive advantage to having China (or any other non-capital intensive country) do manufacturing and the U.S transition to a service-based economy producing health-care, science, higher education, and technology. Is Sanders not ackowledging this?

That's because that's not a fact we can all agree on. In fact I would contend there is no comparative advantage in letting China do most of the manufacturing, there are many economists who agree with this sentiment. 

Furthermore, the assumption (or short-sightedness) that wages in China won't increase is false, as they already have over the last 20 years. Eventually they will stabilize with first world standards, once China can solve its urban vs. rural division, and jobs will move to the next capital deficient nation (possibly somewhere in Africa or South America.) But notice how he doesn't just want to punish China and Burma (relatively undemocratic places) but also Chile and Singapore - both liberal polities(at least today.)  Overall, limiting trade through tariffs because some people are violating the rights of others, is the equivalent of placing sanctions on North Korea for the same reason. The establishment in these countries aren't harmed, but the common person is. Additionally, what is the best way of bringing democracy and liberalism to illiberal places? By trading with them. The more we interact with them the more they'll change for the better. We can already see this in China 2016 vs. China 1970. Overall it is silly to punish regular people who are just trying to survive because their governments violate their rights, and tariffs - whether intentionally or not - do just that. Not to mention the negative effects on consumer goods at home, which is something that always must be considered in the debate about economic welfare. 

None of the economists who object to the trade deals as they've been written assumes wages in China won't rise, nor do the politicians who oppose them make this assumption as far as I am aware, even when that opposition is couched in opposition to China's human rights violations. In terms of Chile it should be noted it is a country which has a spurious relationship with democracy. Having been ruled by a dictator in the early 70s that gave way to a military coup and regime that lasted until 1990 and committed numerous human rights violations. The constitution was not made fully democratic until 2005, after the trade agreement went into effect. I can understand Sander's position, it was one of caution mosty likely, fearing the fact that the military still was autocratic and it's top commander outranked it's democratic politicians in terms of power (and could not be removed by one) at the time. It should be noted that Chile has been recently mired in political crisis over the exposure that politicians in both is biggest parties were engaged in a large degree corruption. It is also debatable whether Singapore can really be called a liberal democracy. Some have used the term illiberal democracy, Freedom House ranks it as undemocratic and only "partly free". In terms of press freedom Singapore has been ranked near the bottom of the list. Also in terms of North Korea, we do that. We do employ sanctions against them because of their human rights violations. This is not objectionable in and of itself and it does not lead to a deterioration of international markets. 

Also, I didn't say lowering trade restrictions is the only way to increase utility, but it is the fairest way. Giving special priveleges to any single group is not acceptable. Picking winners and losers in the world is not acceptable. There is a good utility argument that it creates distortions in how people interact with one another that in the long-term can affect total utility, but that is not why we should oppose protectionism. We should oppose it because it unfairly favors one special interest group over another.  As for the intellectual property issue with regards to Singapore - it seems as if it is just being brought up the standards of the U.S and Europe. I personally am not a fan of the current intellectual property rules in the U.S (and Europe), but it seems like a small negative to a bill that will overall open up markets and trade. Sanders seems to apply a zero-tolerance policy to free-trade, when he doesn't do this with other things that might have negatives (such as his extravagant welfare programs.) It is a very rigid and uncompromising way to go about it. That is why he seems quite the protectionist.