[cgriswald]

Woodrow Wilson sprang immediately to mind as an example of a president who effected change despite an intransigent congress. He is also a president who fought against entrenched interests.

Your idea seems to be more of an observation of recent presidents than a property of the presidency itself. I think there are two things that make it so. First, modern presidents are generally picked from a very narrow pool of candidates which the parties and the media help select and shape, thus making sure a relatively docile candidate is chosen. Second, most modern presidents are very politically oriented and beholden to the groups that donated to them during their campaigns.

I think that can be used to describe Hillary, but I think both Sanders and Trump are non-docile and not beholden to outside interests. Sanders, because his funds largely come as a mandate from individuals and he is very clear about who he works for. Trump, because he has nothing at all to lose by doing whatever he wants.

[Qwertious]

This is kind of sad, when I think about it - what you're describing is Trump and Sanders being opposed to Hillary and <Trump's opposition, I forget the name> in a way that matters just as much as Democrat VS Republican, but that decision is entirely up to the Dem/Rep oligarchy.

[rapind]

Plus both Trump and Sanders bring in a lot of new voters. That may potentially scare the shit out of weaker members of congress... as it should.