One of my best friends is big, gruff, retired farmer. He doesn’t say much, but when he does, not much effort is made to sugarcoat whatever it is he has to say. Over the years, I have found it to be in my own best interest to listen to him.

The other night, he was ripping me over a prior column with which he disagreed. That’s fair. The icing on the slice of crow he served me was the fact that I had laughed about Donald Trump’s presidential chances when he first announced. Point taken. I shared in that error with just about every other political expert and pundit in the Western Hemisphere, so who was I to take offense?

I trotted out all the progressive talking points as to why The Donald might leave something to be desired as a commander-in-chief and guardian of the nuclear football.

He was not moved. The look he gave me spoke volumes. He obviously thought I was the village idiot, except that would give village idiots a bad name.

Could I not see the obvious, and arrive at the obvious conclusion? “The politicians haven’t done a darn (not exactly the word used) thing,” and maybe it was time to give someone else a chance at the helm of the ship of state, even if that someone were Donald Trump.

That got me to thinking – not in time to come up with a killer response, mind you; game, set, and match to my friend – but in the fullness of time, it hit me.

For all their differences, the candidates still standing have something in common. They all have big plans. The Donald is going to build that wall, deport millions, maybe raise taxes on the rich, and repeal all those nasty trade deals. Bernie is going to bring universal health care. He’s going to clean up Wall Street. He’s going to address income inequality, and that probably means raising taxes on the top 1 percent. Hillary’s plans likely are not as grandiose, but we are assured she has them.

The thing is, none of these candidates can do any of these things, or at least do them by themselves.

What’s been missing in the discussion is any consideration of the degree of support the ultimate victor can expect from the other half of the legislative equation – the Congress.

If membership in Congress remains relatively unchanged, is it really a foregone conclusion that if The Donald wins, Congress will automatically follow his lead? Heck, the speaker of the house isn’t willing to go that far – yet. If membership in Congress remains relatively unchanged, should Hillary or Bernie win, is it reasonable to assume that Congress will bend to the will of the people this time and voluntarily break the logjam that has choked the executive branch since at least 2010?

Before you answer those questions, which branch of government benefits the most from a continuation of the status quo? Guess.

In the House of Representatives, incumbents from gerrymandered districts are the darlings of generous donors, and are overwhelmingly re-elected for as long as they choose to stay in the game. By one account, only one incumbent has been denied re-nomination so far this spring, and he was facing a 29 count criminal indictment.

In the Senate, incumbency confers similar advantages.

Sure, there are exceptions, but by and large, Congress is an institution where, once in, you can stay indefinitely.

And Congress is risk averse. Why rock the boat? Why risk losing the big donor, or pass legislation that might discomfit influential constituencies, solely to advance the agenda of the temporary occupant of the White House, whoever that might be?

Oh sure, loudly support change in public, but cripple it quietly in private.

I’m not proposing term limits. It is hard to imagine members of the club passing legislation imposing legal limits on themselves in the first place – assuming term limits could be imposed by legislation rather than requiring a constitutional amendment. Nor are term limits necessary. Every election is a term-limiting event should voters choose to make it so.

What I’m suggesting is that regardless of which presidential pony your hopes are riding on, transformative change is unlikely unless major changes are made down ballot.

If the status quo is your cup of tea, all will be to your liking. If the status quo is unacceptable, you not only need a new president – you need new senators and representatives as well.

The old ones have had their chance, and have been found wanting.