He did and he gave them momentum
It's funny you mention "momentum" and then quote Clinton in the CBS News article that you clearly did not read all the way through, because if you had, you would have also noted how the piece ended:
Clinton has, of course, been pushing for health care reform for decades. Her point of view on a single-payer system has changed dramatically over the years.
In 1994, when advocating for comprehensive health care reform as first lady, Clinton told reporters that if Congress didn't pass a reform bill that year, the nation would eventually embrace a single-payer plan.
"If, for whatever reason, the Congress doesn't pass health care reform, I believe, and I may be to totally off base on this, but I believe that by the year 2000 we will have a single payer system," she said. " I don't even think it's a close call politically. I think the momentum for a single payer system will sweep the country... It will be such a huge popular issue... that even if it's not successful the first time, it will eventually be."
Again, that was in
1994, when then First Lady Clinton made health care reform her priority. She has literally been fighting this fight for twenty five years. SHE started the conversation in the modern age and the "momentum," not Bernie Sanders.
It's like you came into the movie late and are now wondering why the guys on the boat are trying so hard to kill that poor shark.
And the reason that's important to note is because in trying to win a fight, you need to go back through all of the previous times the fight has been fought NOT just pretend it's never been fought before and so you do the exact same mistakes made previously.
Nor do you
say and do completely vacuous things to get a "conversation" started that began already decades ago.
You left out the fact that only 14% of the Democratic voters showed up
That's not a plus. Hillary Clinton was already a very popular candidate--at one point she was beating Obama in 2008, remember (no, of course not)--and was the overwhelming favorite and expected frontrunner starting as early as 2014. So it was not in any way a referendum on her; she already had her vetting years prior and passed with flying colors.
Sanders, otoh, as you point out, was a "new comer" and had a huge noise machine behind him--fueled, as we discovered, by not only the GOP and the Trump campaign, but also by the Russians--and in spite of all the hype and the "revolution" could not manage to get more than 6%.
Iow, it was a referendum on him and he failed miserably. That's what a
vote determines. That's its sole purpose.
At no point was Sanders ahead of Clinton. Her votes were essentially a fait accompli based upon her already proven track record and massive popularity among Democrats.
The numbers don't lie. Pundits do. Propagandists do. In the end, however, it's the votes. He couldn't get them. She already had them from 2008 onward.
It's not about something being "rigged;" it's about someone being
vetted and preferred. She went through her crucible and was neck and neck with Obama--and surpassed him in fact depending on how you deal with caucuses--in one of the closest fought primaries the DNC has ever seen, with a much higher turnout as a result. And in a tragically prophetic twist of irony, Wiki actually has
Clinton once again winning the popular vote tally (by about the same percentage point Trump took the Oval with).
Something caused that increase and the consensus is that Sanders inspired the youth vote to come out.
Because they were ignorant and naive. Iow,
young and bought all the magical ponies bullshit he was slinging. But again, you're looking at it, of course, as a glass 6% full when in fact it's a massive failure on his part
as the new comer.
As the new comer, it was a referendum on him and him alone and no one was buying what he was selling.
They've been proposed in some form by Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy
Confirming that they are
standard Democratic policies and nothing new or full of "momentum."
and I would think they'd approve of Sanders' zeal to finally get them done.
"Zeal" and an actual, pragmatic plan on HOW to get them done are two entirely different matters. Zeal is wonderful, but it doesn't mean jackshit if you don't have a plan. And speaking of throwing in the towel, Sanders actually submitted his Medicare For All bill knowing full well--INTENDING in fact--that it would be rejected, because he wanted to "start a conversation." A conversation that you (and I) pointed out was "started" decades ago.
The ACA was always a compromise just to get the ball rolling. Not the final goal.
Hey, what do you know? Pretty much
exactly what Hillary Clinton said in 1994.
Only extremely weak-minded people or those starved for a messiah would fall for such bullshit. Unfortunately, Democrats have such people on their side too.
Personal insult noted.
That was not a personal insult. That is just a demonstrable fact.
Most of the country wants a politician who drives a hard bargain but is willing to compromise.
So, like every single candidate. Or, say, someone who tells the truth about how power works and will only promise things that she knows she has a good possibility of being able to implement precisely because she knows how to get things passed by Republicans?
How would the Clinton campaign be to blame for him not leaving the stage when the audience said, "Get off the stage!"
You mean the BLM demonstration at a rally he spoke at?
No, I mean in regard to his entire Primary campaign and how it was over by the end of March, but he refused to leave the stage (as a metaphor).
I can't be indifferent to something that never happened.
Did he ever once face Trump head-on? No, he did not. Instead he was used by the GOP, the Trump campaign AND Russia to torpedo Clinton. That alone should tell you who they wanted to run against and who they did not.
So your reaction to Russian interference would be to abandon the democratic process. I get it. I think your slip is showing.
What does that mean? The reason why they backed Sanders is because they knew they stood a better chance of beating him and wanted to go against him.
You need to look up the word "demonstrable."
Yeah, you didn't read that article carefully enough. It wasn't the people who were "struggling to get by" that voted for Trump either. Unless you consider earning $70,000 to $100,000 in the midwest and rust belt "struggling."
That's just cherry picking.
No, that's what both the data and the article shows.
The averages show higher education voters went for Clinton and lower went for Trump, although higher education doesn't always equal higher income. But on average it is the case.
You want to read that one more time? The article makes clear that the people that voted for Trump
on average were middle class, not the working poor. They may not
on average have completed their college degrees, but they are nevertheless making upwards of $100K per year. That is not the "common man."
Ironically, you're missing the very point about how student loan debt skyrocketed under Obama--who, again, was the FIRST administration to entertain and promote the notion of "free" public college. Iow, the "common man" in America is the working poor who leveraged debt in order to go to college in order to raise themselves out of the working poor and into the middle class, where the average Trump voter exists.
Religious delusions run deep.
What's up with all the religious insinuations?
Those who worship Sanders behave as blindly toward him as any cult member does their cult leaders. He says to your faces that he can't get any of his policies implemented and you all cheer him as if a prophet speaking truth for the very first time. You say things like he's started a "revolution" when in fact he couldn't manage to actually get anyone to vote for him. You claim he's the one who started the "momentum" on policies that were in fact started long before him and far more aggressively.
In spite of the fact that he has done nothing but harm, you all insist he has done nothing but good for a party he doesn't belong to. He steals other people's thunder for his own and young, naive, weak-minded ignorati--who are just now waking up to their surroundings and evidently know nothing of what has come before--are all falsely attributing policies that have been in the forefront of the Democratic party--literally in every single election for the past half a century at least--to him.
He has done nothing but move from the left to the right his entire career and yet his devotees all insist that it is he that is moving the party to the left, on policies that were ALREADY DEMOCRATIC POLICIES.
He's Jesus selling rehashed Judaism and the Golden Rule to a bunch of ignorant folk--and a lot of kids--who just never paid attention to what was going on around them before and don't really know what Judaism is all about, but, hey eternal paradise sounds GREAT!
I mean, who wouldn't want to live forever in a magical kingdom of love and lollipops and unicorns? Just don't ever ask HOW any such things get achieved.
Sanders' answer--
LITERALLY--is that, it can't be achieved unless and until 80% of the
entire American population--Republicans included--is behind him AFTER he is elected President.
Well, gee, is that all? If that's all it took, why hasn't anyone else done that?
Trying to win over the local crowd with a strawman allusion?
You need to also look up "strawman."
