Reticence created an enthuism gap

[joshcryer]

This:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article84305332.html

Vs this:

To top it off one appointment to the DNC was Cornell West who went on to endorse Jill Stein: https://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/18/why_a_member_of_the_democratic

I had misgivings about Clinton's inability to fill stadiums. I feel that Sanders should have used his star power immediately to fill stadiums with her.

Did the Clinton campaign fuck up by not requesting he do that? Probably. But it took Clinton 4 days to concede in 2008 after she had been mathematically eliminated and she came out in full support of Obama, with loud, strong speeches on his behalf. In stark contrast, it took Sanders 8 weeks and 3 days to do it, and then, only after demanding concessions on the platform, concessions for the DNC appointments (again one of whom later endorsed Jill Stein), and only one joint campaign event where they were on the same podium together.

This is not rehashing the primaries. This is after the primaries were over. Sanders' lack of support for Clinton, reticence, was a huge factor in why she lost those rust belt states. The very states that Sanders would've been able to bring out voters.

There are of course many other factors that should be accounted for, like a denial on the campaign's side that they even needed to focus on those rust belt states at all (Bill Clinton reportedly wanted it to happen). But if Sanders had supported Clinton out of the gate that denial may not have happened and they may have addressed that voting bloc. It did not help that Trump repeatedly used Sanders to attack Clinton, which would not have worked if he was out there, from day 1 of her winning the nomination, supporting her in every way, like she did for Obama in 2008.

I post this now because I want my statements to be archived. I know what Hillary Clinton did for Obama in 2008. And I am saddened that Sanders did not do the same for Clinton in 2016.