A two-person race only brings out the die-hards. There aren't anywhere near as many voices as we need at this stage.

I had not thought of that. This might explain why Republican turnout so far has been so much higher than Democratic turnout.

How is he going to get single payer, $15 minimum wage, and free college if nobody shows up to the revolution?

Is an empty campaign slogan that obviously has no basis in reality.

Sounds good on social media though.

Keep doing what the Koch brothers want if you want an idea of where your life is heading.

What does that mean in English?

Let me try. "You are doing what the Koch Brothers want. If you continue to do what the Koch brothers want, you'll be able to see into the future and know what kind of life you are going to have."

Am I close?

It's what George Herbert Walker Bush called "the vision thing."

Lame.

Why does that bother you?

Your babble about Democrats "doing what the Koch Brothers want" bothers me.

Certain Democrats in Washington have advanced the cause of the Koch brothers -- and those at the top of the economic heap.

that Bernie is so inspiring people who never voted before are going to turn up for the "Revolution."

hurt both candidates. and democracy.

That's a lot of disenfranchisement going on.

in the history of the nh primary on either side?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-orlin/bernie-sanders-won-the-mo_b_9228324.html


seems that there is a problem with caucuses, or perhaps with the other candidate......

but bernie is doing his part to bring voters and small donors into the fold imo

we don't have a reality tv star running, i guess that is the problem....

He did rather amazingly well against the Clinton brand and money.

Caucuses are intimidating to many first time voters.

We'll know after Super Tuesday. For now, they're tied 51-51

That's foregoing a lot of delegate-rich Primary States (VA, TX, TN, GA among others)

Don't recall reading that memo, seeing how he's got a lot of support in those "delegate-rich Primary States."

CHUCK TODD:

You know, it’s interesting. The guy who had the bigger super PAC of all time had to drop out of the race. Jeb Bush outspent everybody. He it’s arguably had more special interests supporting his candidacy. Isn’t sort of the people already overturning Citizens United, isn’t your message, and Donald Trump, who have done this without super PACs, isn’t this already resonating?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:

No, well, in some ways it is. But I think, you know, if you looked at Jeb Bush’s campaign, it’s more than just money. It’s the nature of the candidate and the message and all that stuff. Look, but let me give you an example. Right now, we have raised, as I understand it, Chuck, more contributions from people than Hillary Clinton has. But she’s now going into the super PAC that she has which comes from Wall Street and very wealthy individuals. She will be outspending us in the next number of weeks, precisely because of that super PAC. Do these things matter? Yes, they do.

SOURCE: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/21/bernie-sanders-schools-clueless-chuck-todd-impact-citizens-united.html

The states he is targeting have unusually low percentages of minorities.

But the entrance polls showed a lackluster youth turnout. It was reported that a great number of people left before caucusing because of the long lines. Perhaps it was youth that had to return to jobs or classes?
It was also reported that Harry Reid had called the casino owners beforehand and asked them to give the casino workers time off with pay to caucus. That no doubt played a factor in their turnout.

It appears the long lines were intentional...designed to suppress turnout, people had to get back to work or class.
Interesting that Sanders did well in the rural areas, which didn't have the long lines and presumably lesser youth demographics.

at least at the caucuses. They need to rectify that.

...they're just inexperienced, which hurts in a caucus. We'll have to see how things go with next few elections...could be the volunteers do better at GOTV than managing a rowdy caucus.

that's on his campaign, for fucks sake. they need to get their shit together and learn the "rules" before they show up instead of making them up or wasting time bitching about them after. that's the problem with inexperienced people, they are shocked at how things are done, and waste time Youtubing nonsense instead of doing the work the day it is needed. they need to buckle down and show up, instead of complaining they are overwhelmed while arguing about how to break a tie.

... that with all these vast numbers of enthusiastic supporters that were ready for a "revolution" this wouldn't be a problem.

So... looking at the evidence of the turnout numbers, and considering Bernie's own words (or his campaign spokesperson's words) it makes me wonder if the reports of the vastness of his support was exaggerated, or if the enthusiasm was over-estimated.

I suppose another explanation could be that his supporters may be feeling like it's a "lost cause" and that caucusing for Bernie wouldn't have any meaningful effect on the outcome.

It's impossible to know for sure, but it certainly is a mystery.


Note to Jury: No candidate or candidate's supporters have been smeared or attacked. The comments here are my opinion only and are derived from examining the available evidence and by analyzing the statement/s from Sanders and/or his campaign representative/s.

as "higher turn away." But I think you know that.

Sid

even motivated to vote?

Probably had limited time to caucus before having to return to work or class. The long lines appear to have been a deliberate slow-down intended to depress turnout.

for his revolution, when they won't even bother to vote?

Good luck with that plan. Insulting the working class isn't going to get them to support Hillary.

If this really is a huge revolution why didn't they stay and vote? I made the time to go vote early here in TX and I am only in the state one day a week.

Sounds like he thought he could just buy his revolution.

The republicans do it every two years and Hillary is doing it now.

Just like the republicans. Why don't you provide evidence that Clinton is depressing the vote if you're going to make that charge?

Are all Bernie supporters conspiracy theorists? always looking or an ulterior reason why their candidate doesn't always win? It's the media, it's the DNC, it's sunspots. Get a grip, guys!

Hillary will fare better in November if she and her supporters try to tell the truth for 9 months. I think it's byond their grasp though

than Hillary.

Nevada was always going to be tough - Las Vegas, especially is for Clinton, and for an "outsider" like Bernie to come along and narrow the gap to single digits says a lot about his support. He may have lost this one, but Bernie is definitely not out.

One other thing, I sadly believe that Democrats are apathetic when it comes to voting and that is their downfall. I do believe that they see the signs and think oh my candidate is well supported, I don't need to go vote, I have things to do. And that goes for all races, not just he presidential - just look at 2014. Please go vote for who you believe in. (Disclaimer, I can't I am not a citizen, but I believe everyone should if they can.)

Doesn't sound much like a revolution to me.

Hillary can't draw flies.

Last night further confirms the fact that the Sanders' revolution is not happening. No one has seen any evidence of the so-called Sanders revolution https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/sorry-bernie-sanders-there-is-zero-evidence-of-your-political-revolution-yet/

Bernie Sanders recorded a resounding victory in New Hampshire's Democratic primary Tuesday. He crushed his rival, Hillary Clinton, with no less than 60 percent of the vote. If Sanders hopes not only to win the election but to achieve his ambitious progressive agenda, though, that might not be enough.

To succeed, Sanders might have to drive Americans who don't normally participate to the polls. Unfortunately for him, groups who usually do not vote did not turn out in unusually large numbers in New Hampshire, according to exit polling data.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

...As for Sanders, he credited his victory to turnout. "Because of a huge voter turnout -- and I say huge -- we won," he said in his speech declaring victory, dropping the "h" in "huge." "We harnessed the energy, and the excitement that the Democratic party will need to succeed in November."

In fact, Sanders won by persuading many habitual Democratic primary voters to support him. With 95 percent of precincts reporting their results as of Wednesday morning, just 241,000 ballots had been cast in the Democratic primary, fewer than the 268,000 projected by New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner last week. Nearly 289,000 voters cast ballots in the state's Democratic primary in 2008.

To be sure, the general election is still seven months away. Ordinary Americans might be paying little attention to the campaign at this point, and if Sanders wins the nomination, he'll have the help of the Democratic Party apparatus in registering new voters. The political revolution hasn't started, though, at least not yet.

will have to leave early because they only have 1.5 hours before they have to go back to work or else...

Lots of those people might have voted Bernie.

And, of course, we have the precinct in LV that closed before delegates were chosen. Seems like that has the potential to negate some Bernie votes.

Yep.

Not to mention the dirty, filthy race politics.

Yep. Establishment long knives are coming out.

Fuck them! I'm with Bernie until the convention and we'll have the bitter fight on the convention floor by God.

His ground game is lacking.

...and work for the campaign.

How can this possibly be?

We've been told by Bernie and his supporters for months that first-time voters - those who had eschewed voting before, but were now all fired-up thanks to Bernie - would show up in droves to support him. We were assured that the polls would be proven wrong because they failed to tap-into the groundswell of new voters who Bernie would be bringing into the voting process for the first time.

Where ARE they? What went wrong - other than Bernie over-estimating his own ability to appeal to all of those voters he assured everyone were part of his "Revolution"?

Perhaps they were all busy posting about how John Lewis is a sell-out who has no principles, or leaving vile comments on the FaceBook pages of people who have the unmitigated gall to endorse HRC, or throwing every HRC supporter under that ol' bus. That's some heavy lifting right there - and actually showing up to support Bernie was deemed less important.

I'm sure there's an on-line poll somewhere that proves Bernie supporters are legion - and actual turnout to support him is absolutely meaningless.

Bernie revolution was a internets fiction

Another Democratic primary with history in the balance only turnout is down from 2008. Meanwhile, the excitement generated by the R crazy train has translated to record high turnout. Bernie needs to get the non-(voters)traditional out. Hillary benefits from an uninspiring primary. Thus far, the latter is bearing out.