Sanders’s appeal is not broad enough among key groups of the Democratic party
Bernie Sanders’s loss in the Nevada caucuses, 47 percent to 53 percent, reveals a very real weakness of his insurgent challenge to Hillary Clinton.
According to entrance polls — which may have had some problems of their own, problems that we’ll discuss shortly — Sanders’s appeal is not broad enough among key groups that traditionally make up the base of the Democratic Party.
He lost among women, blacks, nonwhites, and self-described Democrats. But the loss was even more troubling for his camp than that. He also lost highly educated caucusgoers with postgraduate degrees, both the poorest and wealthiest groups, and moderates. He lost those who saw health care and the economy as the most important issues of the election, even though those are key parts of Sanders’s platform and issues on which he is most eloquent and persuasive.
And perhaps most interestingly, he lost overwhelmingly among people who wanted a candidate who could win in November.
It is very hard to see how Sanders wins the nomination without winning the black and Hispanic vote in the Southern and Western states, not to mention New York and Michigan.
Lastly, the political revolution on which Sanders has hinged his ability to accomplish his ambitious plan keeps failing to materialize. This year’s Democratic caucus participation was down nearly a third from 2008, and in Iowa and New Hampshire there were more voters — or caucusgoers — making choices in the Republican contest than in the Democratic one.
As Sanders told Meet the Press about the Nevada loss: “We did not do as good a job as I had wanted to bring out a large turnout.”
That doesn’t sound like a political revolution to me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/opinion/bernie-sanders-hits-a-roadblock.html?_r=0
= new reply since forum marked as read
(just kidding) 
Nihao ma! 
