Small crowds means no enthusiasm. And money can't elect a Dem who doesn't generate enthusiasm.

Like that ever worked out well.

Many a large crowd candidate lost along all those years.

Crowds don't mean much in the primaries, especially the early ones - especially since, in many cases, the crowds are made up of people who don't even live in the area and aren't eligible to vote in the caucuses/primaries. Ground game, organizing, door-to-door canvassing, small events in people's homes, GOTV etc. are what make the difference.

Just ask Howard Dean . . .

Bill Clinton won due to Perot, and rather closely,
as far as I can remember.He certainly did not even get
to the 50% mark.

But 3 of them won the general election - 2 of them without drawing big crowds early on.

In other words, big crowds in the primaries have nothing to do with whether a Democratic candidate wins the general election.

Thank you for making my point.

In fact, the establishment Democrats started an "ABC" ("Anyone But Carter&quot movement to try to stifle his primary campaign.

Oh and he won by 6 points 43 to 37. That is more than either of Bush's wins, more than Carter's win, and more than Obama's reelection but other than that it was close.

it's myth he only won because of perot.40 % of perot voters would have stayed home without him running in 1992.the remaing 60% was dived equaly between people who would have voted for clinton or Bush.

Jimmy Carter was another.

Not a year before the election. Everybody jumps on the apparent winner's bandwagon. Even Dukakis got big crowds.later.

He had over 50% of the electoral vote which is the only count that matters.

that the electoral vote is obsolete,jmo.

And in his re-election campaign he had 49.3% of the vote in a three person race.

and if Hillary wins the primary, they will completely own this country.

Then all bets are off and there will be plenty of crossover AGAINST Clinton Inc., that the election will go Repub... All the more reason to stick with Bernie!

I introduced him on my college campus. He campaigned to mostly small groups.

do you have any actual evidence to support this supposition? What were attendance numbers of both the winning and losing primary candidates along with detailed adjustments for population growth and changes to demographics of the electorate. I'll wait.

I mean otherwise you have offered absolutely nothing to support your contention and that would be rather awkward.

I did once when I saw by chance a news clip of a Ron Paul rally, it scared me err scarred me. I hated to think there was that many crazy people all under one roof.

but that election was 3 years after 9/11 .