I'm so sick of pundits like Rachel Maddow talking about 2008

[bigdarryl]

About in this election the numbers
are down compared to 2008.First of all there were 3 people in the race in 08 you can't compare 08 to 2016 because there's only 2 candidates running.Why don't they ever compare 2012 to 2016

[TTUBatfan2008]

1. It's a valid issue.

There is an enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats so far.

[jillan]

2. Change over to CNN. Never thought I'd say that, but they are so much better.

Msnbc has become a bunch of people just spouting off whatever pops into their minds.

CNN still maintains professionalism - less spin, more facts.....
at least until SE Cupp starts talking

[MoonRiver]

3. Same here. It makes them look like idiots. 2008 was 8 friggin' years ago!

Absolutely nothing, except Hillary being a candidate, is the same. But, to be fair to Rachel and the other idiots, those two races have been compared here ad infinitum. Hmmm

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. 2008 was 8 years ago.

What it proves is that Obama was a revolutionary choice. Sanders is not.

[JRLeft]

7. There were way more candidates in '08.

[Agnosticsherbet]

9. More candidates doesn't translate to more voters.

So far the Republican electorate is more energized and excited than Democrats in the Primaries.

As I wrote earlier, this is why I think Sanders revolution is over rated.

[MoonRiver]

8. Changed, thanks, and you are correct.

[Jarqui]

5. I don't listen to any of them any more.

I get my news online so I don't have suffer through that

[JRLeft]

6. Yep less candidates equal less gov machines.