Surprise: Bernie Sanders's Youth Revolution Loved Rallies More Than Actually Voting

[workinclasszero]

Sanders energized the youth vote in a way that allowed him to dominate that voting bloc. The problem is, that voting bloc failed him when the time came to cast a ballot.
CHEZ PAZIENZA

This won't be about Bernie Sanders, per se. Bernie Sanders seems to be positioning himself to do the right thing in the coming weeks. What this means is that it's time to strike a conciliatory tone in the name of forging a unified front of decent Americans aimed at ensuring that Donald Trump and the morally bankrupt party sanctioning his quest for the White House do not succeed.

No, this will be about what it's been about almost since the beginning of Sanders's improbable rise: his rabid disciples.

Specifically, his supposed army of youthful revolutionaries; the political neophytes who formed a cult of personality around Sanders knowing little about how politics actually work; the people who still threaten to "burn it all down" because they didn't get their way; the meme-warriors who've spent the past 48 hours lashing out at those who've endorsed Hillary Clinton, including their former progressive hero Elizabeth Warren; the kids who insist their lack of presence in the general election, the result of their candidate not winning, will doom any Democratic effort.

http://thedailybanter.com/2016/06/sanders-youth-vote-didnt-show/

[NurseJackie]

1. I remember there was much angst when Bernie fans saw that the poll data from younger voters ...

... was "weighted" differently than the polling data from older voters. The Bernie fans often loved to play with the Huffington Post's interactive polling charts configure the display settings to "weigh" all the results equally (as if all voting demographics behaved identically) ... which really made things look good for Bernie.

The "unweighted" charts assumed that the younger voters were just as reliable as the older voters (when we knew then, and as it's been demonstrated again) this simply isn't the case.

It certainly was frustrating trying to be reasonable and logical with those individuals.

[LiberalFighter]

70. They would change the data to make it work for them.

It was part of their state of mind that it was rigged.

[brooklynite]

2. Who would have guessed THAT would happen?

[Cooley Hurd]

3. Talk about sore winners...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=10561

Still bashing Senator Sanders even after Secretary Clinton has (apparently) clinched the nom?

Why do this? You are effectively driving voters AWAY from your candidate with this nonsense.

Keep it up - posts like this *might* help a Trump win.

[workinclasszero]

6. Stating facts = Bashing?

Hillary is the only person on DU that is bashed 24/7.

Did you object to that?

[workinclasszero]

13. Its a historical fact

that 18 to 29 year old people vote the least of all age groups.

That's been a fact for decades and it held true in this primary as well.

Oh and btw I don't give a damn how anyone votes or doesn't so there's that.

Bernie will come out in the end and support Hillary so you can save your fire for him.

[Cooley Hurd]

33. Quote:

"Oh and btw I don't give a damn how anyone votes or doesn't so there's that. "

Worst.advocate.for.one's.candidate.EVER!

[AntiBank]

37. +10000

[Sancho]

81. yep

[workinclasszero]

89. And there it is!

Those pesky facts again.

I love that gif of Obama driving

[NurseJackie]

31. Mature voters don't base their voting decisons on whether or not some anonymous person ...

... on the internet has been a "sore winner" or insulting. (Fortunately, the vast majority of people outside the walls of this fortress are much more reasonable. There is no "peril" for her from the interactions that happen here ... stop being so dramatic.)

[pangaia]

28. In my view, on this case stating facts IS bashing.

Which, of course, you can do.

But perhaps ask yourself why you do it?

At this point it is just gloating, pissing on something you don't like, for personal pleasure; all because it feels good.

Of course, we all want happiness, and rightly so.

I am glad you are happy.

[Cooley Hurd]

47. WELL-fucking-stated!

[pangaia]

50. There is a lot of that here.

[eastwestdem]

54. I think in any election, it is important to examine what worked, and what didn't work.

It is how a party can improve in the future. I agree that it may be too soon for some Sanders supporters, but this 'autopsy' really does need to be done at some point, and can only benefit future progressive candidates.

[metroins]

58. Autopsy is easy

Focus on high delegate states.
Hire competent management.
Get out the fucking vote.

The Sanders campaign had a chance but they blew the ground game. They lost in March when they lost the south by such high margins. The management thought the party was involved in GOTV, but it's actually up to the candidates.

[pangaia]

59. In this case, and many, many, many others,

I feel it is just a case of getting one's rock off.

And, though I may be wrong, it sounds to me like your phrase, "I agree that it may be too soon for some Sanders supporters," is the same

[uponit7771]

103. OK, when should this examination happen? Perhaps doing it now is insensitive

[grossproffit]

7. Apparently?

[Cooley Hurd]

9. The convention's a month away...

No one gets the nom until then.

[Blue_Adept]

21. Post primary analysis is not bashing

It's a requirement. And all sides of each party engages in it. Whether they LEARN from it is another thing. We saw how the GOP didn't after 2012 when they chucked their entire actually quite smart analysis.

Hopefully Dems don't ignore all that was learned by Bernies candidacy. But if Bernie supporters don't want to have the discussion about what went wrong, it's simply the worst possible direction to go.

[Cooley Hurd]

48. The OP is NOT a Senator Sanders supporter...

...and their transparency page is visible. Not an honest broker in discussing much of anything, IMO.

[LiberalFighter]

71. So only Sanders' supporters can do post primary analysis?

You are in the wrong place.

[Cooley Hurd]

73. No, you missed the entire point...

Whoosh! Your hairs' disheveled.

Again, since absorption of content and context seem to be a weak point with you, STOP bashing Senator Sanders! Your candidate won. What part of Skinner's post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=10561 do you not comprehend?

Christ, I do NOT want Donald fucking Trump to get ANYWHERE near the WH, but Camp Weathervane is apparently so craven AGAINST Senator Sanders that you will allow such a thing to happen with such back-biting nonsense.

Get a grip and HELP your candidate, already!

[LiberalFighter]

34. It is not bashing. It is providing historical information and what to expect.

[Cooley Hurd]

51. No, it's ABSOLUTELY bashing and VERY detrimental to Secretary Clinton's candidacy.

Secretary Clinton's biggest hurdle is her unfavorability with independents AND Democrats who supported Senator Sanders.

Do your candidate a HUGE favor and STOP driving votes away!

[LiberalFighter]

68. If anyone is driving votes away it is you making accusations.

You have a mistaken belief that all "independents" and Democrats supporting Sanders won't support Clinton. Not all of THEM would had actually voted for Sanders in the general election. Some of them were just playing the game and some of them would had forgotten to vote just like they did in the primary. But most of them are going to vote for Clinton with many of them never intending to vote for Sanders.

As for any unfavorable support Clinton has a lot of it was driven by the negatives by Sanders' supporters and Republican attack teams.

It makes no sense for the unfavorable when Clinton has been Time's most Admired Woman of the Year for 20 years.

[Cooley Hurd]

72. Highest unfavorability ratings for a Dem candidate in the last 50 years...

Ain't me doing anything. It's up to HER supporters to change that.

You DO want to win this (given the alternative is fucking Donald fucking Trump), don't you??

If so, stop your nonsense and stop driving Bernie supporters and, more importantly, Independents away...

[LiberalFighter]

75. You are the one pushing this nonsense. And again the unfavorability ratings are in large

part due to the Sanders' campaign.

You are highlighting the negatives of Clinton to help increase her unfavorability.

[Cooley Hurd]

78. Her unfavorables are hers alone, NOT anything to do with Senator Sanders.

I AM WORKING to resolve the misperceptions about Secretary Clinton by promoting POSITIVITY in my party because I cannot fathom Trump in the WH. What the hell are YOU doing other than approve of negative crap that Camp Weathervane perpetuates about OTHER Liberals?

[lunamagica]

76. How does the OP bash SBS?

[Cooley Hurd]

80. "How does the OP basn SBS?"

Sorry, you, understandably, lost me...

[lunamagica]

84. Typo. I fixed it. Forgive me?

[Cooley Hurd]

85. Of course! Thank you for the clarification!

[Beacool]

97. This about his young supporters, not about bashing Sanders.

This is in response to the many posts stating that Bernie was robbed, that there had to be cheating going on because thousands attended rallies and he still lost X state, etc.

No, what happened is very simple. Hillary's supporters were more reliable and showed up to vote for her, while many of the young people who supported Sanders didn't vote.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. With time your anger over your side winning will abide.

[frazzled]

5. I said from the very beginning of this race

that holding rallies (especially the very early ones--rallies are usually something candidates hold at the very end of campaigns simply to whoop up energy on the part of people already supporting them) was an odd tactic. Rallies are for your supporters, but only a highly organized ground game can produce outreach to people who are not yet supporting you. It may look impressive to get 200,000 Californians into arenas near college campuses, but when you consider the millions of voters, it does not mean much of anything about the rest of the people out there.

I understand why they began with this unconventional approach. Early rallies in natural support areas such as the giant U of W campus at Madison, WI (WTF? I thought: Wisconsin doesn't even vote for months and months), gave him the "optics" that he had big support, and allowed him to become a national player in the way that, say, Dennis Kucinich or Al Sharpton never did. But it's just that—optics—not a voter ID or get-out-the-vote strategy.

Outreach was totally missing from this campaign. Voter ID, which has become very sophisticated, seemed even missing. I never received a single contact from the Sanders campaign, even though I am on the lists of many progressive organizations and politicians. Nor a single phone call to see who I was voting for or leaning towards (a principal means of ID) before the primary in my state.

The rallies were PR, and they didn't hold up as an electoral strategy, even when it came to the young voters.

[BobbyDrake]

10. The rallies were a poor attempt at generating a bandwagon effect.

Maybe the intention was to avoid having to pay for a ground game? Maybe someone crunched the numbers, and along with projections in fundraising based on optimum levels, they decided it was more cost-effective to continue trying to induce support from people instead of setting up a ground operation to do the genuine work of meeting and convincing people?

[Surya Gayatri]

15. "But it's just that—optics—not a voter ID or get-out-the-vote strategy."

And, that's the whole story, right there.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Except of course in the 20+ States he carried, such as my State of Oregon.

He won here by double digits, closed Primary. Hillary garnered fewer votes here in 2016 than she did when losing to Obama here in 2008.

Posts like this are just big smears to entire States. Disgusting.

[frazzled]

23. But let's look at those states

Sanders won only 10 states that held primaries (OK, VT, WI, RI, IN, MI, WV, WA, MT, ND), and with the exception of MI, and perhaps WI, these were largely states with the least minority populations. The rest of the states he won were caucuses, the problems with which have been noted extensively.

Clinton won something like 15 or 16 of the largest 19 states, which provide far more delegates. And these were in general the most diverse states. We can't just talk about number of states won: we have to talk about numbers of people who voted and, by extension, numbers of delegates.

To win this race, he needed strong outreach into black and Latino communities, as well as into different age demographics. Rallies were simply not the way to do that. You can't win with the (predominantly) young vote alone, especially given its relatively unpredictable voting habits.

[rickford66]

12. My thoughts

If they spent hours in line, sometimes in the raid or cold, even when the "math" was against Bernie, but still didn't vote for Bernie, what makes the Hillary crowd believe they can persuade these rally goers to vote for her? Will she promise unicorns ?

[leftofcool]

14. She isn't trying to persuade anyone. She is calling for unity

Those that feel they need to be "persuaded" were never going to vote for her anyway. They will vote for Trump or stay home. Hillary will still win.

[rickford66]

19. I've always voted Democratic.

I voted for Bill twice and Hillary twice, but I guess she doesn't need my vote this time. Bernie's positions are the future. Hillary's positions are the past. She'll win, but the public will not benefit. I will vote for another third party. The "lesser of two evils" argument doesn't wash anymore.

[MyNameGoesHere]

16. I don't know about unicorns

the Clinton voters seem to like substance over unicorns and one note campaign platforms. Now if it were unicorns riding on rainbows well maybe.

[rickford66]

20. I guess you never really listened to him.

[CorkySt.Clair]

38. And what if the poster did?

And concluded Bernie wasn't their choice? Does that scenario every enter the mind of a Sanders supporter? That someone just might have legitimate differences with "Bernie"?

[tonedevil]

53. I'm sure it's...

possible to have legitimate differences with Senator Sanders positions, but I never heard them expressed. All I heard in favor of Secretary Clinton is that Senator Sanders is offering rainbows and unicorns never arguing substance. I find Secretary Clinton supporters the worst kind of emotional decision makers. Fortunately Secretary Clinton is vastly more intelligent and capable than her supporters especially those posting on DU.

[CorkySt.Clair]

60. It's been there

But you've likely decided to ignore it since anything counter to Bernie's teachings is considered sacrilege. You can always go over to the Jackpine sewer. Plenty of like minded folks for you over there.

[CorkySt.Clair]

69. Of course

You should absolutely start a bunch of email threads if you feel that strongly about bringing those issues to light. Post them liberally, and often.

[tonedevil]

74. Thanks for your...

encouragement.

[MyNameGoesHere]

57. I honestly tried

But there are only so many times I can stomach the 1% talking point. Other than creating massive new spending not a peep on how to pay for it. I can't abide pie in the sky dreaming.

[rickford66]

87. Apparently you really didn't listen.

Doesn't matter though. Hillary is going to fight for you.

[MyNameGoesHere]

91. Apparently you don't know if I tried or not

You're just assuming that because I wasn't enraptured with fanaticism.

[rickford66]

94. "not a peep on how to pay for it"

He certainly did say how to pay for it IF you listened.

[AntiBank]

41. substance??? Clinton supporters mostly refuse to debate issues

Its all (and has been since last fall) the inevitability card, "she is a woman so how dare you question her" meme and brute appeal to authority/math-as programme validation in and of itself.

BTW there is nothing magical about core, sound traditional progressive policies espoused by Sanders. Shamwful to onfer that on a left wing site.

[MyNameGoesHere]

61. Ok then Sanders supporters are mostly divorced from reality

If that how you want to play.

[AntiBank]

65. apples and oranges, I am positing behaviour, which is

demonstrable. You are positing a perjorative mental mental state about positions, which is opinion.

[auntpurl]

17. From the comments: I thought this was thoughtful

"I went and read the definition of the concept of "political base." Base voters are those voters who always, consistently and without pause, vote for their chosen political party. They vote for almost any candidate that has their party's identifier in front of their name. They vote in every election for which they can get their hands on a ballot. They don't need to be "inspired" or make ridiculous demands upon which they'll decided whether or not to vote. Base voters are the true foundation of political parties.

Bernie's movement was a group of people who fooled themselves into thinking that they're the base simply because they want their demands catered to, despite the fact that they don't show up to the voting booth enough to be considered a loyal vote. Progressives and leftists have dug this pit for themselves. They abandoned the Democratic Party for purity, and now they're routinely outvoted by the moderates and centrist liberals that the Democratic Party picked up in their absence. Maybe the far left will have more influence when this Millennial generation is older and makes up a larger percentage of the voting population, but until then, they're just not motivated enough to make themselves anything resembling base voters, and for that, the Democratic Party will not bend over backwards to appease them."

[Blue_Adept]

24. And that's the difference with the tea party allusions that were made in some senses

Bernie supporters COULD have that kind of influence on the party (obviously in a better way than the tea party types do), but unlike the tea party supporters they don't actively engage in the way necessary to effect change.

[TwilightZone]

62. I always found it a little odd that a group of people who largely insisted they weren't Democrats

also insisted that they were the base of the Democratic Party. That comment touches on that, of course.

It's a similar concept to Sanders heavily criticizing the Democratic establishment, then expecting them (via SDs) to switch to him en masse, because, well, I'm not sure why.

[Eric J in MN]

98. Strawman

Bernie Sanders didn't use the word "base" in his stump speech.

I never heard one of his surrogates use that term.

Treating that word as central to Sanders supporters in order to argue against them is a strawman.

[In_The_Wind]

22. Goodness gracious.

[img][/img]

[forjusticethunders]

43. Why should anyone care what we (young people) think if we don't vote?

[sufrommich]

25. Lol. nt

[DrDan]

26. yep - that was pretty obvious

[JohnnyRingo]

27. I have personal experience with this sad fact.

My two oldest grand kids are eligible to vote. The oldest, my grand daughter, is 20 and refuses to even register despite my constant nagging. She insists that politics is nothing she wants involved in and recently told me "women are too emotional to be president". I know she's just repeating the crap she hears from her pick-up driving country western listening friends, but it was still shocking to hear.

I'm kind of glad she's sitting this one out, but I did manage to register my 18 year old grand son. That happened last summer when he was still 17 but would be of age before the election. Here in Ohio there was a marijuana legalization issue on the ballot that really motivated my grand son. I didn't care the reason, I was just thrilled he was going to join the family in the voting process.

Despite his avid enthusiasm for legal weed, he found something else to do election day. He also didn't bother voting in the primary this spring.

He wasn't an exception either. I work the polls here in the NE corner of the state and saw exactly three voters under age 21 this past March out of 600 total. I knew this only because their license is noticeably different. Of those three youngsters, one chose a Republican ballot.

I guess a poll could say two out of three Millennial voters vote for democrats, but it doesn't add up to much.

[workinclasszero]

30. Crazy ain't it?

[Barack_America]

35. Young voters aren't exactly welcomed to the polls..

...by either party. That probably has a huge impact.

They're warned to expect interrogation about their IDs and eligibility to vote. Hard to blame them for being intimidated by that...it's exactly the goal.

[JohnnyRingo]

63. No

Believe me, in this case it has nothing to do with voter intimidation.

My grandson, who doesn't even have the ambition to get a drivers license, went and got the necessary picture ID just so he could vote for legal weed. When the day came he simply found better things to do. All fucking day.

I'm only hopeful that I can use some of that intimidation to get him to the polls this November.

[AgingAmerican]

29. The Rally's weren't predominantly young people

But don't let that get in the way of your cognitive dissonance on the subject

[geek tragedy]

32. Enough of the harsh post mortems

This won't bring anyone on board the campaign in November

[AgingAmerican]

36. It appears the goal is to drive people AWAY from her

Judging by all the OPs today attacking, belittling and insulting Sanders and his supporters.

GOTV is to Hillary supporters as Garlic is to Vampires...

[RB TexLa]

44. They aren't going to vote then either.

[GoneFishin]

39. The election fraud won't be papered over by lame attempts to explain it away with implausible

half-assed explanations. I know that's all you have. But the internet has a permanent memory.

The rampant cheating is recorded forever, and Hillary will be every bit as illegitimate as Shrub.

Your explanation that people who drive through traffic jams and stand in lines with 20,000 other people for hours in the cold and heat, but can't be bothered to vote, is patheticly unpersuasive to any critical thinker.

It's bullshit through and through.

[workinclasszero]

40. So why hasn't Bernie filed a legal complaint about this massive rampant cheating?

Why isn't he on TV right now demanding an investigation into the rampant cheating that gave Hillary 3 million more votes than he got?

That's what I call a grand, vast conspiracy woo!

It would takes hundreds and hundreds of people to pull off something that big.

You would think one of them would have spilled the beans by now.

Or maybe Bernie's revolution just didn't show up at the voting booth and he's going to endorse Hillary soon.

You choose.

[drray23]

102. just think objectively for a second what a conspiracy of this scale would involve

The primaries are run by the state board of election on behalf of the parties. Many of the states where Hillary won are controlled by the GOP, both governorship,house and senate. Somehow, the Clinton campaign would have had to convince all these GOP states to not only suppress votes, but figure out which person would likely vote for Sanders and suppress that. Not very credible. The fact of the matter is that the Sanders campaign did not do a good job to inform their supporters on what to do and when for the primaries. When to register, etc..

[Betty Karlson]

42. more dismissive bashing of Sanders supporters.

keep them coming guys, and you may keep them leaving - potentially even for ever.

[workinclasszero]

45. People are discussing the problem of young people failing to vote on a discussion board

Whats "bashing" about that?

And not many are afraid of people who can't be bothered to actually vote either.

[Betty Karlson]

46. yeah, that's the spirit I was talking about.

[Yavin4]

52. The inability to accept insightful analysis and criticism prevents improvement and growth

A movement needs to be real. Not a spectacle. It's not about going to rallies. It's the hard every day work of organizing and being involved in the process for every election, not just the presidency.

Many Sanders supporters are upset over the voting process and procedures, but how many are/were involved when those procedures were put into place? How many were involved when the ballots were designed or the process of selecting/electing delegates were decided. These are the things that real movements deal with.

Anyone can go to a rally.

[Betty Karlson]

93. How many were involved when the rules were drawn up? very few:

a) some of them are very young, so were not eligeable to make the rules
b) as shown in Nevada, rules will be broken by those who don't like impending results under the current rules
c) Debbie and her ilk make and perpetuate rules as she sees fit, ignoring any and all imput.

[Yavin4]

95. And rallies don't answer any of your points.

Organized movements do. That's what it takes to make real change.

[tom-servo]

49. I don't think 13M people attended Bernie Sanders rallies...

... so it is easily possible all of them voted for him. Whether they did or not, they most likely would have if they could have.

[Henhouse]

55. K&R....nt

[eastwestdem]

56. A very important detail is that many who attended rallies were not of voting age.

There was a big Bernie contingent in my kid's high school who went as a large group to many of the Bernie events in the Bay Area during the past few weeks. They are likely some of the most rabid supporters I have encountered. The kids at the high school who supported Hillary did so covertly, for fear of being ostracized. But, it turned out that they were in the majority (the school did a straw vote on Tuesday), and have now gained new-found confidence.

This can also be seen in the arrest of the kids who attacked the Trump supporters after the San Jose rally last week. They were 16 and 17 year old Bernie supporters.

[brooklynite]

64. "went as a large group to many of the Bernie events"

...and there's another problem. Attending multiple rallies takes away spaces that might have gone to an undecided voter, and dilutes the voter impact of each subsequent rally.

[Whimsey]

66. So it looks like they won't be voting for trump

If the analysis holds true, and I believe it does the rabid supporters will not be getting out to vote anyways so best to just ignore them. Maybe pat them on the head?

[libdem4life]

77. The Daily Banter ??????? Must be some rag from somewhere.

All kinds of "sources" here lately. Going to call then HRC Wing Rags.

Such hyper sensationalism. Did anyone do a "poll" to find out if those who attended actually voted? Seems to me there's not a way in hell to justify that uh, conclusion.

It's getting desperate here. Cult of personality. Wow, who decided that? Burn it all down...Link?

The kids...post here a lot.

Just another meme, based upon itself. I've heard it said that those who attended the rallies did not vote..,.based on? Nada. Nothing. Zilch. A couple of "internet sources".

Give it up already. You'd think your candidate lost. But I'd be a bit concerned if I were these hubris-filled posters with squeaky clean "links"...it ain't November yet.

That's all. But do try and get what is required of "Sander's posters" legitimate links or sources. Been reeking of desperation lately.

[RufusTFirefly]

79. Nothing good ever comes out of rallies

[forjusticethunders]

88. All those rallies were the product of decades of not as flashy organizing and consciousness-raising

And other not sexy things that the Bernie campaign neglected.

You can have the best icing in the world but it doesn't matter if your cake is flat.

[RufusTFirefly]

90. If you don't see a connection between this ...

... this ...



... this ...



... and this...



... then I'm not sure that you've been paying suitable attention. This movement isn't new, and it definitely isn't dead. It's building.

[GeorgeGist]

82. Divisive.

Trash.

[Eric J in MN]

83. It's bogus to imply that people who went to the rallies didn't vote.

If 30,000 people in a state go to Sanders rallies & a million people vote in the Democratic primary, then even if Clinton wins the state it doesn't mean those 30,000 people didn't vote.

Also, the writer engages in double-talk to imply that Sanders winning college towns supports a young-people-don't-vote premise.

[aikoaiko]

86. Stunning analysis: Bernie lost because not enough people voted for him.

Pure genius.

[Eric J in MN]

99. +1 (NT)

NT

[AgingAmerican]

92. Jealousy and cognitive dissonance

[Beacool]

96. Interesting.....

"There are two articles circulating right now that speak volumes about the Democratic primary race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in California and beyond. One in particular offers probably the most predictable and revealing bit of information to come out of the whole protracted contest. It's a piece in the San Francisco Chronicle that details all the ways that, despite their deafening roar both online and at rallies, Sanders's rowdy Millennial fan base basically let him down. In the article, titled "Young Voters' Low Turnout Led To Sanders' Big Loss," Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data Inc., states unequivocally that “the young (voters)... were Bernie’s key supporters ... and they didn’t show up." The article adds that while 25% of California's record surge of over two million new registrants were under the age of 35, only about 10% of those voters actually cast a ballot. Now, eliminating any conspiracy theories about voter suppression Sanders's more fanatical base might be inclined to offer up as an explanation, that's a pretty surprising number of people who sat the election out."

Bottom line, the young are "fickle". Hillary held smaller events, but her supporters showed up where it mattered: at the voting booth.

[Eric J in MN]

100. CA turnout was less than predicted because AP declared HRC the winner the night before. NT

NT

[Beacool]

104. Yeah, keep believing that.

Hillary was always going to win CA, as she also did in 2008.

Besides, what's the point? She was still going to be the nominee, even if she had lost CA. Her pledged delegate lead has been insurmountable since April.

[tonyt53]

101. When college let out for the summer, the air went out of his balloon too.