海角大神

Bernie Sanders talks a lot about inspiring a political revolution. That鈥檚 how he鈥檒l get Medicare-for-all and other progressive policies enacted over Republican objections, he says: a new army of left-leaning Sanders voters will rise up and overwhelm the status quo.

An expanded electorate is an implicit part of this vision. That鈥檚 what it would take for Democrats to break into the GOP鈥檚 red state congressional strongholds, retake the House, and build up a filibuster-proof Senate majority.

Well, that aspect of the revolution isn鈥檛 happening. At least, not yet. Turnout was down in all the Democratic votes held so far. That鈥檚 a big reason why Hillary Clinton, with her more utilitarian message of incremental change and the importance of experience, has dominated the Democratic race.

Sanders (I) of Vermont admitted as much on Sunday during an appearance on NBC鈥檚 鈥淢eet the Press.鈥� 鈥淚 wish we had had a larger turnout,鈥� he said, referring to the Nevada caucuses in particular.

The last time the Democratic Party had a contested primary season, in 2008, Nevada caucus turnout was about 118,000. This time around it was closer to 80,000. That鈥檚 a drop of about 33 percent.

In New Hampshire, about 288,000 people participated in the Democratic primary in 2008, while roughly 251,000 turned out this year, according to figures compiled by Steve Benen for MSNBC鈥檚 . That鈥檚 shrinkage of 13 percent or so.

In Iowa, Democratic caucus participation went from 236,000 in 2008 to about 171,000 this year, for a 25 percent reduction.

This pattern should be alarming to Sanders supporters. 鈥淗is entire candidacy is built on the premise that he, and he alone, can boost turnout in ways pundits and the political establishment fail to appreciate," writes Mr. Benen.

What are the larger political lessons here? One is an old advance person鈥檚 truism: crowd size is deceiving. Huge and enthusiastic rally audiences have convinced many candidates that they were building momentum when they weren鈥檛. Sanders may not be different in this regard.

Another is that it is risky to depend on young voters. They don鈥檛 vote in the percentages that their elders do. Maybe they have more to do; maybe their schedules are more unpredictable; maybe they鈥檙e just feckless (kidding!).

Sanders destroys Mrs. Clinton among younger voters, winning upwards of 80 percent of their votes, or more. But voters under age 30 underperformed in all three states that have now voted, in the sense that they made up a smaller share of those who turned up at the polls than they comprise of the state鈥檚 population.

Voters over age 65, who disproportionately back Clinton, did the opposite, and over performed.

鈥淭his is why campaigns that need younger voters in order to win often don鈥檛,鈥� writes The Washington Post鈥檚 , Phillip Bump.

The sharp-eyed may have noticed a flaw in the ointment of the analysis above: Sanders did not lose all those states. He won New Hampshire by 22 percentage points. How could that be?

Well, turnout among under-30 voters in New Hampshire was only down by a hair. That鈥檚 one reason.

Another reason 鈥� and a big one 鈥� is that the Democratic Party is more liberal than it used to be. The whole organization has lurched towards the ideological pole where Sanders has always stood.

One-third of New Hampshire voters described themselves as 鈥渧ery liberal,鈥� according to . Sanders won a whopping 67 percent of their voters. Another 42 percent said they were 鈥渟omewhat liberal.鈥� Sanders won 57 percent of them.

In Nevada, 70 percent of Democrats who caucused said they were liberal. The corresponding figure from 2008 was only 45 percent.

The bottom line: this means lower turnout doesn鈥檛 doom Sanders. But it makes his climb much steeper. And for the 鈥渞evolution鈥� part 鈥� Sanders is probably right that it would require a flood of new progressive voters to build the majorities necessary to pass his proposals. If they don鈥檛 arise, neither will free college.