Sanders and turnout

[SCantiGOP]

I expect Sanders to do well in the 3 caucus states tonight but not because, as their campaign asserts, he does well when there is high voter turnout.
An article in my local (Columbia, SC) paper today says that he does best when "there is almost no turnout."
As example, he received 18,640 votes in winning the Idaho caucus. Clinton's margin of victory in my home county alone was more than that (she received 39,322 votes).
For those keeping score nationwide, Clinton has thus far won 8.9 million votes to 6.4 for Sanders.
Sounds like a pretty favorable stat for the General Election.

This was the only forum where I could post this without it being overrun with people basically disenfranchising all black and Southern voters to discredit the fact that Hillary is on her way to the nomination and the White House.

[Lucinda]

1. Caucus states are much lower turnout...and disenfranchise voters.

I can support them if they allow absentee/early voting, but otherwise, I think they should go.

[book_worm]

2. caucus turnout doesn't compare to primaries

I posted last week that Idaho and Utah combined had just over 95,000 participants while Arizona had over 400,000 in the democratic race. That is one reason why HRC won the total popular vote on Tuesday despite losing two states.

[otohara]

3. I Don't Think 120,000 Is Good Turnout

which is how many Colorado Democrats showed up to caucus.
Horrible disenfranchising system that needs to go away!

[Thinkingabout]

4. When they talk about the super degates it would seem reasonable the super

Delegates would endorse Hillary if the decision was based results. I feel sure those who have already endorsed before the primaries on results of experience and ability.