What is not being mentioned in these Democratic primaries/caucuses for 2016 is that there is divide in the party.
A part of the reason why Hillary Clinton eked out wins in particular states by 3 points or less, and why Bernie Sanders did that in Michigan (which, given he was polling 20 or so points behind, made his upset in that state come off looking like it was a stunning pickup), is because of the voting-age demographics.
In exit polls, nationwide and state after state, there tend to be four voting-age groups reported: 18–29, 30–44, 45–64, and 65+.
Generally, the Republicans' best age group is 65+. It was the only one, in 2008, which actually shifted Republican (in a presidential year in which they were the incumbent White House party and lost it in what became a Democratic pickup) by a national shift of close to 10 points.
Generally, the Democrats' best age group is 18–29. When George W. Bush won the U.S. Popular Vote, nationally he carried all age groups but this one. (Which, of course, means that 18–29 was the only voting-age group carried by losing Democratic nominee John Kerry. And the percentage-points margin, with the U.S. Popular Vote, was only R+2.46.)
65+ is there first for the Republicans.
18–29 is there first for the Democrats.
Part of the reason, I was saying earlier, that Hillary Clinton eked out victories by 3 or less points in particular states is because the two oldest voting-age groups sided with her while the two youngest sided with Bernie Sanders. You crunch the numbers and realized what aided her wins were attributed to the weight of the two oldest voting-age groups being in the 60s percentile range while the two youngest voting-age groups were in the 40s percentile range.
In the general election, the age groups which are bookends, 18–29 and 65+, are generally in the 40s while the two in between, 30–44 and 45–64, are near to 60 percent of the size of the vote in state after state and nationwide.
The fact that Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton, carried 18–29 Democratic primaries/caucuses voters in the first two states—Iowa and New Hampshire—and this has been a repeated pattern (except for the Old Confederacy states) is making a statement. The long-perceived frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, should not be losing 18–29 by a level of 4 to 1. No way.
Vox.com's Matthew Yglesias has the theory that the youngest age groups, which we call
Millenials, which does cover some in the 30–44 range, are more "ideologically driven" and want a Democratic Party which is more ideologically driven to the left. After the New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary, held February 9, 2016, Yglesias wrote the following:
If Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, wins the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, I would theorize that she is going to have to carry about 95 percent of these 18–29 primaries/caucuses voters who preferred Bernie Sanders. When looking at the national exit polls, after a presidential election, neither Republicans or Democrats holds 100 percent of self-identified Republicans or Democrats. In most cases, the one who holds more party support ends up having won. Typically, about 90 to 92 percent is where a winning Republican or Democrat performs. Since 18–29 are the Democrats' base of the four voting-age groups (while 65+ is that for the Republicans), a nominee Hillary Clinton will not win the general election without hitting the necessary numbers. If she prevails, she will have managed to reach that level of Primaries Bernie-to-General Hillary support. But,
how that would happen is, as I see it, having to merge much of what the 18–29 voters want from the Democratic Party because their primaries/caucuses votes for Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton, isn't because they are sexually attracted to and obsessed with Bernie Sanders. They connected with the leadership Bernie Sanders has in mind for the party, for their lives, and for the nation. And they want that, more generally, from every presidential nominee from the Democratic Party.
