I think the reason for Democrats low turnout

I have a feeling (and hope to hell) that voters will be a lot more enthused when Trump and his followers are out there doing all their crazy shit.

As far as high republican turnout, it's not surprising. It's been posted before how hard it is to keep the WH for longer than 8 (and 12) years. President Obama has done a much better job that the previous guy. Remember how motivated we were after 8 years of the previous guy? r's think President Obama has been a disaster, b/c that's what they hear in their bubble. They're as motivated now as we were in '08 (well, not QUITE as motivated, but motivated nonetheless).

The die-hard Bernie peeps are very excited, so they will vote for sure. But in my dorm, for example, only about 10% of them are really the cheerleaders of the group. The rest go along because it seems to be the thing to do. Those kids will vote if it's convenient and nothing else better comes up that day. The Hillary group (which is growing with her recent victories) by and large thinks that she is a shoe-in and don't think it's that important to vote in the primary. Hopefully the show on the other side will start to motivate people!

Democrat, he always voted for the eventual nominee. I guess that me & my siblings got our passion for political involvement from my Mom's family. They were intimately involved in local politics, and would never miss an election, not even for dog catcher.

They will turn out in November.

So far, for the Bernie people, no 'revolutionary' numbers to speak of, some success intimidating others at the caucus states - damn sure didn't work on Hillary's friend Elizabeth Warren!

I think a low turnout probably means most Dems think Hillary is the nominee and see no reason to vote.

and most despise the idea of any of the Republican circus show.

Thanks for playing!

You always have a reason to vote.

Sec. Clinton got more total votes than any other candidate in any party yesterday.

I don't think the Clinton supporters turnout is the problem.

Given the nature of the proposed Sanders "revolution"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/02/1-milion-more-people-have-voted-in-republican-primaries-than-democratic-ones/

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

Seems to make sense that more R's voted than D's. One thing of interest to me is how the votes for the NOT Donald are pretty much split between the Canadian and numb-nuts. McDonald has torn the republicon party apart, even though all 3 are nutters. Could be a big possibility that Hillary will glean a lot of R votes come the big one.

I'd love to see a 50 / 0 rout.

First, primary elections only draw serious political aficionados. The casual voter very rarely goes to a primary or caucus.

And second, we have two candidates on the ballot who will probably, once in office, govern about the same way. Congress isn't going to raise a bunch of taxes. They aren't going to dismantle Obamacare and replace it with a single-payer health plan that costs more than the entire current federal budget, or expand the government enough to manage that kind of program. They aren't going to sign off on a Free Tuition for All program. And they're not going to kill half the small businesses in America by doubling the minimum wage. The reason they won't do any of the things Bernie wants in the way Bernie wants them done, is the voters would shitcan them at the next election if they even thought about giving Bernie what he wants. Remember kids, a congresscritter's first concern is his or her seat. The Hillary plan can be enacted without causing a wholesale replacement of the entire Congress and immediate repeal of the whole schmear. So...our choice is have the Hillary plan enacted by a friendly grandmother, or the Hillary plan enacted by a perpetually-pissed-off old man.

This is my first primary where I really really care, and it's been an interesting experiance.