OK, but Hillary’s not touting herself as bringing a huge influx of new voters. Obama did, and he backed it up with numbers.
Still, there are more numbers voting in Democratic primaries than there would be without a charismatic challenger. That that challenger happens to be Bernie Sanders is thought-provoking.
And Hillary is touting herself as someone who can work with Republicans, which implies a degree of disconnection from reality.
Hey, this same reasoning is why I want Sanders to win 
Why, I oughta… 
And I’d like to nominate this foresight for an award:
(Posted when Scalia was alive and kicking…)
I am a former young Republican that campaigned for Reagan, so I still lean right, but politics has moved so far too the right that I think Sanders would do the most good towards moving us back to the center.
Not getting the relevance of this. Yes, if there was not a competitive race then there would be no interest. Which is of no informative value to how much turnout there would be in a competitive general election.
Obama excited Millennials … and a host of others to come out. To a much greater level than Bernie has so far. And Obama’s turnout did not result in a Congress that could count as a “political revolution.”
But unlike Obama’s greater excitement, Bernie’s impact down ticket will be HYUUUGE!
And let’s be honest here … Obama was able to win because the time was right. He was following a Republican administration that was horribly unpopular.
I’m first and foremost a pragmatist. I loved Bill Clinton for his pragmatism over ideology approach to most issues. So, as a centrist, I’d rather Hillary have a shot, than Bernie.