> People who get their information from the Internet tended to support Sanders. Those who got it from TV (usually 60 year olds, which is the networks' main audience), tended to support Clinton.

No. What you're saying there is that older people vote Clinton, younger people vote Sanders. There isn't any evidence to tie that to people's media habits, and "younger people vote for more liberal candidates than older people" has been true since time immemorial.

He's not saying that, he's saying exactly what he typed. I know quite a few young Hillary supporter and older Bernie supporter. The young Hillary supporters are ones who don't spend much time on the Internet. The older Bernie supporters are ones who spend more time on the internet than their peers. I think it plays much more of a part than you are giving credit for.

I'm very skeptical of this causation hypothesis. I think it's much more likely that there is a common-causal variable that causes people to both spend more time on the internet and be more likely to support Sanders.

'immemorial'

heh, autocomplete mistake. Thanks!

There is also a very strong racial aspect. Young or old black voters break hard for Clinton. Bernie Sanders was trying to win the Democratic nomination without the black vote, which is insanity.

It's a real shame he isn't younger. With the name recognition built up from this cycle he could probably do well in the next election, but he is way too old to be thinking about running again in 8 years. Even this year was pushing it a bit. Being President ages a man 20 years.

For this reason I'd look very carefully at who Bernie chooses to run with.

Yesterday really closed any possible hope of a Bernie nomination at this point. He really needed to carry Ohio to maintain legitimacy given that Florida was a lost cause. If he managed to pull a few more Michigan upsets out of his hat he could have maybe made the case for some vast unpolled demographic breaking for him, but as it is he just won't get the votes.

Really, the only way Bernie ends up with the nod now is if Hillary ends up in jail, and that's just not going to happen. David Petraeus is still a free man, and nothing Hillary has been accused of is even close to what he did.

He's extremely unlikely to get the nomination, so he's probably not going to choose to run with anyone.

These kinds of pointed, accusatory comments are why we're not supposed to be discussing garden-variety political stories on HN.

> pointed, accusatory comments

I don't understand -- the parent comment [0] seemed quite NPV, fact-based (albeit lacking in citational support), and non-argumentative.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11297491

It made a sweeping claim about Clinton's supporters, begging for an unproductive retort from one of them.

It may not have anything to do with where the people get the information. Sanders is the candidate young people can get behind, Clinton is more of what typical voters (older people) are looking for.

More simply, just look at the average age of a voter, they are not young people.