Despite the irrational exuberance of certain self-proclaimed gate crashers, the Democratic Party has a serious problem with young voters, i.e., the so-called Millenial and Gen X generations. Take a look at this report by the Pew Research Center and tell me they shouldn’t be concerned about voter turnout and support for Hillary Clinton.

Among Millennials, the youngest generational group (born 1981-1994), 45% say they are independents, a jump of six points since 2008. At the same time, the share of Millennials who identify as Democrats has dropped from a peak of 35% in the year Obama was elected to 31% today.

There is a similar pattern among Gen Xers (born 1965-1980). Currently, 42% say they are independents, 29% are Democrats and 24% align with the GOP. In 2008, 34% each said they were independents or Democrats, while 25% said they were Republicans.

So, since 2008, the election that swept Obama and many Democrats into office, due in large part to the votes of young people, with 66% of those who voted voting for him, we’ve seen a not insignificant decline in Millenials and Gen Xers who say they are Democrats. This is occurring even in liberal bastions such as California, as reported by the Los Angeles Times on February 29th of this year. The title of the article is quite apt: A threat ahead: California Democrats losing the fight for younger voters

The state Democratic Party convention held here over the weekend presented an occasionally jarring contrast: Democrats gathered at what seemed like a 50th college reunion for veteran politicians, and at the same time one of the biggest rounds of applause came at the mention of Bernie Sanders, the presidential candidate few of those politicians support.

At a Saturday convention panel focused on millennial voters — roughly those 35 and under — voting analyst Paul Mitchell issued a warning to Democrats. […]

“… Democrats aren’t converting … young minority voters who are the base of the Democratic Party.”

Of the 10 cities with the highest percentages of independent voters, he said, all but one are Latino-majority cities. That is jarring, since Democratic strength in the last generation has been built on the growing Latino population. […]

“Regardless of whether you’re with Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, there’s no question that right how Bernie Sanders has the overwhelming majority of the millennials,” said [Eric Swalwell (D-CA 15th Dist.)], who endorsed Clinton after his first choice, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, dropped out. “Whoever is the candidate, as a party we have to understand why that is the case.”

Why that’s the case is the candidates themselves. To young voters for whom she has been a life-long presence, Clinton looks like a captive of establishment politics. Sanders, with his call to “political revolution,” is the blunt-speaking fresh face.

Among millenials voting in the Democratic party, Bernie Sanders has consistently won the millenial vote by a wide margin, even among women and minority millenials. Even though Sanders lost 4 states (with one tie) on Tuesday, he dominated Clinton among younger voters. In Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio, Missouri and Florida. Here’s the breakdown by state:

Florida: Sanders won 65% of voters under 30.

Illinois: Sanders won 86% of voters under 30, and 58% of those 30 – 44.

Missouri: Sanders won 78% of voters under 30, and 61% of those 30 – 44.

North Carolina: Sanders won 81% of voters age 17-24. He also won 65% of those aged 25-29 age group, and 51% of those 30-39.

Ohio: Sanders won 87% of voters aged 18-24; 76% aged 25-29; and 57% aged 30-39.

But that is only among millenials who voted in the primaries. Unfortunately, more millenials are independents than belong to either party by a large margin. Arizona is a typical example, with “… 50.5% of all voters under the age of 30 … registered independent.” And in 2016, millenials have surpassed Boomers as the largest voting bloc in the country. Yet in the 2014 election, only 21% voted. That is a shocking statistic.

Now, it’s true that in presidential election years, turnout among all groups is higher, and in 2012 around 55% of millenials voted, with 60% of them voting for Obama (down from 66% of the youth vote he won in 2008, but still significant). However, Obama was a once in a lifetime candidate who brought record numbers of Americans to the polls either to vote for him or against him. Thankfully, because of high voter turnout among minorities and millenials, he won those two elections handily. But can the current front runner for the Democratic Party’s nomination, Hillary Clinton, realistically hope to achieve the same level of participation and support among the largest group of voters in America in 2016? That is a question still to be answered.

Obviously, this year, only one campaign and one candidate has inspired millenials to become passionately involved in the political process in 2016: Bernie Sanders. However, what if he is not on the ballot come November? One can hope that millenials will turn out in large numbers this year to vote for Clinton, if only to defeat the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump, but there are no guarantees that will indeed happen, despite some recent polling that shows her leading Trump among by “a margin of 52-19 percent among voters under the age of 35.”

A lot can happen between now and November. Even many Clinton supporters recognize she is a deeply flawed candidate with many vulnerabilities, including her ties to Wall Street. Those ties are an anchor on her ability to woo Sanders supporters. Indeed, in the recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 33 percent of Sanders’ supporters stated that they would not vote for her in the general election. Again, it is early, and who knows what will happen over the course of the next 7 months. But to suggest that Clinton will have little difficulty gaining the trust and support of younger voters is, frankly, delusional thinking on the part of her supporters.

Without that support, and in light of all the barriers to voting by minorities and other Democratic party constituencies created by Republican controlled statehouses across the nation, Hillary’s path to the Oval Office is far from a sure thing, regardless of her opponent in the Fall.