The flip side of the above is that there's not a lot of drama in the Democrats' process. I appreciate the role Sanders has played in this since, while not necessarily making it a horse race, he's been a serious enough candidate that he's forced Clinton into being an active campaigner (and I think she needs all the practice she can get). And, as a liberal myself, I like being reminded that true liberal policies still have a viable constituency (even if many of Bernie's policy positions are unrealistic). But Dems aren't really feeling the pressure to go to the polls to ensure that Martin O'Malley somehow gets on the ticket instead of Clinton. She's going to be the nominee, and we've known that for a long time. If turnout in 2012 was puny because an incumbent Democrat was running unopposed, I would argue that it's somewhat smaller than might otherwise be the case in 2016 because the outcome is already known. This isn't 2000. Democratic voters like Barack Obama and most of his policies. They're not fat and happy and kinda sick of and embarrassed by their outgoing president, as was the case in 2000. And they sure as hell don't see the potential Republican challengers as being in any way shape or form reasonable, acceptable or harmless, as they may have with W (hard as it to believe in hindsight). Shit, even in 2000, with Gore distancing himself from Bill and Clinton Fatigue wafting through the air, he still won the popular vote and may well have actually won Florida.
Very little. If you vote in a primary, you want to be there, and no voter ID law is going to manipulate you in or out of voting.