You think the lack of voter turnout in VT may have had something to do with the 60% lead Sanders held in the polls there? In fact, the majority of states run so far have been won by one side or the other by large margins, which dissuades turnout.

Others, especially caucus states, are the antithesis of welcoming to youth; Having a caucus at 11 AM on a Saturday or Sunday excludes all those people who work weekends, which most youth do as a matter of routine. Nevada was the last state EVER that should have held a caucus instead of a primary, due to the huge amount of people working non-traditional hours. Not many people can tell their boss "Hey, I gotta go stand in line for two hours and then argue and get repeatedly counted for another couple hours". Which is complete shit, because higher turnout in that state would very likely have resulted in a Sanders victory.

Anyway, closer states will see higher youth turnout, which is more heavily skewed to Bernie than anyone in history. Obama won 37% of the youth vote in Iowa in 08; Sanders destroyed that number. Even in most of the states that has seen his ass kicked in, he wins the youth vote by a large margin.

It's a double edged sword. The media has played so hard to paint Clinton as the inevitable candidate that it has discouraged voter turnout among youth, while at the same time higher youth turnout in NV, IA, and MA would have given Sanders at least two more wins, and possibly three. This race is about more than Bernie v. Hillary; it's about a huge segment of the population feeling energized by politics for the first time ever, and having the media tell them constantly that it is futile to care.