Hillary Clinton scored one of the biggest political victories of her life this week when she swept a series of critical primaries that essentially guaranteed her path to the Democratic presidential nomination.

Provided Clinton maintains her momentum and doesn't lose to Sen. Bernie Sanders by huge margins in upcoming primaries, she will be the first woman in American history to run in a general election for the nation's highest office.

One might have expected to see this milestone amplified on social media within hours of Clinton's commanding performance, but her supporters didn't swarm the digital public square like Sanders voters did the next day with a defiant #StillSanders hashtag.

The relative absence of Clinton backers isn't simple to explain, but it could point to the much-discussed enthusiasm gap, an election storyline that Clinton's campaign disputes.

"Hillary Clinton is proud to have more votes in this primary than any candidate in either party, including 2.5 million more votes than Senator Sanders," Jesse Ferguson, a spokesman for Clinton's campaign told Mashable.

We did it.



To every volunteer, supporter, and donor who worked your heart out: Thank you. Let's do this. pic.twitter.com/nQDtSvnc4k — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) March 16, 2016

Recent polling suggests that excitement for Clinton's nomination isn't as soft as it may seem. A Bloomberg poll of likely Democratic primary voters in South Carolina found that three-quarters of respondents were very of fairly enthusiastic about Clinton as the nominee, while only two-thirds of voters felt the same about Sanders. The state is, however, friendly territory for Clinton; she won the primary by a margin worth bragging about.

A national CNN poll conducted in January showed a more even split among a small subset of registered Democratic voters, with about a third saying they were very enthusiastic for Clinton or Sanders.

Clinton supporters no doubt want to avoid a premature celebration that casts Clinton as inevitable and plays into criticism of her as arrogant. They may remember too that President Obama didn't secure the nomination until June 2008, and Sanders has promised to take his campaign to the convention in July.

Yet, it's been impossible to ignore the passion of Sanders supporters, which seems to prompt exasperation and defensiveness from those on Clinton's side.

What the Hillarists can't understand is that we actually have principles we are willing to fight for.#StillSanders@WeAreBernie — TruthtoConservatives (@ToConservatives) March 18, 2016

On Wednesday, his backers took to Twitter with the #StillSanders hashtag, which became a top trend in the U.S. The tweets were declarations of loyalty, but many were cutting progressive takedowns of Clinton.

The most vocal Sanders supporters are campaigning against a version of Clinton those in her corner probably don't recognize: She is not a feminist hero nor a champion of women and children, but a Wall Street puppet and politician moved by convenience instead of principle.

The only anti war candidate. We must work harder. #StillSanders pic.twitter.com/CGnVsGrFTk — Believe In Bernie (@ND4Bernie) March 16, 2016

In a Medium essay published Wednesday, Holly Wood, a Sanders "die-hard" and doctoral student in sociology at Harvard, argues that Clinton is a not a "moral candidate."

After all, Hillary Clinton admitted to deporting orphaned refugees at the border to send a message to warlords. She thanked Nancy Reagan for letting tens of thousands of AIDs victims die. She voted to drop bomb after bomb on brown kids across the world. She served as her husband’s political adviser when he killed welfare and then sent millions of black kids to hyperprison. You can say I’m biased, but her record is a cascade of decisions that weigh heavily on the American conscience forever going forward.

Such claims from pro-Sanders progressives are common on social media, rendering Clinton supporters fools, hawks or pawns of the status quo. To publicly embrace Clinton in the company of other progressives making these charges — even if some are inaccurate or exaggerated — starts to look unappealing if not daunting. Those voters may fear losing their liberal credentials in the eyes of friends and family members. They may also fear harassment or confrontation in their timeline.

#StillSanders b/c I've never even HEARD of a human whose values & message have been on the right side of history for 70 freaking years. — Woobie Tuesday (@WoobieTuesday) March 16, 2016

Of course, no political supporter should expect to be coddled or feel immune from answering for their candidate's record. Indeed, President Obama's backers experienced similar attacks in 2008, and it was Clinton supporters who often used the dismissive "Obamabot" insult. Ultimately, despite Obama's clear record as a "pragmatic idealist," progressives still championed his candidacy and its historic nature.

Clinton is not benefiting from the same momentum, partly because the country cares less about making history and more about breaking with politics as usual. It's also because the feminist moment of her candidacy has been spoiled by campaign surrogates like Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright, whose tone-deaf comments about why women should support Clinton have alienated voters, including progressives.

And Clinton's own unforced errors of late, including a remark about former first lady Nancy Reagan’s role in the AIDS crisis, make life no easier for voters who are already on the defensive when it comes to their candidate.

#StillSanders because honesty & integrity should mean something. From day 1, @BernieSanders hasn't flip-flopped on any issues. #FeelTheBern — Arabs For Bernie (@ArabsForBernie) March 16, 2016

At the same time, it's nearly impossible to disentangle criticism of Clinton from sexism. When critics say Clinton is but a product of the corrupt political system she's operating in, it's hard to imagine how she could have risen to power without playing by some of the same rules as the most male politicians.

That argument was the essence of two other recent Medium essays. Lauren Besser, a writer and actor, talked candidly about feeling torn between Clinton and a "dream presidential candidate" like Sanders, and the impossible double standards Clinton faces. Besser laid it out thusly:

As Bernie gained momentum, his candidacy opened space for intolerable misogyny, including especially dispiriting vitriol from self-identified progressive men and women. It filled me with rage and sadness. The onslaught of venom directed toward a woman who played the any-means-necessary game of politics was a real trigger — where have all these player-haters been for the centuries this game has dominated our nation? Men have made Hillary’s choices, and far worse, on repeat, for all of our history, to little fanfare.

Similarly, actor and comedian Katie Massa Kennedy decried intra-party attacks on Clinton in a popular post entitled "Your Gleeful Liberal Takedown of Hillary Clinton Is Affirming Institutional Sexism." She wrote:

Hillary Clinton is indeed, as her critics claim, part of the “the establishment.” Like all women of lofty ambition, she is keenly and woefully aware that in 2016, less than a century out from women’s suffrage, pioneering into a space formerly only occupied by men requires an acceptance that gender constrains one to work within the system, rather than from outside of it.

Pro-Sanders voters point to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) as a paragon of ideological purity, but she is a relative newcomer to politics, elected because she was an outsider who vowed to take on corporate interests. That is a much different path than Clinton's.

The problem for Clinton is that a spirited defense of her record or motivations is not the same as unabashed zeal for her candidacy. That dynamic may change once the nomination is officially hers. She does indeed have outspoken and influential advocates, particularly among reproductive rights activists who regularly use the #ImWithHer hashtag.

Yet, what Clinton needs more of to close any perceived or real enthusiasm gap ahead of a general election is the kind of unreserved passion seen in Wednesday's episode of Broad City. When the show's two heroines, Abbi and Ilana, unexpectedly meet Clinton at her New York City campaign headquarters, they become starstruck fangirls.

"Sorry, we are just so excited," says Ilana, before the two squeal with delight.

"Secretary Clinton, Madame, Président, She-King," Ilana continues. "I can't afford to volunteer here full-time, but I still want to get the word out. So I vow to tweet once a week, 'Vote for Hillary. Yas. Yas. Yas.'"

so proud to rep you on our show @HillaryClinton. twas a dream come true! let's go get that primary 👊🏽 we're close — ilana glazer (@ilazer) March 17, 2016

"That would be great," Clinton says. "We need to drum up some excitement for the campaign, do everything that we possibly can."

Have something to add to this story? Share it in the comments.