Anecdotal, but a good majority of the people I know right now in Colorado walking and calling for Bernie, long time democrats who walked/called for Obama in '08 and '12 have pretty much voiced their lack of interest in working for a Clinton win.
I feel like that's going to be a lot of people, the Clinton campaign has been built on piles of money, while the Sander's campaign has been the kind of excitement you saw with Obama. Maybe she can win November with money, and good for her if she does, but it's not going to be because of any great grass roots effort by democrats who feel like she brings change to the table.
The people who support Sanders see a desire for change. It seems like the people who support Clinton do it in the hopes that not much changes for another 8 years.
I think you're a bit mistaken.
Super PAC money can't be used in official campaigns. Regarding the so-called "piles of money" the Hillary campaign is built on, the Bernie campaign is built on the same kind of "piles of money". You probably caught the fundraising numbers that in January Bernie's campaign outraised the Hillary campaign (albeit Hillary's campaign raised an additional chunk for downticket races). So he has his piles of money too.
The difference here is not that Hillary has more money. It's that her campaign is more organized, disciplined, and simply better than Bernie's. You can laugh at the social media gaffes or lash out about Hillary Clinton the candidate, but her campaign was strategizing for Super Tuesday very early on. The Bernie campaign poured lots of money into Nevada and South Carolina with very little to show for it, whereas Hillary's campaign planned for the possibility of a long primary fight. They didn't spend as much as Bernie in Nevada for ad buys, and by the end of South Carolina he probably would have spent more money than Hillary for these two months, but she would have won 3 out of 4 states.
If you want an idea of how the Bernie campaign is sort of flaky, you can see for yourself how ad spending looks in the Super Tuesday states.
It appears the person wanting to win Colorado through money isn't Hillary, it's Bernie.
Note that Priorities USA is the Hillary superPAC, and it's spent only about 175k compared to the millions spent by the official campaigns of Hillary and Bernie (it seems Priorities is conserving its money for the general).
Mark Murray ‏@mmurraypolitics 12m12 minutes ago
Clinton is outspending Sanders in Super Tuesday ad race
Clinton: $4.1M in 11 states
Sanders: $3.3M in 5 states
Also note that his campaign is targeting those states because they're largely white.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-bernie-sanders-hopes-get-his-goove-back?cid=sm_tw_msnbc
His campaign is currently advertising in five states, all of which are more than two-thirds white according to the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics: Colorado (80 percent white), Massachusetts (85 percent white), Minnesota (89 percent white), Michigan (72 percent white), and Oklahoma (82 percent white).
His campaign has conceded the minority vote. They're not even bothering to fight for the minority vote, even though you need that vote to win the Dem primary. Hell, you need the minority vote to win the general election as a Dem.
The so-called grassroots effort is probably stronger on Hillary's side, given that she has a lot of 2008 veterans from both her campaign and Obama's. You can pull a Nirolak and check the campaign job pages to get an idea of what the campaigns are doing: the Hillary camp was hiring data analysts and field organizers already back when the Bernie camp was still looking into directors for Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. Before the Bernie camp got a rude wake up call, Hillary already hired a diverse staff, particularly a Latina outreach director who started building relationships with locals way before the Nevada caucuses.
The funny thing about superPAC money, it can't build you a ground game. So if here is merit to strong organization and grassroots for Hillary, it would be to her campaign staff and not to her superPAC.
If Bernie's excitement was actually like that of Obama's, he would be winning. But he isn't. Your feelings about how things are...are just that, feelings. It doesn't match up with the results or reality. If people weren't excited to be voting for Hillary Clinton, she wouldn't be winning against the supposedly fantastically exuberant Bernie supporters.
Speaking personally, I think you're wrong to assume that the people who want change support Bernie, and the people who hope not much changes support Hillary. The people who supported Obama in 2008 and followed Obama's presidency for 7 years now know and understand the gears of the process and how to get change more effectively than those who are still simply searching for a singular hero to upend the system. Becoming president isn't a magic wand; having Obama in the seat did not banish racism and all the ills of the world. The people who are willing to grind and endure are no less wishful for change than those who want to break the shackles immediately. They're simply smarter about it.