Exactly, the whole gun rights thing

is mainly just for rightwingers and Red America to maintain the threat of violence against liberalism and Blue America that embraces diversity and modern values.

We are engaged fundamentally in a culture war, and it's time our side showed up, instead of pretending it's all about economics and class struggle.

Sanders is a social libertarian

who supports civil/gay/women's rights from that perspective, but isn't going to draw a line in the sand the way a social liberal would. Warren for example has the same/similar economic platform as Sanders, yet is disliked intensely (just as much as Hillary was) by the white heartland, because she is a fierce social liberal and a woman.

Basically Sanders would prefer that his voters support civil rights, but if they don't, as long as they support economic leftism - then he thinks that's good enough, as to him economics/class are the 'true oppression', where social issues are merely a side concern at best, and at worst only work to 'divide' the working class. He has given numerous speeches to this effect, about 'identity politics', about reaching out to Trump voters (and downplaying their racism/sexism), about not scaring away the white working class, etc.

Again, a social liberal, or 'social justice warrior' as some of his supporters would characterize it - does not view social justice as a choice but a mandate - the 'long march' of civil rights through the institutions of society, to correct historical inequities. Even a moderate social liberal like Bill Clinton or Obama viewed it this way, merely choosing incrementalism towards this end and making compromises along the way, while still believing in the ultimate goal in the long run.

And Sanders' supporters (who are mainly white) understand all of this on an intuitive level - that he isn't forcing them to accept social justice (in the short or long run), as long as they support his economic leftism and his populist narratives, which (surprise surprise) tend to center the white working class at its struggles and resentments, its small town sensibilities, its aesthetic - just like the old FDR/Dixiecrat Dem party used to.

Ugh, Moore is the biggest pusher of the 'poor widdle white working class'

narrative, conveniently ignoring it was they who ditched Dems over the issue of social justice (civil rights, women's rights, etc), into the arms of Nixon and then Reagan.

Moore likely dreams of the days when the Dem party looked more like him, a white guy in a hat, than like Joy Reid, an urban black professional. That isn't 'centrism vs leftism' but metropolitan diversity (current base of the Dem party) vs heartland whiteness (base of the old FDR/Dixiecrat Dem party).

Alt-left narrative which Sanders has since backed off of, but

that narrative that the Dems 'sold out the (white) working class' is alive and well amongst both the alt-right/Trumpers and alt-left/DSA/Greens whose ideology is not at all liberal or Democratic, but a fusion of extremist populist ideologies, which they pound 24/7 on social media to slime Democrats.

Basically the alt-left are hard left on economics and foreign policy, libertarian or conservative on social values (and hostile towards social liberalism and civil rights which they see as 'dividing' the working class ie offending whites), and hold a conspiratorial worldview that is hostile towards the Dem party and its modern day icons such as the Clintons and Obama.

None of the candidates of color are at the top,

so it's not just about Kamala, but a system failure. Beto is a white guy best known for fighting for non-whites, and he also failed to gain traction.

Iowa/NH, two small white states, help to set the narrative - no suprise that the top 4 candidates are whites who suit the tastes of middle America.

When Iowa picked Obama alot of that was hatred/sexism against Hillary, also about the Iraq war (that Obama was against), also in a time way before Birtherism and Trumpism. Obama would not get elected in this climate, where whites in both parties have moved more towards a racially conservative direction.

A cartogram is a more accurate representation:

http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/?p=5003

The population-centric perspective of this map shows that Trump’s success has largely been in the more rural areas, while Clinton won more of the votes in the urban areas that stand out in the cartogram. An analysis by the Economist showed that “80% of voters who have over one square mile (2.6 square km) of land to enjoy to themselves backed Mr Trump.” As also reflected in the geographic voting patterns in the cartogram, the more densely populated areas become (shown as the larger grid cells which are proportional to their total population), the more likely was Clinton’s success.

However, despite having received more votes from the electorate, Clinton is not the winner of this election. Since the president is not directly elected, but by an electoral college of electors that the voters technically vote for, the presidential election is an indirect one and the outcome of the popular vote does not always reflect the outcome of the election. In the electoral college Hillary Clinton received 228 electoral votes, while Donald Trump secured 290 of the electoral votes. This means that Donald Trump will become the next president of the USA, officially taking over office from Barack Obama on January 20, 2017.