2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Ten Reasons Why Hillary lost - And they are probably not what you thought [View all]CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)He was a voice, that was all, a voice that few heard and even to whom even fewer paid. He represented tiny sliver of the US population - a state, tiny in size and tiny in population - the only state with two Senators and only one Representative.
He lacked name recognition because he never got anything of any substance done during his time in the House or the Senate. He was not a leader in the chambers despite his longevity, in large part because he wouldn't compromise and wasn't the best when it came to working with others. He has always been on the far left, a socialist, when the country is center left or center right, you choose.
The minority heard about Bernie's proposed programs, how could they not, and they just weren't interested. He wasn't talking in language that appealed to them. He had never established relationships with the blacks, Hispanic national communities. Sure, he marched in the original Civil Rights marches, but they saw little evidence that anything he had done recently to improve their lives. That was in stark contrast to to Hillary's relationship with the minority communities over a long period of time.
Perhaps all of this was a product of the constituency which Bernie represented for so long. In Vermont the voters are predominately white and Bernie's supporters predominately very liberal except for their love of fire arms. They apparently loved the lone wolf who represented them, though he rarely got anything of substance done, especially when he was willing to forgo his liberal values when it came to protecting their 2nd Amendment rights and to bring big military contracts to their state.
However, when he tried to parley his record into a Presidential campaign, it was not surprising that he appealed to people who are like his Vermont constituents and did not appeal to people who are not like his constituents.