In light of recent events, I have decided to choose a candidate.

[Hortensis]

40. Wow. Well: 1) "most Americans are quite fed up with the status quo"

is almost always a sure sign of some manipulator trying to sucker readers, feeding them what a power player wants them to believe, rather than readers than obtaining facts and information directly from the doers and arriving at their own conclusions. Only read material that provides links to who's being quoted, and hit THOSE to get to the original sources before reading. Don't let propagandists tell you what smart people said and why, read for yourself.

2) Another sure sign of chicanery afoot is the notion that FDR was not a mainstream, establishment, pro-capitalism liberal Democrat like most of the people in the Democratic Party today. The people you imagine FDR was like gave him hell until he finally kicked out the ones he'd brought into his government to help fix the nation. They gave him no choice. Sanders' counterparts in the 1930s believed FDR (a quintessential member of the ultrawealthy "establishment" ) betrayed America; they were appalled by the New Deal as proof of betrayal, and ran one of their own against him in hopes of kicking him out of office. They believed they represented "the people." They were wrong, and their new Progressive Party failed soon after.

3) There's some truth to your notion that Trump appealed because he sounded anti-status quo, but then it stops. Maybe read about populism, populists, and populist leaders, which both Trump and Sanders are.

A majority of populists are economically progressive and socially conservative, which is why those on the right turned on their betraying wealthy-serving, anti-tax, anti-regulation, anti-progressivism Republican leadership, first with the Tea Party and now with Trump. And it's why many of Trump's and Sanders' supporters can switch between them so easily.

Some responsible people get involved in populist movements, but overall the movements are given their special identity by destructive resentment and antagonism that crave leaders who'll take them on a mindless rampage against "the establishment" (interpretation: Democrats) and assorted ancillary targets, often including POC, Jews, that sort of thing. Nothing any nice or responsible person wants to be part of.

4) "Neoliberal"? Gimme a break. That's a huge dog whistle for hostile propaganda. The word was resuscitated for scoundrels to use to deceive because the old word neoliberal equates most these days to hard-core conservative laissez faire economics, BUT has the word "liberal" in it. Made to order for confusing those whose misplaced trust exceeds their interest in looking words up.

5) "Trickle down" was created to refer to reaganomics. Reagan was conservative, and his popularity was used by hard-core laissez faire RW types to move the nation strongly right -- reaganomics. Trickle down these days still refers to RW greedy-bastard economics, the very antithesis of liberal economics.

Here's one last thing:

"We can have democracy in this country, OR we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

This was progressive liberal Nancy Pelosi quoting pre- New Deal, progressive liberal Justice Louis Brandeis to the nation at the opening of the 116th congress.