So the share of income going to the top 1% has increased to new heights during the Obama presidency, yet the election of Trump - as opposed to his rival who was expected to continue Obama's policies - is seen as irrational?
America had a chance with Bernie, but due to some combination of media attention, Clinton's ambition, DNC's corruption, Russian interference, increasingly-polarized news, and the generally anti-socialist slant of American political discourse, they threw it away.
Bernie was the "fuck this, change everything" candidate that actually had the disenfranchised's needs at heart. Trump claims the same but doesn't substantiate it.
EDIT: And honestly, I don't think Bernie would have been able to accomplish much, or that Obama has done much objectionable. I get the sense that Obama actually wants to improve things for the middle class, but is realistic about what he can accomplish with Republican houses shutting him down at every turn simply because any policy that helps the middle class appears anti-capitalist (i.e. socialist) when capitalism is increasingly synonymous with centralization of wealth as efficiency grows.
EDIT Again: This whole "campaign for the poor but systematically serve only large businesses, then tell everyone that the democrats -- who actually systematically care about humans a little bit -- are the devil" thing is kind of the GOP's M.O., and, as an outsider, I think it's disgusting. Trump is only an exceptionally bad example because he amplifies some of the standard GOP stances while mixing in his own crazy brand of narcissism.
For the record, Democrats had total control of Congress when Obama first came into office.
Democrats lost election after election to them and so shifted their policies to match, hoping to chase votes.
Now we don't really have any populist politicians or political parties left.
It seems we are resigned to lurching from panic to panic with anemic growth until we hit the wall of another Great Depression. Then the pain will be so monumental that the 1%'s influence will be swept aside. What form things will take on the other side of that transition no one can say. I also wouldn't hazard a guess on how long it takes; The Panics of 1873, 1893, and 1907 didn't seem to teach anyone any lessons because they repeated the same anti-regulation low-tax "rah rah rah capitalism!" mistakes in the 1920s and triggered the Great Depression. In some ways you could say our systems worked too well to counter-balance the 2007 crisis; they prevented things from getting really bad and forcing change.
Clinton planned to raise taxes moderately for the wealthy, but supported globalization policies which created that wealth in the first place.