Kotz makes a good observation, though with a good bit of whistling in the dark.
We are in a "strange attractors" sort of scenario: irregularities have gathered, so the orbit shifts: interesting times, and we have not seen the big shift yet; this is just an opening wobble.
The same factors hold although we understand them in a context now expired, and must review. Still, a leftist who is "lone" does not win an election--nor, to the point, does he mount a major challenge in the Democratic Party. We need the leftist, not the party.
Donald Trump will be idiosyncratic if by that Kotz means loudly bigoted and scary, and, when Clinton is thereby elected, Trump will get his fee from whoever purchases such services. But that means a right-wing demagogue takes power in January, not in four years or eight years. And it is just another right wing; Obama has been hauling the party and the Congress and the DNC to the right for eight years.
That will just get worse: you can bet that after Clinton and the DNC have had four years to further purge the rolls, you will see no more major challenges to Neoliberal and Neoconservative globalism from within the party.
That means that because we have failed to push or pull or hold the elected Democrats even slightly to the left or center and failed to establish any powerful populist organization at all--and this despite the astounding accomplishment of Bernie Sanders and his people--we shall have to fight this almost exclusively outside of the electoral arena. The government has been arming against us, so new methods must be found. Democracy is a fine goal, but as a mechanism, it has now stalled for want of maintenance.
We can be reasonably certain that Clinton will plunge the US further into more and more serious wars, accelerating the course of energy and ecological crises and steepening the slope between the rich and powerful and the poor and plentiful.
It remains to be seen when and how the upcoming array of crises will impact this. What can be known about all this at this point?
We know the combined ecological crises are coming, that people are not ready, and that for the most part even those people who are aware that a problem exists are failing to prepare. This will be very bad, but it is not as yet clear just how bad nor just how sudden this will be. The first major problems will probably be food and water shortages and displaced populations, hopefully without sudden holocaust in response.
There is some history of positive response, though the examples are few. The response of Cuba to the collapse of the Soviet Union is perhaps the closest. The rise of organoponic gardens across the island kept people fed under American blockade. We can or at least could do something similar in the US and Europe; the question is how long it takes to do and learn how much. As ever, whatever we fail to do will tend to undo us.
At this point we should be able to see that the energy crisis will come quickly, in that we will fail to act in time to avoid drastic problems, but that it will not come suddenly, overnight. There will be isolated sudden shortages, and individual tragedies; those are different than grand collapse. For a good while, the rich will presumably commandeer cornfields for bio-diesel to fly watermelon from Chile in January and so forth, and let the poor starve. But what we are going to see from this at first will be higher relative prices and more intensive coercion to corral resources. Once again, the upcoming energy shortage means that we shall need to get what we need very close to home.
The international and national banking and finance economy is likely to crash quickly at some point. It's all a casino with a sort of Ponzi scheme at the base, and success in investment involves pulling one's money out at the key moment and leaving one's colleagues to take the losses. For that reason, any whisper of problem may at some point lead to a sudden run on the banks. This means that investments and particularly the investments that working people make will be sacrificed, more or less like in 2008-2009, when Republicans and Democrats and the Fed all pumped money to a few financiers to allow them to take the homes and holdings and livelihoods and pensions of the general population rather than allow a more egalitarian prosperity as in Iceland.
This is likely to be the sudden failing, or at least the first sudden failing, thought it is not likely to be the deepest nor the most permanent. But again, it means that the international economy will fail to serve most individuals, and people will have to scramble for our rice and beans or whatever very close to home.
Some sort of localism seems to be the scenario in all cases. This is frustrating in some ways because it means that in many ways populism will have to define itself and to an extent will rightly define itself in terms of local | global rather than rich | poor, although this in many ways resembles the mantras of the most xenophobic red-states sorts of groups, who tend to have little or no perspective about egalitarianism, race, gender, or particularly class. We can see the problems begin to emerge as our fellow posters here consider voting for Donald Trump as a least-worst candidate, with the same sorts of rationale that would have and likely did lead them to vote for Obama over McCain in 2008.
This is not a call for everyone or anyone to go right wing, let alone vote for Donald Trump, but we sure had ought to be talking to some people of a libertarian bent. The principles of class conflict have not changed in the slightest, and we need these to feed into a new anti-globalist agenda.