I'm not sure what you mean by a "One Size Fits All argument." Nowhere do I say that Donald Trump represents the totality of the American populace. In agreement with Koehler, I said he represents the "absurdity of American politics." Do you disagree with this?
I did not take "the angry white guy crowd that digs Trump" as a "true portrait of this nation." You are reading implications into my post that are just not there. I was trying to say (perhaps clumsily) that Trump was NOT representative of the American people, largely because representation itself has no meaning in a political culture dominated by Big Money. Trump has bought his way into relevance. You can hear his kind mouthing off in a thousand bars all across the United States. But the typical barroom yahoo has no chance of being President, without a billion dollars to his name. Trump is a billionaire and a bigot, but it's the billion dollars that really count in his ascendency.
I never said that Trump supporters are the truth of the Nation, for the simple reason that I don't believe that. And I don't believe in Trump's general representativeness because there is zero evidence for this contention. It seems that Trump's support mostly originates from the Tea Party right, "the angry white guy crowd," as you call them. For me, the Tea Party is an absurd political phenomenon: the party calls for "smaller government," except for the military and the police. And in their benighted world view, they think this is a defense of "liberty" and "freedom." What nonsense!!
Trump speaks nonsense, and because the political culture is partly insane, to not a few people, his gibberish comes across as insight and brave wisdom.
I obviously don't think that Bernie Sanders is the left equivalent of Trump. And, yes, I agree Sanders' standing speaks to positive forces in the US polity, regardless of what one thinks of Sanders himself. Sanders would be considered a progressive liberal in many other countries. He calls himself a "Democratic Socialist." It's hugely significant, in the brainwashed USA, where anti communism is state religion, that a well-known politician can call himself a "socialist" and still fare well in the polls. Again, it does not matter what you think of the man, his run is of historic significance, in opening up Left possibilities. The Left needs to move away from the Democratic Party if we are ever going to see a progress for Labor in the ongoing class war. Sanders's run might just be the beginning notes in that movement, as his supporters are bound to experience frustration when they see their candidate denied by the lords and barons of the DLC.
As regards the charge of "all-male framing" I confess bemusement. Where did I leave aside "the voices of women and perspectives of those OUTSIDE the dominant paradigm"? I'm sure you understand that one cannot say everything in a little post, and the fact that one neglects to say this or that cannot be taken of evidence of nefarious intent. I think it ungenerous to read posts in this way, especially in a forum where one is supposed to be among comrades and "friends." Anyhow, let me make plain what you think I deliberately omitted: among other sins, Donald Trump is an unmitigated sexist. His views on women alone should unfit him for public appearance, let alone higher office. BTW an "all-female framing" can lead you into trouble. When it comes to "the voices of women," as you put it, I don't particularly care for the views of Carly Fiorino (Spelling?) or Hilary Clinton. In my view, they both hold positions that are harmful to men and women, especially those mired in the lower classes.