I will grant the point that Trump did get more votes among minorities than past republicans, but that's a little like saying 1/3 of a cup is better than 1/4 of a cup. Like yeah, it's a bit more, but not a huge amount. It does mean that his message spoke more to class issues than his rhetoric could harm him, but it wasn't all that effective.

Additionally, he had lower turnout than did Romney, who lost. Are we saying that the outrage and backlash from the right is less than it was 4 years ago? I really don't think so.

Instead, Trump lucked out because of a few factors:

1. No one to split the anti-establishment vote. Sanders would have quashed this by splitting it.
2. People on the left were not enthusiastic about Hillary. This is the main issue. She could not get those extra 5-10 million voters that Obama did, despite substantially similar policies.

So it's difficult to say that Trump has a mandate or is part of some uprising, when it's more due to the failure of Hillary Clinton. Just like if she won, it would be more of a rejection of trump than an acceptance of her.

The truth is, Trump couldn't even muster the full force of the anti-Obama brigade, for someone who arguably garnered much, much more ire before her campaign ever began, compared to a guy who was a literal "who?" before he ran.

And I really, really don't think Trump is going to go against the establishment on trade, interventionism, or any of the issues affecting the working class. That's like expecting Obama to have done the same after he got elected.