At this point it seems to me that there are three eternal candidates for the position of Emperor of the US. Thankfully they aren't leading armies, nor do I think they would be able to correctly identify an army - or at least their own army - so we will leave that aside as something that needn't be worried about. What I really want to do is to consider the character of the candidates as I see it so far and try to see to what degree they fit with the temper of the electorate.
1. Hillary. I don't understand why she hasn't given up yet, but she certainly has her supporters. At a restaurant a few days ago a young man was heard praising her as the best candidate to his son because of her vast "experience". Certainly I can agree that she has plenty of experience. But then again, so does an old tigress who stumbles into an unguarded flock of sheep. El Chapo would be a serious candidate for the "experience" category, as would Ghengis Khan. My impression so far is that Hillary has gone through life never doing anything in an honest and legal manner if dishonest and illegal option that accomplished the same end were available. After all, doing things honestly and legally is boring. The adrenaline rush comes with pushing the limits of illegality, while success in dishonesty puffs up the ego like nothing else. Thus, for much of America she is truly the ultimate candidate: We know the system is out to get us and we must do everything possible to get what we want. This includes the older angry feminist lobby, but somehow it seems to includes a broader part of America, as the young man's praise for Hillary testifies.
2. Bernie. There is a large portion of America that deem themselves to be "progressives", which is to say that they want to move forward to something like the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, or maybe the Paris Commune. They fully approve of all the policies of the government in Venezuela, but disavow all of the consequences. Given that the large majority of the filthy rich are Democrats who are regular guests at the White House, they suspect that the perennial attacks on the rich by the Obama/Hillary sorts are, um, not fully sincere. Then along came Bernie with a purer message of revenge against the "rich", who was not at the same time clearly tainted by the rich. For the gullible progressives, this is a message so attractive that its time has clearly come. Even though Bernie is almost a fossil, his supporters tend to be younger sorts who have not yet understood that to be successful in raging against the rich, you must engage in pay-to-play with the rich.
3. Trump. I doubt that anyone understands Trump, including his mother. But we can make a few observations. It has been said that Trump has embraced every possible political and non-political opinion, together with their negations, if you look long enough through time. This guarantees that he will offend Leftists, RINOs, conservatives, atheists, agnostics, and religious fanatics. Since Leftists always scream the loudest, this has certainly perked up my ears. Can it really be that there is a candidate out there who dares to offend Leftists? But then Trump's "tough leader" mentality comes in and he dishes out the rhetoric in return at anyone who picks a fight with him. It is certainly effective if no one can fight back. At this point I suspect there are a number of corrupt lawyers and judges who are salivating at the prospect of bringing him under control. What seems to me to be the important feature in linking Trump to the voters is Syncretistic Fundamentalism. This is the belief that not only can we embrace mutually opposite opinions, but we must loudly do this and take it to an extreme. Yes, America is Free Market, and a curse on anyone who says otherwise. But we are also Socialist and Communist with the same degree of certainty. We are passionate about being the most free people who have ever lived. Yet we have more laws than the rest of the world combined and the list is growing exponentially, which is proof of our greatness as well. Obama may have remarked about "False Choices", but Trump has taken the ideology of "no false choices" to an entirely new level.
So my conclusion is that Trump is really the right leader for America, because Syncretistic Fundamentalism is an all pervasive ideology in contemporary America, embraced by the left, the right, the middle, the conservatives, the liberals, the living and the dead. Hillary and Bernie may do well to a degree, but they will always be niche candidates. To lead America as America collectively wants to be led, we need Trump.