Fyfe is highly nuanced. It is important not to misinterpret his arguments and attack a straw man. I am also certainly not a "fanatic Sanders fan" in the sense of being ideologically predisposed to defending him over any possible criticisms. He was in no way a perfect candidate either. I agree with Fyfe that Sanders does not always respect scientific evidence. There are beliefs about science commonly found on the left which are wrong, just like is often the case in right wing circles, and Sanders is no exception when it comes to this. I would also have liked to hear more about America itself. Sanders does not seem to be too interested when it comes to addressing global poverty. I still do not agree with the idea that global corporatocracy is the way to go, even if it could help momentarily with lifting some numbers of people over poverty, and it is on such grounds that I'd argue for revising certain trade deals instead of completely shutting down trade. Not that Sanders is completely against trade, mind you, but I understand where Fyfe is coming from when Sanders' rhetoric tends to focus on "keeping jobs in the USA" as if it's inherently wrong for even poorer people to have a better chance at a fair living standard.
But I do have several comments here I consider to be relevant. The paper does not argue that Sanders is the perfect leftist equivalent of Trump, but makes the analogy between the two.
First off I agree with Fyfe that bigotry is "wrong in itself". However certain bigoted actions or rhetoric may be more immoral than others. Bigotry can still be wrong "in itself" while the above is true as well. In this case there are several important, morally relevant differences between the bigotry of Trump against Muslims and Sanders against millionaires. Trump himself has a positive bias in favour of rich people. He seems to put aside bigotry against Muslims when it comes to rich Saudi Arabians -- even if they are closer to ISIS than anyone else. It is also the case that wealthy people have tremendous power over society. This has become more and more true as democracy has been corrupted by big financial interests. Wealthy individuals have the potential to purchase political representation to defend themselves, modify tax legislation and protect their interests through state intervention. Not all do so, obviously, but their power to do so, especially considering the current status quo political context is obvious. It also goes without saying that bigotry against "rich people" is unlikely to result to great harm considering where most live, access to security forces, ease of obtaining visas even if Muslim. This is not the position of less financially privileged Muslims immigrants in the USA. To most of them Trump-style rhetoric can make the difference between owning a store or having it burned down by right wing fanatics. "Sanders" type of bigoted rhetoric is simply not as potentially harmful as Trump's campaign messages.
Apart from this has Sanders' rhetoric been as "bigoted" to begin with? How about his character? Here is Sanders supporting views of Warren Buffet (who btw supported Hillary Clinton, being full aware of the impact money has in politics, along with how easy it is to buy political representation from status quo politicians like Hillary). And here's Sanders engaging with Bill Gates on education. Does Sanders seem like a bigot? Can anyone imagine Trump talking in such a manner with people who'd he view as "immigrants", especially poor ones? Even if the Sanders campaign did contain some rhetorical bigotry (although the Fyfe paper is not a sociological analysis of this; he doesn't go into much detail about the Sanders' campaign) there seems to be a clear difference between his "otherizing" and Trump's even in volume itself, not merely moral badness due to the differences between targets (millionaires and immigrants). Sanders could be more specific with his statements but there seems to be a clear difference here. It's easy to interpret Sanders, for example, not taking in donations my billionaires as "bigoted" as well -- but the reason he did so was to show he does not agree with big money buying political representation. And against this backdrop how many wealth people do you know who are for "giving democracy back to common people"?
A strong case can be made that both Elon Musk and Warren Buffet supported Hillary just for these reasons. They know that their wealth will buy them what they seek. And even if Fyfe notes that "it may be better for Musk to have more wealth than the power being under the hands of some senator" looking at the bigger picture there is a massive threat to democracy here. Is the solution letting the "right" people corrupt democracy further simply because they may do good through such means? Shouldn't democratizing America be part of such a "good" or is it only about initiatives about building automated cars and space X projects?
The main premise of Sanders has been eliminating the impact of money in politics. It's not about taking away representation from rich people. Even if some rhetoric may indeed be bigoted, the focus here is treating people equally, something that simply is not the case as things stand. It cannot be that some have the potential of controlling political representation through legalized bribery. In fact, Sanders nearly beat Clinton even considering the DNC having a clear dog in this fight in favour of billionaire money coming in.
It is important to keep all this in mind while aiming to improve upon Sanders. This is not simply a leftist version of Trump. And in the ways that he is similar to Trump, at least some them, this is not by definition a bad thing. Trump addressed people's concerns even if hypocritically so. Hillary on the other hand was too busy giving talks to Goldman Sachs. Characteristically her last youtube add before the voting process was a part naked James Franco rooting for her. Trump's add was about "bringing jobs back". And Sanders would talk policy, policy, policy, refusing to be sidetracked -- whether "bigoted" or not, differentiating him from both the empty populism or Trump and the open hypocrisy of Hillary.