I’m going to disagree, but only as far as the electoral politics are concerned. Truman was a relatively unknown Senator when FDR picked to be VP for his fourth term. I can’t imagine any way he could have become a national figure otherwise. His handling of his duties after FDR died, got him his second term (although Dewey famously was overwhelmingly favored in the polls—that’s where the similarity is, and perhaps that’s what you meant).
Trump is like Jackson in that he is speaking for people who have been politically ignored for a long time. We’ll see how well he does this over the next four years.
I’m going to disagree, but only as far as the electoral politics are concerned.
Both were businessmen before they became politicians, though Truman ran a small haberdashery while Trump ran a yuge real estate business. Truman came in the WH through the back door of FDR's death, while Trump came in the front door of Obama's "retirement." But Truman was a centrist Democrat, which by today's standards means he was slightly left of Reagan, with one glaring exception: Truman supported single payer before single payer was cool--and Trump has hinted at this himself, cf. here. They also both despise/d corruption, along with seditious plants in the government (Communists with Truman, jihadists with Trump), and both had/have the predeliction to speak their minds openly and bluntly, using the media of their day: Truman surrounded by reporters during his outdoor walks, Trump via Twitter and FB.
It is unfortunately true that we live in a time when a full-fledged Burkean/Lockean conservative would never win, and the only reason Hillary! lost wasn't her stands on the issues, but her corruption and her lack of personability--without the rigging of the convention by the DNC, we could very well have had President Sanders spiraling us down the tubes to socialist ruin.