Should I grab some popcorn and wait for someone to cancel them, or label them racist, or my god at the least slap a disclaimer warning on it that Joe Biden is the president?

The 1824 election is an interesting historical reminder that these things are complicated.

"With the collapse of the Federalist Party, four members of the Democratic-Republican Party, including Jackson and Adams, had sought the presidency in the 1824 election. Jackson had won a plurality (but not majority) of both the electoral vote and popular vote in the 1824 election, but had lost the contingent election that was held in the House of Representatives. In the aftermath of the election, Jackson's supporters accused Adams and Henry Clay of having reached a "corrupt bargain" in which Clay helped Adams win the contingent election in return for the position of Secretary of State. After the 1824 election, Jackson's supporters immediately began plans for a re-match in 1828, and the Democratic-Republican Party fractured into the National Republican Party and the Democratic Party during Adams's presidency.

The 1828 campaign was marked by large amounts of "mudslinging", as both parties attacked the personal qualities of the opposing party's candidate. Jackson dominated in the South and the West, aided in part by the passage of the Tariff of 1828. Adams swept New England but won only three other small states. With the ongoing expansion of the right to vote to most white men, the election marked a dramatic expansion of the electorate, with 9.5% of Americans casting a vote for president, compared with 3.4% in 1824.[2] Several states transitioned to a popular vote for president, leaving South Carolina and Delaware as the only states in which the legislature chose presidential electors."

[en.wikipedia.org]

An argument could be made that Jackson was a crude man not suited for the presidency.  That it was in the best interest of the nation for a "cabal" to form to prevent him taking office.  The same argument could be made against Trump.  Like Trump Jackson was a populist intent on dismantling the corrupt ties between financial interests and politics.  Unlike Trump he did clean the "swamp" to a degree.  The following is a brief history of his presidency.

"Jackson ran again in 1828, defeating Adams in a landslide. Jackson faced the threat of secession by South Carolina over what opponents called the "Tariff of Abominations". The crisis was defused when the tariff was amended, and Jackson threatened the use of military force if South Carolina attempted to secede. In Congress, Henry Clay led the effort to reauthorize the Second Bank of the United States. Jackson, regarding the Bank as a corrupt institution that benefited the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans, vetoed the renewal of its charter. After a lengthy struggle, Jackson and his allies thoroughly dismantled the Bank. In 1835, Jackson became the only president to completely pay off the national debt, fulfilling a longtime goal. While Jackson pursued numerous reforms designed to eliminate waste and corruption, his presidency marked the beginning of the ascendancy of the party "spoils system" in American politics. In 1830, Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, which forcibly removed most members of the major tribes of the Southeast to Indian Territory; these removals were subsequently known as the Trail of Tears. The relocation process dispossessed these nations of their land and resulted in widespread death and disease. Jackson opposed the abolitionist movement, which grew stronger in his second term. In foreign affairs, Jackson's administration concluded a "most favored nation" treaty with the United Kingdom, settled claims of damages against France from the Napoleonic Wars, and recognized the Republic of Texas. In January 1835, he survived the first assassination attempt on a sitting president."

[en.wikipedia.org]

I'm fervently opposed to direct democracy.  An argument can be made however that both Trump and Jackson were a necessary check on the influence of entrenched interests and that as populists they represented the interests of common people.  As originally designed the Senate was to be a type of house of lords and the House a house of commoners.  In theory creating a voice for the people and a voice for the wisdom of tradition, education, experience and stability.  Who do you think is wiser the people or the elites? 

[time.com]