At work so this answer will be shorter than I would like but I will try to edit this at a later date and include some links to previous answers where I addressed similar topics.

Let's start with Andrew Jackson. The notion that Andrew Jackson brought democracy to the common man has been thoroughly refuted since the mid 20th century. The interpretation of Jackson you are speaking to was cultivated by a slew of democrat historians such as Schlesinger and Bancroft. Historians have argued for an increase in the political participation of non elites in the revolutionary generation through the era of Jackson. Federalists generally supported a top down approach that maintain the social hierarchy from before the revolution. Noble Cunningham noted in The Jeffersonian Republicans;: The formation of party organization, 1789-1801 that to build a party in opposition to the Federalists Jefferson reached out to demographics that had previously been ignored in the political process, in this case "common people". Jeffersonians tapped into a mini social revolution that was occurring in the North that saw the increasing challenge of conventional authority. Gordon Wood goes into more detail in The Radicalism of the American Revolution but to note a few: the guild system broke down, state churches were increasingly challenged and removed, children got married without permission and moved away from home early etc.. New York had already seen this change occur earlier under Governor George Clinton in the 1780's. Secret Ballots were introduced to limit the power elites could wield against their tenet farmers, and much of the land seized from loyalists was redistributed to the "common people". It was at least partially because of a fear of having their own land seized that many of New York's elite backed the new constitution. Pennsylvania had seen even earlier democratizing efforts granting virtually every white male the right to vote during the revolution. Republicans in particular became noted for having political barbecues, much as you surmise it involved cooking barbecue and throwing an election party. The Republicans were masters of setting up party machinery at even the most local level. These events and organizations were often organized from the top down but serve to illustrate the increasing reliance on the people in the political process.

To go into why Federalists attempts at holding onto power were ineffective. Wood argues the Northern elite were unable to have the same wealth and power as their British counterparts which hindered their ability to keep their status in relation to other people. Hamilton had built a network of "friends of government" throughout the United States of elites dependent in part on the Federal government for patronage. However the Federal government was to weak to give patronage to everyone and as a result some of the great families of New York sided with the Republicans largely for patronage that wasn't available under Washington, most notably the Livingston clan. The South didn't see this same socio-political revolution, here the elites largely remained in power and saw few challenges to their rule. This is largely because as noted in Edmund Morgan's American Freedom, American slavery racial slavery ensured that all whites were at least nominally equal.

Jefferson's presidency is a great example of how a prominent political figure(an elite himself) attempted to brand himself as a man of the common people. John Adams carried a ceremonial sword, and his inauguration had him show up in an elaborate carriage pulled by four white horses. Thomas Jefferson rode his own horse by himself, and removed much of the formality that the Federalist presidents had instilled, keeping a milk wagon on staff. Henry Adams captures a great scene in History of the United States of America During the Administrations of Thomas Jefferson that helps differentiate the growing difference between Republicans Federalists. A Republican congressmen is dining with Jefferson and a European ambassador commenting on the high quality of the meat, the man was a former butcher and the European ambassador was apparently shocked to be at the same table. In another example a Federalist senator made fun of Jefferson for his tattered slippers. This is all to illuminate how Jefferson (and later Jackson) branded themselves as men of the people, despite being just as wealthy as their counter parts.

The west also played a very large role in the increasing democratization of the United States. Without an established elite very few new western states instituted property laws. Perhaps not surprisingly they also tended to have very little Federalist support, aside from a smattering in Ohio and Kentucky. These western states helped influence eastern more traditional states to change their suffrage laws as well. As eastern states lost population to the west, there were increasing demands to allow universal suffrage to compete with the west. To tie this back to Jackson, a quick search through Merril Peterson's Democracy, Liberty, and Property: The State Constitutional Conventions of the 1820s ( which covers the three most important states of New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia) reveals that Jackson was almost never cited as a reason to allow all white males the right to vote. In fact Jefferson was cited far more heavily, not surprising since Jefferson was well known for being a supporter of universal suffrage and there is a great paper that argues if anyone should be considered the father of American democracy its Jefferson and not Jackson( can't find it at work). Notably two of the three conventions occur prior to Jackson's election, with only Virginia's occurring during his presidency and the only partial defeat of universal suffrage.

I may have gotten well off topic, but I guess my point is that no Jackson was not the first president who was based on full landed control of the landed elite. In fact Jefferson's presidency had been based on many of the same ideas two decades before. And that finally the people of the United States became increasingly involved in the democratic process well before Jackson's presidency and in fact most of the political battles for the right to vote had already been fought.