I don't know whether those groups actually exist and would just offer some intuitions. Also that's the U.S. definition of "socialism" and the U.S. political mainstream tends to have a tendency to redefine political terminology with regards to history or it's usage anywhere else in the world. So not sure how appropriate the tag "socialism" is or whether you should pair it with "United States". Though for the sake of your question you defined your terminology so not complaining about that.
Now if you look at your list of conservative features and exaggerate them as "sexism, racism, xenophobia, nostalgia and a soft spot for inequality and social hierarchies" then it's ideologically difficult to marry that with an ideology that, at least in theory, argues for equality and attributes the same social and political agency and dignity to all people.
So if the point of what you call "socialism" would be to make people more equal participants in society and to reduce the gap between people then that wouldn't really work with a conservatism that doesn't inherently sees this gap as a problem but rather as the natural order and something to preserve and protect or as "the job of the poor people to overcome that challenge, not theirs to avoid or get rid of the challenge".
Not to mention that "socialists" are more prone to describe themselves as progressive (whether that's always the case is a different issue), while conservatives (especially in the U.S.) wouldn't touch the label "socialist" with a stick.
So it's unlikely that this would make much sense for an ideological point of view or that a label such as "socialist conservative" or "conservative socialist" would make much sense.
So it's unlikely to find a good faith political party to advocate for mutually exclusive goals. That being said as your description of "socialism" isn't really all that ideologically but more pragmatic, let's take this angle next.
And that wouldn't be unheard of. Like the first social security measures in Germany were also introduced by a staunch conservative, not because he liked the people, considered them equal or wanted to do something nice or whatnot, but simply because a) he needed to appease them and deter them from revolutions (he already tried brute force so it's not that this would have been his first move) and b) because that often actually works. It's pragmatic. Like even a slave owner who doesn't consider the slave as equal has an incentive to not let the slave die as a working slave makes more money than a dead one. So having the pool of working people be more healthy, flexible and better educated is not necessarily a bad thing, but an investment that might pay dividends. And while they probably would try to make poor people, rather than rich people, pay for that, the fact that taking away money from the poor would mitigate the success of those ideas as it would create other problems, might sooner or later convince them of the fact that it is pragmatic to have progressive taxation at least to an extend.
So while the current conservative attitude apparently seems to be more along the lines of "if the poor can't afford a living than maybe they shouldn't live" and "I'm not going to pay for someone else's survival". It's not generally impossible to be a pragmatic conservative, though they would likely have different intention and goals by which they would measure "success" as opposed to a "socialist" advocating for the same measures.
Likewise on the other side individuals are not necessarily ideologically consistent and always children of their time. So as our understanding of the world improves so does our moral and ethical considerations, but that doesn't necessarily works for all individuals on all issues. Like it's frequent that things that "used to be ok, aren't anymore". However contrary to conservative believes that doesn't mean that they ever were ok in the first place it just means that in the past it didn't require individual malice to do them but it was just something that was part of the environment that you didn't pay attention to, while now we know what it is how it works and our own role in it and continue to do or not do it is no longer a neutral act, but a deliberate decision.
But as said it might be hard to keep up with the times so there are probably people who think of themselves as progressives or even socialists but who still harbor traditional values without reflecting them. So to say cultural blindspots. Not to mention that people are hypocrites and often think of themselves as better than they actually are, to a degree that is necessary to become the person you want to be, but it also means that talk and action might not overlap or that you've got ideological inconsistencies.
Though again it's unlikely that they would organize in a party under that banner as it isn't a coherent idea and it might have different forms for different people so it's more difficult to find a large enough base for a political party, but it's likely that those people exist.
Though it's more likely that they are older so the chances of them having vlogs is much more narrow.