[maxboone]

That's not the definition, the definition of populism w.r.t. this paper is well defined. It is literally on page 2:

> We benefited greatly from the fact that the academic literature of recent years has converged on a consensus definition of populism that is easily applicable across space and time and for right-wing and left-wing populists alike. According to today’s workhorse definition, populism is defined as a political style centered on the supposed struggle of “people vs. the establishment” (Mudde 2004). Populists place the narrative of “people vs. elites” at the center of their political agenda and then claim to be the sole representative of “the people.” This definition has become increasingly dominant, and is now also widely used by economists (see Section 2, and the recent survey paper by Guriev and Papaioannou, 2020). Populist leaders claim to represent the “true, common people” against the dishonest “elites,” thus separating society into two seemingly homogeneous and antagonistic groups.

[paulsutter]

As definitions go, thats well constructed and easy to reason about.

But that isn't how the word is used by the media. Mamdani and Trump are both described as populists, but resistance to elites is hardly in their platform. Trump would never describe the democrats as "elite", and AFAIK resisting elites isn't Mamdani's platform either.

[PaulHoule]

Sure as hell the Trump administration is at war with the “elite” Ivy League.

[javascriptfan69]

Drain the swamp. The deep state. Etc. These are pseudonyms for "The elite".

[exceptione]

"Deep State, Pelosi is a crook" etc

Come on man.