
Cas Mudde, a political scientist and professor at the University of Georgia, defines populism as "an ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, 'the pure people' versus 'the corrupt elite', and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonte generale (general will) of the people" (543). The vagueness of the terms "people" and "elites" reflects how adaptable populism is to the goals of the politician and context in where it is used. This, for instance, means that the "people" can refer to a wide verity of groups. These can be as specific as a social class, nationality, or ethnicity; to as encompassing as the entire population of a country (Deiwiks 2). 

In American presidential primaries support from elites, whether in the form of money from financial elites or endorsements from political elites, is usually one of the better predictors of the success the candidate will have in the primaries. However, this year in both parties there are candidates that are succeeding despite almost no endorsements or contributions from their side's elites (Bycoffe). Comparing the rhetoric of these two candidates to the definition and characteristics of populism reveals that, though at first glance they seem to be completely dissimilar, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are both populist; as they express scorn towards elites, divide the country into opposing groups, and advocate the will of the people. 

In definition of populism The Populist Zeitgeist gives, the division of the population into opposing groups is a key part of populist rhetoric (Mudde 543). These groups are vaguely termed the "people" and the "elites". For Trump and Sanders, the boundaries of these two groups are quite different but they serve the same purposes for the two candidates. What groups or demographics are included in Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump's "people" can be determined by examining who the seek to include (and just as importantly exclude) rhetorically. 

By creating and maintaining the concept of a "people" a populist candidate or leader seeks to have a homogenous base of support to draw from (Deiwiks 2). In order to do so it is characteristic of a populist to ignore the "the real complexity of different societal groups" (3). The groups that a populist includes in his "people" can be found by looking at their rhetoric and determining what audience they are addressing it to. During the Brooklyn Democratic debate, for example, when Bernie Sanders was questioned about the CEO of Verizon's response to Sanders ripping on the company for moving jobs overseas, the first thing he did was to mention that the CEO of Verizon should "start negotiating with the Communication Workers of America". Then, later on in his response, Sanders attacked the CEO again claiming that he is not investing enough in American inner cities (Fix). It is also worth noting that while the CEO of Verizon's comments were mentioned in the preface to it, the actual question that Sanders was asked what he would do to promote American business. In his response Bernie Sanders revealed that his "people" includes unionized workers and people who live in the "inner city" by going out of his way to mention the way those two group are affected what he believes the Verizon has done.

Often, a populist will define who, in their eyes, belongs to the "people" by singling out and excluding certain groups. These "others" serve to as a "reference point" for in the formation of the candidates "people" (Deiwiks 3). By illustrating who is definitively 'out', members of the 'in' group can start to form an identity in some cases. Immigrants are a common "other" for right-wing populist movements recently and Donald Trump's campaign is not an exception (Hogan and Haltinner 526). His belief of the "people" being defined by exclusion is seen clearly on his website where he states: "If we don't have borders, we don't have a country". This sentiment is a key part of his support, a RAND survey found that the more strongly that someone agreed with the statement "immigrants threaten American customs and values" the more likely it was that they supported Trump over other republican candidates (Pollard and Mendelsohn). The literal wall he proposes to solve illegal immigration is symbolic of both the way that he sees "others" as a source of many of American problems and how he views exclusion as the primary solution to these issues. Another example of Trump seeing the exclusion of an "other" the answer was when, in response to a shooting in San Bernardino, California, he released a statement "calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" (Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.). 

Out of the ways that the populist tendencies that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have are visible, their attitude towards political and economic elites is the clearest example. For economic elites specifically, they both share the view that "big money" has too much influence in politics. They use this point mainly as selling point, both candidates reportedly take no contributions from PACs unlike all of their respective opponents. On the bottom of his website, for example, Bernie Sanders has the words: "Paid for by Bernie 2016 (not the billionaires)" (Bernie 2016). Likewise, Donald Trump, who says he has "self-funded" his campaign (though there is debate over the validity of such a statement), says that he doesn't "owe anything to lobbyists and special interests" (Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.).

 Trump and Sanders also use their independence from outside money as way to attack opposing candidates in debates, speeches, and advertisements. During one of the most recent televised democratic debates, Bernie Sanders brought up the fact that his main opposition, Hilary Clinton, has received large amounts of undisclosed financial contributions, noting specifically that she apparently has received $15 from "Wall Street". He later asked, "Do we really feel confident about a candidate saying that she's going to bring change in America when she is so dependent on big money interests?" (Fix) 

Unlike their intentional aversion to contributions from financial elites, the absence of support for Trump and Sanders from political elites, mainly through endorsements, is more of a result of their "outsider" status in their respective parties than an ideological or strategic choice. This "outsider" label, while typically seen as a negative in most previous elections, has become sort of a populist 'badge of honor' for Bernie Sander and Donald Trump. In an environment with significant resentment felt on both sides towards the decisions (or lack thereof) that the federal government has made lately, being able to show distance between the candidate and those currently or previously in power has proved to be a helpful tool for the Sanders and Trump campaigns.

While many political commenters see populism as a link between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, there are some who object to the use of the term to describe one or more of the two candidates for a variety of reasons. For instance, Jeet Heer argues that Trump does not represent ordinary people as many of his views are unpopular with the majority of the country. Heer believes that since Donald Trump's views do not represent the majority he cannot be considered a populist and "Rather  ...  is the voice of aggrieved privilege" (Heer). This argument misconnects the concepts of populism and popularity. While the language used in populism seems to suggest that large amounts of popular support are needed by referencing the "people", as stated earlier this term can be describing a large range of groups including groups that are narrow minorities in their countries (Deiwiks 2). 

In her article, Parsing populism, Jan-Werner Muller refutes the idea that Bernie Sanders is a populist. Her argument centers around the idea that Sanders is only being labeled a populist as a way to discredit him because his economic views fall outside of the mainstream left in the U.S. In her view, calling Sanders' platform as populist "is meant to imply irresponsible policies" (Muller 81). While this could be the motivation for some in using the term in Bernie Sanders case, in an election there are always attempts to find ways to fit the characteristics of a candidate into negative labels such as populism, Muller overlooks the fact that populism is more concerned with the rhetoric of a candidate or leader than the details of the candidates' platform. When his rhetoric and the aims of his rhetoric are compared to the definition of populism, one can find ample evidence of Sanders adhering to populism like what is found elsewhere in this paper. 

There is more to the fact that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are populist then just having a label to help explain what make them unique from other candidates. For one, the fact that two populist candidates are receiving popular support may indicate that the public is dissatisfied with the establishment for the two parties. This is especially true for Donald Trump, whose unexpected rise may be in part due to the fact that the approval rating of the Republican Party hit its lowest mark in more than twenty years (Hennessey). This disapproval of the establishment in the Republican Party is not manifesting itself just now, there have been signs that the party's base is unhappy with its traditional elites going back much further. The success of Tea Party, a popular movement that shifted the Republican Party significantly rightward, has led some to suggest that the movement has become the "mainstream right in U.S." (Hogan and Haltinner 528). This is crucial because both the support of both Donald Trump and the Tea Party in lieu of establishment candidates indicates that populists influence is rising throughout multiple conservative institutions (Deiwiks 7).  

Populism is the driving force behind the campaigns of Donald Trump and Berne Sanders, allowing them to succeed despite almost no endorsements or contributions from elites. This rejection of elites, along with the belief that they represent the 'people', and their rhetorical division of the country into opposing groups are all ways that the populist ideology of their campaigns is visible. This is significant as it hints at possible dissatisfaction with the establishment in the U.S.' two leading parties, and may be part of a larger growth of populism in federal institutions.

