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. 

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). This is crucial because in many cases a populist will use rhetoric that seems to indicate that they represent a majority while in reality their base of support is much more narrow. 

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". These two groups are mutually exclusive and there is no middle ground. For Trump and Sanders, these the "people" and the "elites" (or "others") serve the same purpose rhetorically but the boundaries between them are in quite different places. What groups or demographics are included in Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump's view of the "people" can be determined by examining who they 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).A populist will frequently direct their rhetoric towards groups that they seek to include in their "people". 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" (Fix). 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 the actual question that Sanders was asked was not about the CEO of Verizon's comments (though the comments had been brought up previously) instead, he 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.

Sanders, by attacking the CEO of Verizon multiple times, also helped define his "people" in another way. With his attacks he made it abundantly clear that owners of large businesses like Verizon were NOT part of the "people". This is not an unusual strategy for a populist candidate. 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 point of reference in the formation of the candidates "people" (Deiwiks 3). By illustrating who is definitively 'out', members of the 'in' group begin to form an identity. Immigrants are a common "other" for right-wing populist movements recently and Donald Trump's campaign is not an exception (Hogan and Haltinner 526). On his website he states, "If we don't have borders, we don't have a country" showing his belief that our country is defined by our ability to include (or exclude) who we want (Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.). This sentiment is a key part of his support, a RAND survey found that the more strongly 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.

However, the direct way that Trump labels immigrants as "others" is the exception rather than the rule. When Donald Trump excludes most of the other groups from his "people", he does it in a much more implied way. The best example of this is Trump's attitude towards women. Whenever he is asked, he is always quick to state that he has "great respect for women" (Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.). Yet under the guise of "not having time to be politically correct" he consistently makes remarks that indicate he does not care about support from women. In just his infamous feud with Fox News host Megan Kelly, Trump indicated she had "blood coming out of her wherever", called her a bimbo on twitter, and did not appear on a Fox News debate in an attempt to get her replaced (Borchers). While one can argue that most of Trump's comments towards women are unplanned or even mistakes, there is evidence that what he says speaks to his base in some way. For instance, the RAND corporation found in a survey that Donald Trump leads all Republican candidates among voters that agreed with the statement, "women who complain about harassment cause more problems than they solve" (Pollard and Mendelsohn). While this does not mean that all Trump supporters (or even Trump himself) feel this way towards women, it does show that Trump's sexist comments have made him more appealing to voters that do agree with the survey's statement.

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders' attitude towards political and economic elites is one of the clearest example

 of their populist tendencies. 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.). By stating that they do not answer to "billionaires" or special interests Trump and Sanders imply that the other candidates do. 

 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 million 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) 

This is one of the main populist narratives that both Sanders and Trump utilize, the money from Super PACs and other sources the other candidates depend make them favor the interests of elites over the interests of "people". Things are going well for these elites; so why would they support any candidate who they believe would really change things? Nonetheless, finding examples of where the candidates backed by super PACs have actually made decisions because of their elite donors is harder to do than simply alluding that these candidates have been "bought" by wealthy interests. Sanders experienced this dilemma later on in the Brooklyn debate when he was asked to name an example of Hillary's "Wall Street" support causing her to favor banks, and was unable to outside of vaguely suggesting she should have done more to prevent the Great Recession (Fix). However, Trump and Sanders do not really have to convince their supporters that PAC money will effect politicians' decisions by providing examples. A survey by the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law found that 81% of Republicans and 79% of Democrats "agreed that members of Congress are more likely to act in the interest of a group that spent millions to elect them than to act in the public interest" (Brennan Center for Justice at NYU). This shows most voters already believe that this money is affecting how the government works and is making their voice less meaningful.

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.

Sanders and Trump go beyond simply distancing themselves from the Washington establishment, however. The two campaigns also push similar narratives about how the political elites have "betrayed" the people. This narrative is one of the three core characteristics of populism Meny and Surel identified (Deiwiks 2). For Trump, this narrative is seen in one of his favorite words, "winning". From the Iran Deal to NAFTA Trump believes that the recent political elites have not been "winning" these international negotiations for the American people. The majority of his foreign policy plays off this idea that the elites have been weak and taken advantage of, which has hurt the American people.

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. The way Sanders goes beyond talk of regulating banks and businesses and frames the discussion by blaming these firms at every opportunity for the woes of middle and lower class workers, sets up two opposing groups "wall street" and the "people". This is clear evidence that Bernie Sanders is using populist strategies in his campaign.  

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 because the approval rating of the Republican Party hit its lowest mark in more than twenty years recently (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).  

Also, as obvious as it might seem, it is still worth noting that the populist candidates are running for the nation's highest office. It is significant that, barring something unexpected happening at the Republican National Convention, Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee for president. It is easy to forget how many political pundits that now call him the "inevitable" nominee once saw Trump's campaign as a joke. While it would take a miracle for Bernie to win the Democratic nomination at this point, the fact that someone who is a self-described "democratic socialist" has won state primaries over a Clinton is a truly impressive feat. Understanding what has allowed these two very unconventional candidates to have considerable amounts of success so far is important as it may give us insight as to where our country is headed. 

Populism is the driving force behind the campaigns of Donald Trump and Berne Sanders, allowing them to succeed in the primaries despite almost no endorsements or contributions from political and economic 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.

