Populism vs. Establishment

[TML]

I have heard people state that the 2016 election was about populism vs. the establishment - i.e. the Democrats lost by running an establishment candidate while the country was in a populist mood. This year, I have also heard people state that the Democrats need to embrace progressive populism instead of the corporatist establishment if they want to regain power in the next several years. To what extent are these claims accurate? Additionally, if the concept of populism vs. the establishment is a valid one, will there be another future era where the establishment is favored over populism?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It's simplistic analysis as to an extent all campaigns have some degree of populism and some degree of establishment support, but the perception that HRC was favoured by the powers that be hurt her.

[Vosem]

2016 was the congressional election with the highest reelection rates in many years (since 1990, as a matter of fact). Anti-establishment candidates managed to score poorly in the popular vote in the Democratic primary (43%), Republican primary (39%), and general election (46%). I would say that the actual public mood in 2016 was very pro-establishment, and that oddities in the electoral system foisted a "populist" candidate on the electorate.

If the concept is the right one, there'd likely be a pro-establishment backlash, and Democrats would be ill-advised to go down that route. But we'll see.

[Vosem]

2016 was the congressional election with the highest reelection rates in many years (since 1990, as a matter of fact). Anti-establishment candidates managed to score poorly in the popular vote in the Democratic primary (43%), Republican primary (39%), and general election (46%). I would say that the actual public mood in 2016 was very pro-establishment, and that oddities in the electoral system foisted a "populist" candidate on the electorate.

If the concept is the right one, there'd likely be a pro-establishment backlash, and Democrats would be ill-advised to go down that route. But we'll see.

The two most anti establishment GOP candidates garnered 70% of the total primary vote. Trump combined with third party voters in the general election came to 52% of the electorate, and while many people despise the political establishment as a whole, that doesn't mean that they weren't personally happy with the congressman representing their district.

This election was suppose to be a boring Bush vs. Clinton rematch but instead turned into an outsider campaign by two of the most unlikely figures to ever hit American politics (Trump and Sanders) leading the way. Most people didn't even expect Cruz to strike such a strong cord with the electorate.

Cruz's campaign was powered mostly by establishmentarian Trump-opponents, though; his voters in the initial few states were social conservatives who weren't particularly concerned with the establishment/populist divide. Cruz certainly entered in May 2015 intending to run a populist campaign, but he'd backed away from that by November (watch some debates from that time), much less the start of the primaries.

On the contrary, if people are happy with the people representing them, they aren't exactly voting against the political establishment, are they?

Trump and Sanders might've seemed like unlikely figures in 2013, but they both benefited greatly from the media environment (in Trump's case), and a lack of realistic other alternatives to Hillary (in Sanders' case). And neither won any resounding mandates from their party; both demonstrated that their supporters were clearly outnumbered. Cruz was already seen as a serious possibility by late 2013 and nobody from that time would've been surprised if you told them he finished second (unlike Trump in first, which would indeed have shocked people from that time).

[136or142]

2016 was the congressional election with the highest reelection rates in many years (since 1990, as a matter of fact). Anti-establishment candidates managed to score poorly in the popular vote in the Democratic primary (43%), Republican primary (39%), and general election (46%). I would say that the actual public mood in 2016 was very pro-establishment, and that oddities in the electoral system foisted a "populist" candidate on the electorate.

If the concept is the right one, there'd likely be a pro-establishment backlash, and Democrats would be ill-advised to go down that route. But we'll see.

One theory there is that voting for Trump satiated the demand from the voters for more populism.  I.E throw some of the bums out, but not all of them.

I don't think the Democrats should go down the populist route, because while that may win them an election, populists tend to be terrible at actual governing.

[Shadows]

I don't where is this ridiculous notion coming from populist being bad at governing? FDR is one of the best presidents in history. Eisenhower by today's standard was a strong populist or LBJ for that matter. As a matter of fact almost all good presidents have been populists! And it isn't really about populism for the left, but a strong progressive agenda to reverse the 40 year fall of the middle class & massively failing policies.

Coming to anti-establishment issues, Cruz had 0 endorsement from a Senator during most of his campaign. The endorsements in the last few weeks didn't change his fortune. He was the biggest anti-establishment candidate, bar Trump & Carson, that there was. And Trump was the 2nd choice of many Cruz, Carson & even Rubio supporters. If it was 1 on 1 in a the GOP primary against any candidate, Trump would have likely got 60-70% atleast.

And then you have a white socialist Independent man from VT with 0 name recognition getting 46% of pledged delegates with little money or Super-delegates, with few debates, against the biggest front-runner in recent history.

And then you have a sexual assaulter like Trump whose party abandoned him, winning the election against Hillary. And almost all polls showed the direction was wrong, Washington is broken, Congress has terrible approvals, GOP/DEM both had terrible approvals.

You had a real estate guy with no knowledge as the president & a crazy neurosurgeon like Carson as a front runner for a while. Now, Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician with horrible approvals for both parties.

Clearly the so-called establishment has massive issues. I don't know if it is populism or something else, but the current establishment is in a way failing & people want major changes !

[Vosem]

2016 was the congressional election with the highest reelection rates in many years (since 1990, as a matter of fact). Anti-establishment candidates managed to score poorly in the popular vote in the Democratic primary (43%), Republican primary (39%), and general election (46%). I would say that the actual public mood in 2016 was very pro-establishment, and that oddities in the electoral system foisted a "populist" candidate on the electorate.

If the concept is the right one, there'd likely be a pro-establishment backlash, and Democrats would be ill-advised to go down that route. But we'll see.

The two most anti establishment GOP candidates garnered 70% of the total primary vote. Trump combined with third party voters in the general election came to 52% of the electorate, and while many people despise the political establishment as a whole, that doesn't mean that they weren't personally happy with the congressman representing their district.

This election was suppose to be a boring Bush vs. Clinton rematch but instead turned into an outsider campaign by two of the most unlikely figures to ever hit American politics (Trump and Sanders) leading the way. Most people didn't even expect Cruz to strike such a strong cord with the electorate.

Cruz's campaign was powered mostly by establishmentarian Trump-opponents, though; his voters in the initial few states were social conservatives who weren't particularly concerned with the establishment/populist divide. Cruz certainly entered in May 2015 intending to run a populist campaign, but he'd backed away from that by November (watch some debates from that time), much less the start of the primaries.

On the contrary, if people are happy with the people representing them, they aren't exactly voting against the political establishment, are they?

Trump and Sanders might've seemed like unlikely figures in 2013, but they both benefited greatly from the media environment (in Trump's case), and a lack of realistic other alternatives to Hillary (in Sanders' case). And neither won any resounding mandates from their party; both demonstrated that their supporters were clearly outnumbered. Cruz was already seen as a serious possibility by late 2013 and nobody from that time would've been surprised if you told them he finished second (unlike Trump in first, which would indeed have shocked people from that time).

Cruz was clearly running a campaign from the get go on anti Washington DC fervor. His base of support were evangelical Christians but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was running a campaign centered around being an outsider candidate.

You're getting it mixed up. Just because say, voters in my district are happy with Dana Rohrabacher doesn't mean they don't simultaneously despise congress as a whole; because they clearly do. Approving of one or multiple people in congress can't be extrapolated to prove that people approve of a majority of the 435 representatives as a whole. Congressional approval rating typically hovers around 15%. The only people more hated than congressmen are lobbyists and bankers.

It was virtually impossible for Trump to win a resounding mandate given that he was running in the largest field in GOP primary history and because even though people liked his message, he was stuck with high unfavorbles throughout the entire campaign because he was seen as an asshole by a lot of people. Bernie Sanders did amazing given that: 1. He's 100 years old 2. He had no establishment backing 3. He's a socialist 4. He had no name recognition at the start 5. He's a Jew; and likely nonreligious given his past statements. The fact that this guy couldn't be taken out early on Bill Bradley style really shows how popular his message was. Hillary Clinton had high favorables from Democrats throughout the primary process so you can't simply attribute it all to Sanders being the alternative.

Cruz was running a campaign from the get-go on anti-Washington fervor, but he dropped that once Trump crowded that space. By November he was talking about social conservatism and simply doing a direct critique of Trump; looking at his patterns of support, you see he did well in establishmentarian areas, especially in the Midwest. Counting Cruz's support as "populist" is simply dishonest.

Oh, I agree that people hate Congress as a whole. But it's ridiculous to say that a year is very anti-establishment when reelection rates aren't just high (they're always high), but the highest in a generation. I voted in 2016, but the last time they were as high as in 2016 was years before I was born.

People didn't like Trump's message. Polls had him losing head-to-heads with every major candidate in the field except Jeb Bush. Trump got 39% because that was the number who wanted him. (In all honesty, probably a little less, since he was unopposed in the last 11 states and those tended to be western states which are a little less pro-Trump than average). You can tack on a couple percent from people like Rand Paul who also count as anti-establishment, but basically the number was in the low 40s. Bernie did well when you look at it that way, but it's less remarkable when you consider that he was an incumbent US Senator and Hillary Clinton (who is deeply divisive, even within the Democratic Party) had no serious opponent running besides him.

[Vosem]

2016 was the congressional election with the highest reelection rates in many years (since 1990, as a matter of fact). Anti-establishment candidates managed to score poorly in the popular vote in the Democratic primary (43%), Republican primary (39%), and general election (46%). I would say that the actual public mood in 2016 was very pro-establishment, and that oddities in the electoral system foisted a "populist" candidate on the electorate.

If the concept is the right one, there'd likely be a pro-establishment backlash, and Democrats would be ill-advised to go down that route. But we'll see.

The two most anti establishment GOP candidates garnered 70% of the total primary vote. Trump combined with third party voters in the general election came to 52% of the electorate, and while many people despise the political establishment as a whole, that doesn't mean that they weren't personally happy with the congressman representing their district.

This election was suppose to be a boring Bush vs. Clinton rematch but instead turned into an outsider campaign by two of the most unlikely figures to ever hit American politics (Trump and Sanders) leading the way. Most people didn't even expect Cruz to strike such a strong cord with the electorate.

Cruz's campaign was powered mostly by establishmentarian Trump-opponents, though; his voters in the initial few states were social conservatives who weren't particularly concerned with the establishment/populist divide. Cruz certainly entered in May 2015 intending to run a populist campaign, but he'd backed away from that by November (watch some debates from that time), much less the start of the primaries.

On the contrary, if people are happy with the people representing them, they aren't exactly voting against the political establishment, are they?

Trump and Sanders might've seemed like unlikely figures in 2013, but they both benefited greatly from the media environment (in Trump's case), and a lack of realistic other alternatives to Hillary (in Sanders' case). And neither won any resounding mandates from their party; both demonstrated that their supporters were clearly outnumbered. Cruz was already seen as a serious possibility by late 2013 and nobody from that time would've been surprised if you told them he finished second (unlike Trump in first, which would indeed have shocked people from that time).

Cruz was clearly running a campaign from the get go on anti Washington DC fervor. His base of support were evangelical Christians but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was running a campaign centered around being an outsider candidate.

You're getting it mixed up. Just because say, voters in my district are happy with Dana Rohrabacher doesn't mean they don't simultaneously despise congress as a whole; because they clearly do. Approving of one or multiple people in congress can't be extrapolated to prove that people approve of a majority of the 435 representatives as a whole. Congressional approval rating typically hovers around 15%. The only people more hated than congressmen are lobbyists and bankers.

It was virtually impossible for Trump to win a resounding mandate given that he was running in the largest field in GOP primary history and because even though people liked his message, he was stuck with high unfavorbles throughout the entire campaign because he was seen as an asshole by a lot of people. Bernie Sanders did amazing given that: 1. He's 100 years old 2. He had no establishment backing 3. He's a socialist 4. He had no name recognition at the start 5. He's a Jew; and likely nonreligious given his past statements. The fact that this guy couldn't be taken out early on Bill Bradley style really shows how popular his message was. Hillary Clinton had high favorables from Democrats throughout the primary process so you can't simply attribute it all to Sanders being the alternative.

Cruz was running a campaign from the get-go on anti-Washington fervor, but he dropped that once Trump crowded that space. By November he was talking about social conservatism and simply doing a direct critique of Trump; looking at his patterns of support, you see he did well in establishmentarian areas, especially in the Midwest. Counting Cruz's support as "populist" is simply dishonest.

Oh, I agree that people hate Congress as a whole. But it's ridiculous to say that a year is very anti-establishment when reelection rates aren't just high (they're always high), but the highest in a generation. I voted in 2016, but the last time they were as high as in 2016 was years before I was born.

People didn't like Trump's message. Polls had him losing head-to-heads with every major candidate in the field except Jeb Bush. Trump got 39% because that was the number who wanted him. (In all honesty, probably a little less, since he was unopposed in the last 11 states and those tended to be western states which are a little less pro-Trump than average). You can tack on a couple percent from people like Rand Paul who also count as anti-establishment, but basically the number was in the low 40s. Bernie did well when you look at it that way, but it's less remarkable when you consider that he was an incumbent US Senator and Hillary Clinton (who is deeply divisive, even within the Democratic Party) had no serious opponent running besides him.

Social conservatives don't like the Washington establishment either. Cruz speaking to those people doesn't mean that he wasn't speaking anti-establishment rhetoric.

If 2016 of all years wasn't the year of being against the Washington and financial establishment then I don't know what year would even come close to that. Was it 2012 when we had an incumbent president and a millionaire who said corporations were people? Was it 2008 when we had two senators running for President? 2004? 2000? There's absolutely no other year in recent American political history that had the same sense of unrepentant anger directed towards those in power the way 2016 was. Nothing even comes close to it.

Trump was actually more popular than Paul Ryan right when he won the nomination (Source). So what if Trump wasn't winning head to head against Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio? That likely had much more to do with his personality than his rhetoric given that his rhetoric on trade, entitlements, immigration, etc. actually lined up fairly well with what the republican base wanted. Besides these head to head match ups were meaningless given that Trump annihilated Jeb and Marco.

And Hillary Clinton wasn't that divisive of a figure within the Democratic Party itself. Even at her worst she was still 66% favorable among Democrats and leaning Dem independents (Source.)

Cruz did not run against the ideological Republican Party the way Trump did. He certainly criticized their tactics, but he was not an anti-Washington consensus candidate the way Trump was. I invite you to go back and compare their statements in debates, or stump speeches, or the areas in the primaries they were strong. This is a very clear-cut thing.

Literally any of those years were more anti-establishment than 2016. Pick any year at all since 1990; it was more anti-establishment than 2016. 2016 did see a lot of anger towards the establishment from certain circles, but it was remarkable just in how fine with how things were going a majority of the electorate was. Most years in American politics see a large majority desiring some kind of shift; status quo politics was strong in 2016.

"Meaningless"? We're talking about what motivated voters in one election, not a broad view of history. In the latter sense it is in fact meaningless. In the former sense they're quite meaningful, since they reveal a lot. Considering how incredibly poorly Trumpist, protectionist candidates did in Republican congressional primaries (literally 1 candidate, a guy in Louisiana, won, and nobody else; though there are a small number of incumbents with those views), it seems easy to conclude that that strain is very weak in the Republican Party. Or if a majority do hold those views they don't inform voting behavior, at least. (Similar to the way a majority of French people want less immigration but less than 40% would even consider voting Le Pen).

Hillary Clinton clearly inspired a great deal of hatred from certain wings in the party which not only voted against her twice (for Obama in '08 and Sanders in '16), but provided those candidacies with a great deal of enthusiasm. You're right that most Democrats were fine with her -- that's why she won a double-digit victory, after all. But there was (and remains) a minority who were assuredly not.

[Shadows]

2016 was the congressional election with the highest reelection rates in many years (since 1990, as a matter of fact). Anti-establishment candidates managed to score poorly in the popular vote in the Democratic primary (43%), Republican primary (39%), and general election (46%). I would say that the actual public mood in 2016 was very pro-establishment, and that oddities in the electoral system foisted a "populist" candidate on the electorate.

If the concept is the right one, there'd likely be a pro-establishment backlash, and Democrats would be ill-advised to go down that route. But we'll see.

The two most anti establishment GOP candidates garnered 70% of the total primary vote. Trump combined with third party voters in the general election came to 52% of the electorate, and while many people despise the political establishment as a whole, that doesn't mean that they weren't personally happy with the congressman representing their district.

This election was suppose to be a boring Bush vs. Clinton rematch but instead turned into an outsider campaign by two of the most unlikely figures to ever hit American politics (Trump and Sanders) leading the way. Most people didn't even expect Cruz to strike such a strong cord with the electorate.

Cruz's campaign was powered mostly by establishmentarian Trump-opponents, though; his voters in the initial few states were social conservatives who weren't particularly concerned with the establishment/populist divide. Cruz certainly entered in May 2015 intending to run a populist campaign, but he'd backed away from that by November (watch some debates from that time), much less the start of the primaries.

On the contrary, if people are happy with the people representing them, they aren't exactly voting against the political establishment, are they?

Trump and Sanders might've seemed like unlikely figures in 2013, but they both benefited greatly from the media environment (in Trump's case), and a lack of realistic other alternatives to Hillary (in Sanders' case). And neither won any resounding mandates from their party; both demonstrated that their supporters were clearly outnumbered. Cruz was already seen as a serious possibility by late 2013 and nobody from that time would've been surprised if you told them he finished second (unlike Trump in first, which would indeed have shocked people from that time).

Cruz was clearly running a campaign from the get go on anti Washington DC fervor. His base of support were evangelical Christians but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was running a campaign centered around being an outsider candidate.

You're getting it mixed up. Just because say, voters in my district are happy with Dana Rohrabacher doesn't mean they don't simultaneously despise congress as a whole; because they clearly do. Approving of one or multiple people in congress can't be extrapolated to prove that people approve of a majority of the 435 representatives as a whole. Congressional approval rating typically hovers around 15%. The only people more hated than congressmen are lobbyists and bankers.

It was virtually impossible for Trump to win a resounding mandate given that he was running in the largest field in GOP primary history and because even though people liked his message, he was stuck with high unfavorbles throughout the entire campaign because he was seen as an asshole by a lot of people. Bernie Sanders did amazing given that: 1. He's 100 years old 2. He had no establishment backing 3. He's a socialist 4. He had no name recognition at the start 5. He's a Jew; and likely nonreligious given his past statements. The fact that this guy couldn't be taken out early on Bill Bradley style really shows how popular his message was. Hillary Clinton had high favorables from Democrats throughout the primary process so you can't simply attribute it all to Sanders being the alternative.

Cruz was running a campaign from the get-go on anti-Washington fervor, but he dropped that once Trump crowded that space. By November he was talking about social conservatism and simply doing a direct critique of Trump; looking at his patterns of support, you see he did well in establishmentarian areas, especially in the Midwest. Counting Cruz's support as "populist" is simply dishonest.

Oh, I agree that people hate Congress as a whole. But it's ridiculous to say that a year is very anti-establishment when reelection rates aren't just high (they're always high), but the highest in a generation. I voted in 2016, but the last time they were as high as in 2016 was years before I was born.

People didn't like Trump's message. Polls had him losing head-to-heads with every major candidate in the field except Jeb Bush. Trump got 39% because that was the number who wanted him. (In all honesty, probably a little less, since he was unopposed in the last 11 states and those tended to be western states which are a little less pro-Trump than average). You can tack on a couple percent from people like Rand Paul who also count as anti-establishment, but basically the number was in the low 40s. Bernie did well when you look at it that way, but it's less remarkable when you consider that he was an incumbent US Senator and Hillary Clinton (who is deeply divisive, even within the Democratic Party) had no serious opponent running besides him.

Every single poll of 2nd choice showed that Trump was doing really well with most & was the 2nd choice of a large section. After Super-Tuesday when you had Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Trump etc in, Trump was winning 60-70% of the GOP vote easily against anyone 1 on 1. In a contested 4 way primary, Trump was getting close to 45-50% in some polls & the other 3 were splitting the rest. Ted Cruz's core base were not "establishment voters" who tried everything from Rubio, Kasich & Jeb Bush etc but core religious anti-establishment voters. Poll after poll showed that. Anyways Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush & almost every big establishment politician have terrible approval ratings & remain deeply unpopular. Ted Cruz btw won endorsements from Bush, Romney & establishment factions by mid to end March.

HRC could have wrapped this thing by Super Tuesday or Michigan before the deep dislike, email & Foundation nonsense fully played out but she was losing in Minnesota, Colorado, Michigan & many places in surprising losses. In the end, you have O Malley, an accomplished governor who barely got 1% of the supporters. Even people dis-satisfied with Clinton refused to back O'Malley but flocked to Sanders. Most of Sanders' supporters feel it is a massive movement & not just an anti-Hillary Clinton platform. Bernie Sanders has the highest approvals of any candidate today & he is a socialist from VT with 0 support from Dems.

How did Cruz did well in establishment areas? What is the Republican establishment areas? SC, Alabama, etc?  Well the deep South was where Trump swept the primaries! The coal belt of WV, KY where Trump won? The North East which Trump swept? Donald Trump destroyed 16 other candidates, that is the plain truth. He went to Florida & destroyed Rubio, the sitting Senator. He went to South Carolina & beat Jeb Bush, when the entire establishment was against Trump

Trump won Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, Indiana in the mid-west. Cruz barely won Iowa & the only Mid-west state he won comfortably was Wisconsin & you could argue Club for Growth & everyone came together to help win win Wisconsin but to say he is the establishment candidate it not TRUE.

[Shadows]

Ted Cruz - Few days before Iowa claiming he is the anti-establishment candidate while Trump is the establishment (end January)
"The establishment ... is consolidating around Donald Trump. The establishment has now picked Donald Trump," Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler told CNN last week, after former Republican presidential nominee and Senate leader Bob Dole said Cruz would be worse for the GOP than Trump.
"Why? Because the establishment in Washington, the dealmakers, they know that Donald Trump will make a deal. He will play ball with them. He will keep them all in power. He'll keep the gravy train rolling," Tyler claimed.
It's an argument that voters will begin to weigh in on Monday in Iowa

This is early March - 1/2 week before Cruz got big support from the endorsements,
As Cruz continues to pitch himself as the only viable answer to Trump, the GOP front-runner, he’s been asked to apologize to those he’s offended within his own party in the Senate — namely Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, according to CNN."I actually made that suggestion to him when I talked to him last,” Cornyn told CNN. Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana said,"If he's asking someone for an endorsement from the United States Senate, I think he needs to go to that individual and explain what has changed since we were thrown under the bus.”

And Sen. John Thune, the Senate’s third-ranking Republican, told CNN that if Cruz “thinks he is going to be the guy or wants to be the guy” then it would help for him to “mend some of those fences that he tore down when he was here.”

Truth is -

1 - Cruz got big establishment support in Mid-March onwards when they had tried everything & by that time he had already won a large share of his delegates being an anti-establishment candidate

2 - Cruz dropped out after Indiana, not a long time after the establishment support

3 - Cruz's voting % didn't go up a lot after the establishment support if you consider he was already the 2nd choice of many Carson/Rubio voters.

4 - Cruz won very few states with establishment support. Pence supported him in Indiana, yet Trump beat him there easily. The only major state he won with establishment support (that I can remember)
 is Wisconsin where Club for Growth, GOP machine helped him out.

Cruz ran his whole life on an anti-establishment plank, Washington is broken campaign etc. A substantial portion of his voters are anti-establishment, deeply religious voters who consider Trump too liberal. To say he is establishment is not True.

[136or142]

I don't where is this ridiculous notion coming from populist being bad at governing? FDR is one of the best presidents in history. Eisenhower by today's standard was a strong populist or LBJ for that matter. As a matter of fact almost all good presidents have been populists! And it isn't really about populism for the left, but a strong progressive agenda to reverse the 40 year fall of the middle class & massively failing policies.

Coming to anti-establishment issues, Cruz had 0 endorsement from a Senator during most of his campaign. The endorsements in the last few weeks didn't change his fortune. He was the biggest anti-establishment candidate, bar Trump & Carson, that there was. And Trump was the 2nd choice of many Cruz, Carson & even Rubio supporters. If it was 1 on 1 in a the GOP primary against any candidate, Trump would have likely got 60-70% atleast.

And then you have a white socialist Independent man from VT with 0 name recognition getting 46% of pledged delegates with little money or Super-delegates, with few debates, against the biggest front-runner in recent history.

And then you have a sexual assaulter like Trump whose party abandoned him, winning the election against Hillary. And almost all polls showed the direction was wrong, Washington is broken, Congress has terrible approvals, GOP/DEM both had terrible approvals.

You had a real estate guy with no knowledge as the president & a crazy neurosurgeon like Carson as a front runner for a while. Now, Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician with horrible approvals for both parties.

Clearly the so-called establishment has massive issues. I don't know if it is populism or something else, but the current establishment is in a way failing & people want major changes !

FDR was not a populist, Huey Long was a populist.  FDR was not necessarily loved by the establishment (the conservative business establishment anyway, some of whom tried to get him overthrown) but he saw himself as saving the establishment from itself in order to prevent a populist takeover.

LBJ was only an effective President because of circumstances: coming in after the assassination of JFK and the large Democratic Congressional majorities until 1966.  My understanding is that after 1966, LBJ got very little legislation passed:  He did get a major gun control bill passed in 1968 after the assassinations of MLK Jr and RFK and, undoubtedly, he was increasingly distracted by Vietnam, so that had an impact on distracting him from his domestic legislation as well, I'm sure.

Prior to LBJ becoming President, when he was Senate Majority Leader, I'm not sure how his politics should be categorized.

[136or142]

I don't where is this ridiculous notion coming from populist being bad at governing? FDR is one of the best presidents in history. Eisenhower by today's standard was a strong populist or LBJ for that matter. As a matter of fact almost all good presidents have been populists! And it isn't really about populism for the left, but a strong progressive agenda to reverse the 40 year fall of the middle class & massively failing policies.

So, what is this 'strong progressive agenda' you propose?

Whenever I hear from the further left they either propose things that the American public has shown it's unwilling to pay for (single payer, for instance, which I support and free university...)

or it's along the lines of Michael Moore "do something."

[Vosem]

I'm tired of responding to just paragraphs and paragraphs, so I'm just going to reiterate that populist candidates in America in 2016 almost uniformly lost congressional primaries in both parties and were fairly weak in both the presidential primaries and general election. The fact that Trump was buoyed by the system is what history will record, of course. Cruz ran a campaign "criticizing Washington", sure, but by that definition so did literally every candidate, including Hillary Clinton; Cruz's campaign did not at all reflect populist/Trumpist ideology. How much weight you want to give the former and how much weight you want to give the latter is up to you. I'll note that the last three open Republican primaries (2008/2012/2016) have all had very different ideological seams; we'll see if this difference is even a relevant one in a few years. I'm out.