For the majority of cases, it just means "ignore the complexity of reality and go with the simple solution".

Sometimes, populists do really believe in what they are saying and doing. And the simplicity is what makes them popular - hence populism.

The problem is that reality doesn't care. I have yet to see the case when it doesn't end up in a disaster.

Essentially a meaningless term then. Everyone in mainstream politics has to present some kind of simple solution that ignores the complexities of the problem, because you can't pass a complex solution through a media filter and get voters out the other side.

So everything is populist. Again which makes the term meaningless.

Not everyone's simplification of their solution boils down to "The $scapegoat is the cause of all your problems. The solution is to give me more powers. If you hear anything bad about me, it comes from $scapegoat" though...

Term doesn't become meaningless even if everyone is doing it.

Current state of society influenced by tech progress is what causing the current rise of populism.

There are politicians who are rooting for reality, but it indeed becomes more difficult for them to survive.

It is not the fault of a “media filter”. It has been possible to bypass that filter for years but the direct media we see is plainly more dumbed down than what is in the press (YouTube videos, tweets, tiktok, candidate websites, elected official websites - AOC and Trump media are two examples from opposite sides of the spectrum of the shallowness that comes up without the “media filter” - I appreciate the direct raw thoughts but there is a lot of basically insult slinging, virtue signalling to their camps - you see very little in the way of deep policy - the only example I can think of is aoc’s green new deal video - which was made in cooperation with a media outlet)

That is correct. To communicate a leader must boil down complex issues. To explain effectively.

It probably comes down to a word count and what can be chanted.

Take immigration, very complex.

Populist "Build a Wall". Super simple, can be chanted.

A more Capable Leader might take several sentences, or paragraphs to digest such a difficult subject. Still simplified, still glossing over a lot, but trying to convey some concept. It can't be chanted, and it still takes the listener some brain power to process.

Basically Anger. If you can come up with a slogan, that people can chant angrily -> "Populist".

Generally, even though an issue is complex it doesn't necessarily follow that the conclusion or solution, after analysing all possible aspects, must be complex. It may be simple. Or, conversely, that if a conclusion is simple to implement, it doesn't necessarily follow that the issue or analysis was simple.

The alternative is what? Always defer to expert elites just because they pretend to have a grasp on the "complexity of reality" as good philosopher kings?

How did that ever not ended up in disaster and the worse calamities?

What about the alt/far-right? They fall under the umbrella of populism and seem quite dangerous, especially towards minorities.

Sorry I don't quite understand what you're asking.

I understand the sense and to what end the term populist is often used but to what extent is a political party that wins an election, a populist party given that it's the most popular party? Does a landslide election result mean the winning party is a populist party? If not, why not? As to your question: can you give specific examples to clarify what you mean?

They're elitists, no populists.

Don't forget that when foreign leaders do something our leaders do not like, they are "un-democratic", even if their people have explicitly asked them to do such a thing by vote.