I probably didn’t find the definition persuasive if I don’t remember it. That’s certainly not the definition given in say Merriam Webster (though that one’s not illuminating either).
Populism is not inconsistent with pluralism, though it is incompatible with the elaborate anti-democratic machinery that’s been created to manage pluralism: administrative bureaucracy, elaborate laws, racial political machines and interest groups, etc.
“Pluralism” as it exists in places like New York City and Chicago are failure states of democracy, where you’ve got divided populations managed by ethnic political machines, with politics consisting of horse trading between interest groups. Yes, populism is quite at odds with that version of pluralism.
It doesn't seem like you're trying to reach any kind of shared understanding here, but rather just trying to perpetuate a partisan argument. Those are off-topic for the site.
Populism is not inconsistent with pluralism, though it is incompatible with the elaborate anti-democratic machinery that’s been created to manage pluralism: administrative bureaucracy, elaborate laws, racial political machines and interest groups, etc.
“Pluralism” as it exists in places like New York City and Chicago are failure states of democracy, where you’ve got divided populations managed by ethnic political machines, with politics consisting of horse trading between interest groups. Yes, populism is quite at odds with that version of pluralism.