Mainstream and populist political strategies to respond to the global systemic crisis are examined in the article through three variables: international agenda, domestic political agenda, value agenda. The article analyses the empirical data on the US political process. The investigation is based on the modern interpretation of Max Weber’s ideal type framework, a qualitative congruence analysis, a qualitative discourse analysis, and a case study method. The application of the theoretical approach of Jeffrey Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky (implementation studies) allows us to consider political strategy as a theoretical concept separately from the stage of its implementation. Taking into account contemporary discovers in the field, the paper proposes definitions of mainstream and populism that are refined in the focus of the theory of political strategy. The research shows that the major typological difference between mainstream and populism lies in the assessment of globalization and its political, economic, social, and cultural consequences. The paper reveals a predominant coincidence of the case of Donald Trump’s strategy with the populist ideal type in the international agenda and a partial coincidence in the domestic and value agendas. The analysis of the case of Joseph Biden’s strategy demonstrates a partial coincidence with the mainstream ideal type in the international agenda and a predominant coincidence in the domestic and value agendas. The author concludes that mainstream and populist political strategies can be combined in a real political process, in spite of their competition. The results of the study suggest that mainstream and populist political strategies have the potential for a broader combination in the US political development.