National Review devotes an entire issue to "Against Trump"

[doorhinge]

@VinylTurnip

Like, Trumpheads learning to read?

So sorry but “Trumpheads” is already taken.

- YouTube

FYI - So is “ol’ Hillary”.

[doorhinge]

@kayaker

(post shortened)

Wait, you’re saying Bill Cosby molested Bill Clinton?

Is that your take-away from the National Review issue?

Waiter! I’ll have what kayaker is having.

[kayaker]

@doorhinge

Is that your take-away from the National Review issue?

Waiter! I’ll have what kayaker is having.

Wait. You dint shorten my post?!

[Boyo_Jim]

Establishment Republicans are upset because Trump has laid bare just how awful the Republican base is, which is terrible for any future growth of the party.

[VinylTurnip]

@doorhinge

So sorry but “Trumpheads” is already taken.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpKKIFoSrMQ

FYI - So is “ol’ Hillary”.

Fine. Trumpvolk? Trumpenproletariat? Trump Pumpers? Donald’s Schmucks?

[CaptMurdock]

I like “Trumpsters”

[LSLGuy]

@VinylTurnip

Fine. Trumpvolk? Trumpenproletariat? Trump Pumpers? Donald’s Schmucks?

Bolding mine.

Sheer genius. Did you think of it yourself?

[LSLGuy]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

If Hillary loses Iowa and New Hampshire, it will presumably mean the voters have already swung to Bernie. And Hillary has only been a candidate for the nomination once before. Hardly “used to losing.”

IA & NH are very, very unrepresentative of the US in general. They are especially, in fact extremely, so amongst D voters.

I agree 100% that losing both states would take a bunch of wind out of Hillary’s sails. As we all recall, she entered the 2008 race as the heir apparent and once her assumed cakewalk was debunked things got more difficult quickly for her. Presumably the same dynamics would apply this time. Losing both those states would mean something between a level playing field and a slightly uphill fight for Hillary.

Having said that, I don’t consider winning (or losing) those two states to be the whole story. In a two-horse race if one is willing to say Candidate X is doomed if he/she loses IA & NH, then that’s equivalent to saying Candidate Y has sown up the nomination if they win IA & NH. And equally, if the latter is an overstatement, then perforce so must be the former.

IMO they’re both overstatements since they’re both logically equivalent and the latter is clearly nonsense.

[elucidator]

@LSLGuy

…Sheer genius…

Yeah, OK, but isn’t that just tearing down without building up?

[BrainGlutton]

@VinylTurnip

Fine. Trumpvolk? Trumpenproletariat? Trump Pumpers? Donald’s Schmucks?

“Trumpery.”

[BrainGlutton]

Heather Digby Parton writes, Donald Trump is wrecking the conservative movement: How the billionaire is exposing its most toxic secret.

If there’s one thing that Donald Trump has done for the leaders of the conservative movement, the Christian Right and the Republican party it’s that he’s teaching them a necessary lesson in reality: It turns out that a large number of their supporters don’t really care about ideology, morality or even their supposedly mutual loathing of the hippie Democrats on the other side. Their concerns run to something much more primitive.

Sure they all called themselves Republicans and/or conservatives. For decades they played on the same team. But all that stuff about “family values” and “drowning the government in the bathtub” and “constitutional conservativism” were just slogans they chanted for their team. They meant no more to them than “rah, rah, sis boom bah.”

National Review slowly came around to the knowledge that something terrible had happened to their movement and last week put out their ineffectual “Against Trump” issue. They realized too late that all the movement propaganda meant nothing to a whole lot of right wing voters. In fact it looks as though the constitution itself means nothing. And the conservative movement of activists, writers and grassroots organizations has suddenly awakened to the fact that a good many of those they considered true believers are completely oblivious to conservative ideology.

<snip>

But the conservative movement is equally under pressure. They thought their years of carefully growing and indoctrinating the right wing of the Republican Party had resulted in a common belief in a certain conservative ideology, strategic vision and commitment to a specific agenda. It turns out that a good number of the people they thought had signed on to their program just wanted someone to stick it to ethnic and racial minorities and make sure America is the biggest bad ass on the planet — authoritarian, white nationalism. If you’ve got a man who will deliver that you don’t need ideology. And he doesn’t need democracy.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@doorhinge

Did Hillary win when she ran for the nomination? No, she didn’t. Hillary certainly knows what it’s like to have the lead and lose it to another candidate. I didn’t say she liked it. I said she was used to losing.

So you’re used to things that have happened to you once? That’s an interesting new definition.

[LSLGuy]

@BrainGlutton

Heather Digby Parton writes, Donald Trump is wrecking the conservative movement: How the billionaire is exposing its most toxic secret.

Great find.

The snipped part BrainGlutton left out is a hijack for the topic of this thread, but is well worth reading also.

It strongly refutes the idea that Cruz and Trump are in the same “rebel lane” as contrasted with everybody else in an “Establishment lane”. Their argument is it’s a lot less binary than that; there are more lanes in play, and Cruz’s chosen lane is especially illusory once we get into actually voting.

[doorhinge]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

So you’re used to things that have happened to you once? That’s an interesting new definition.

Not a new definition.

*used to
modal verb /ˈjus·tu, -tə/
› done or ​experienced in the past, but no ​longer done or ​experienced:

I used to ​eat ​meat, but now I’m a ​vegetarian.
We don’t go to the ​movies now as often as we used to.

used to

used to (doing) something
› ​familiar with a ​condition or ​activity:

We were used to a ​cold ​climate, so the ​weather didn’t ​bother us.
She’s used to ​working hard.*

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/used-to-doing-something

I don’t believe Hillary is as slow a learner as you may think she is. Hillary is used to losing a big lead when she’s run for President.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Well, cold weather never bothers me because I spent a day in Scotland once.

[doorhinge]

@BrainGlutton

Heather Digby Parton writes,…

(post shortened)

Who is Heather Digby Parton and why do you think she speaks for conservatives or Republicans? Do you think she’s an impartial observer or another political hack?

She seems to be talking to Democrats on a level that Democrats like to hear.

[doorhinge]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Well, cold weather never bothers me because I spent a day in Scotland once.

Wearing a kilt? In the traditional manner? You da MAN!

How about that National Review issue? Editors, writers, and contributors trying to boost their personal choices for the GOP Presidential nomination at the expense of the GOP’s leading vote-getter. All’s fair in love and politics but did their efforts help their personal choices gain momentum?

[BrainGlutton]

@doorhinge

(post shortened)

Who is Heather Digby Parton and why do you think she speaks for conservatives or Republicans? Do you think she’s an impartial observer or another political hack?

She seems to be talking to Democrats on a level that Democrats like to hear.

Scroll to the end:

Heather Digby Parton, also known as “Digby,” is a contributing writer to Salon. She was the winner of the 2014 Hillman Prize for Opinion and Analysis Journalism.

And here’s her blog.

And a Wiki page on her.

Does she speak for conservatives or Republicans? I should hope not! Based on their track record to date, no pundit who does would be nearly as qualified as she to perceive anything important about the movement/party! Liberal/Democrat pundits, OTOH, generally are better qualified than conservatives to see what’s going on on their side – that’s just the difference.

[BrainGlutton]

@doorhinge

Wearing a kilt? In the traditional manner? You da MAN!

How about that National Review issue? Editors, writers, and contributors trying to boost their personal choices for the GOP Presidential nomination at the expense of the GOP’s leading vote-getter. All’s fair in love and politics but did their efforts help their personal choices gain momentum?

Doubtful. The Pub base don’t read NR. Maybe they read Rush Limbaugh’s books, etc.

[doorhinge]

@BrainGlutton

…Does she speak for conservatives or Republicans? I should hope not! Based on their track record to date, no pundit who does would be nearly as qualified as she to perceive anything important about the movement/party! Liberal/Democrat pundits, OTOH, generally are better qualified than conservatives to see what’s going on on their side – that’s just the difference.

So she’s a progressive/liberal Democrat who likes to tell other progressive/liberal Democrats what they want to hear.