That wouldn’t make her wrong, would it?
If she were a RW/conservative Republican telling other such what they want to hear, that probably – not necessarily, but probably – would make her wrong – again, based on each side’s pundits’ track records to date. Why that is would be a different debate.
Not necessarily wrong but definitely biased. She likes to translate what conservatives and Republicans think and do into something that progressives/liberal/Democrats want to hear. I think it makes them feel better about themselves?
What Digby can’t explain is why the progressives/Democrats lost control of the U.S. House and Senate, or why Democrats hold fewer state governor seats, or why Democrats hold fewer state legislatures. I think it’s because progressives/Democrats don’t have a clue as to what the other side actually wants because they’re to busy using Digby-style articles when trying to ridicule the opposition.
FYI - I doubt any conservatives or Republicans make decisions based on what a Digby-type has to say about anything. Progressives/Democrats just think they do.
Try to make some criticism that would not apply with equal force to all pundits of any politics.
And that does not mean pundits are not worth reading – does it?
Because that is not the topic of the article, nor it is a fact demanding explanation in the context of what is the topic.
This is analysis, not ridicule. Digby’s own politics might be clear, but not one word of her article amounts to ridicule of the Pub base – nor of the NR pundits, for that matter.
This thread is about the fact that there is now a division within the GOP – an unusual, remarkable division, far more so than the Ford-Reagan fight in 1976.
NR has spent the past 60 years preaching the word of Movement Conservative ideology . . . and now the Pub base seems to lining up behind a populist demagogue who is not only not a consistent conservative ideologue but does not even appear to understand the ideology.
Suppose the frontrunner were Rand Paul – NR might have a problem with that, because Paul is dead against neoconservative warhawkery, but nevertheless he clearly is an ideologue of a kind (libertarian) long found within the Pub/Movement mainstream – different editors would argue for or against him within the pages of NR, but they would not close ranks against him.
But with Trump they seem to think they have no other choice – and when was the last time NR took a stand against a GOP frontrunner?!
This is a strange phenomenon that demands explanation – and it appears the RW pundits not only cannot explain it but cannot understand it – certainly David Brooks doesn’t understand it. I haven’t read any of the articles from the anti-Trump issue of NR, but none of the bits quoted in this thread so far show any better level of insight.
Set against all that, Digby’s explanation appears simple and compelling: Trump is leading because the Pub base is no more consistently ideologically Movement-Conservative than Trump is, does not understand NR’s ideological message any more than he does, and is simply growling from its gut. Digby gets it.
Once again – it’s not policy nor ideology that this election is about, however much the NR crowd would like it to be.
Or, maybe it is – ideology of a sort, but not as the word is usually understood. John B. Judis discusses a little-known book, The Radical Center: Middle Americans and the Politics of Alienation, by Donald Warren (1976):
No, I don’t think Digby nor any Salon writer nor any of their readers think they’re having any effect on Republican voters’ behavior.
Does it in Minnesota, he won’t be for long.
Is Minnesota really any colder than Scotland?
Yes!
Scotland has the benefit of the Gulf Stream, so it’s much warmer, especially considering its latitude. Glasgow, for instance, is at 55° 51′ 44.86″ N, much more northern than Minneapolis (44° 59′ N). Even though it’s farther north, its winters are more mild:
[QUOTE=wikipedia on Glasgow]
Winters are cool and overcast, with a January mean of 5.0 °C (41.0 °F), though lows sometimes fall below freezing. Since 2000 Glasgow has experienced few very cold, snowy and harsh winters where temperatures have fallen much below freezing. The most extreme instances have however seen temperatures around −12 °C (10 °F) in the area. Snowfall accumulation is infrequent and short-lived. The spring months (March to May) are usually mild and often quite pleasant. Many of Glasgow’s trees and plants begin to flower at this time of the year and parks and gardens are filled with spring colours.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=wiki on Minneapolis]
As is typical in a continental climate, the difference between average temperatures in the coldest winter month and the warmest summer month is great: 60.1 °F (33.4 °C).
The city experiences a full range of precipitation and related weather events, including snow, sleet, ice, rain, thunderstorms, and fog. The highest recorded temperature was 108 °F (42 °C) in July 1936 while the lowest was −41 °F (−41 °C) in January 1888. The snowiest winter of record was 1983–84, when 98.4 inches (250 cm) of snow fell.[42]
[/QUOTE]
The UK generally is much warmer than almost anywhere along the same latitude, because of the Gulf Stream. London (which of course is at the other end of the country) is as far north as Nova Scotia and the sun sets at like 4:00 in the winter, but it hardly ever drops more than a couple of degrees below freezing and can reach over 90 degrees (F) in the summer.
In 1993 it got to -20 Celsius on one of the Orkneys during what was then the coldest UK winter in something like 150 years, and everyone was amazed. I gather most of Minnesota sees lower temperatures than that every winter.
Depends. Some years, they put out containers like maple syrup gatherers to collect liquid oxygen for NASA. But it keeps the ice spider population under control.