Trump’s Name-calling Now Comes Off As Desperate, Not Intriguing

Mike Grillo

Mike Grillo is a writer who, when not writing, is working in finance and surviving the wilds of being a New Jersey resident. He does not tweet.

Related Post Roulette

40 Responses

  1. Philip H says:

    If none of his primary competitors has the guts to say “You lost,” then they deserve to lose and Republicans deserve to lose yet another presidential election and remain a minority party until it can come to its senses.

    This is a true statement mostly. Given their control of 29 state houses and a similar number of governorships, where they are indeed enacting their fascist program nearly daily under a too friendly Supreme Court, national Republicans aren’t operating with the minority party mold. Because even if they don’t take back the White House or Senate and loose the House again, they are successfully continuing their march to become a permanent minority rule party.Report

  2. Chip Daniels says:

    Essays like this are so funny, demonstrating the confusion of and irrelevance of non-Trump Republicans.

    On the one hand, he disdains the juvenile mockery of “Meatball Ron”.

    But only because it is no longer “fresh” and how it longer appears like it is “taking on the establishment”.

    “Taking on the establishment”. Lets review what, in this context, is considered “taking on the establishment”.

    Oh, that’s right. It was mocking the suffering of a captured American POW. Yes, we can all see how “fresh” that is, amirite?

    If only someone had the bravery to “take on the establishment” like that today!

    See, what is being displayed here is why the “respectable” Republicans are irrelevant. They have nothing of substance to oppose Trump and no alternative to present.

    His authoritarian nature? Nope, they’re cool with that.
    His cruelty, mocking other people’s pain? No, they think its funny (when it is “fresh”)
    His corruption? They think it makes him clever and smirk when he *wriggles out easily*

    What this essay is saying is that the only thing that bothers them is when the mockery gets stale, when the WWE style antics get boring.Report

    • Mike Grillo in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      “What this essay is saying…”

      And then you go on to say exactly what is not saying. I didn’t make a value judgment on what Trump said. I merely said how it was received — almost entirely by the mainstream press. They (along with Trumpers) found it “fresh” and absurd — to where he was appearing on every Sunday news show, Morning Joe, and cable networks, mostly CNN and MSNBC that showed his rallies from nearly start to finish. All to the tune of $5 billion in free media during a presidential campaign.

      And we’re seeing it now. Did you actually read that New York Times piece? It’s entirely about how DeSantis will respond to Trump’s gutter attacks and nicknames. That’s what the Times wants. It’s what CNN, The Washington Post, MSNBC, and publications like The Bulwark all want. Why? Because it equals ratings and clicks. They will try to make fetch happen and equate any Republican to Trump but they know it’s mere folly.

      Ted Koppel was the one journalist who had the guts to come out and say that Trump was great for ratings and money, and Brian Stelter acted as though someone insulted his mother.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Grillo says:

        You conclude with a value judgement, correct?
        That IF they don’t tell him he lost THEN they deserve to lose. THAT”S what makes them unfit to govern.

        Presumably, if they do tell him he lost, well, then mister, they are a legitimate party deserving of shared power and perhaps a winning majority.

        The same group of people whose sociopathy you document, but now, if they do this most trivial and minor bit of truthtelling, you imply that they are somehow fit to govern.

        The disdain for democracy, the cruelty, the corruption. THOSE aren’t the disqualifying factors. Its the refusal to admit he lost, that’s it right there.Report

        • Mike Grillo in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          Oh, please spare me the sanctimony. This is a presidential campaign, not a forum for what Republican presidential candidates need to do for Chip Daniels, who won’t vote for them anyway, need to do to win his stamp of approval.

          All I did was try to think about this at a level that gets beyond the ridiculousness of speculating how DeSantis or Haley will respond to Trump’s doofus nicknames and gutter sniping.

          The issue with 2020 is the only thing that sustains Trump and if you think that DeSantis standing on stage singing, “Don’t be cruel” is what’s going to do the trick, good luck with that. We saw how that worked in 2016.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Grillo says:

            How do we get beyond the ridiculousness of schoolyard taunts, without addressing the cruelty, the corruption and the disdain for democracy?

            Isn’t that the problem with major media outlets, is that they prefer the superficial style battles over a deeper analysis of what is happening?

            They would rather spend a thousand column inches on “Meatball Ron” than talk about how DeSantis if destroying academic freedom.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Mike Grillo says:

        I didn’t make a value judgment on what Trump said.

        And why not? If you expect Republicans politicians to do the bare minimum of reminding him of the facts at some point, why won’t you, and an American Conservative, sit in open judgement of him? You certainly feel free to judge the media – this essay drips with your disdain. And you even judge his potential rivals, whom you will find wanting until they denounce his Big Lie. Yet you won’t do the same.Report

        • Mike Grillo in reply to Philip H says:

          Because I already have. I didn’t vote for him in 2016. In 2020, I voted for a Democrat for president for the first time (not that it mattered much being in New Jersey). I supported his second impeachment and called what happened on January 6 an insurrection. The biggest mistake Mitch McConnell made was not rallying enough Republicans to get 67 votes to see that Trump couldn’t get close to a federal office ever again.

          Better?

          Now, that takes away nothing from what I wrote.Report

      • Greg In Ak in reply to Mike Grillo says:

        The head of CBS also said tfg was great for ratings. This is not news. If there is a point here it’s that the “MSM” helped tfg immensely. They were biased for his sack of crap.

        Lot’s of saw tfg for the crapsack his was. The nicknames were just one part of it. What is different now is many others are catching up to us.Report

    • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      Republicans are tired of Trump’s old school cruelty and want shiny new cruelty. DeSantis is offering persecution in action.Report

  3. Jaybird says:

    The problem of Trump is one of inflation.

    Hillary Clinton was a shockingly weak candidate. Like, truly *AWFUL*. Almost comic in how awful she was.

    HOWEVER! There were a lot of people who wanted to argue that she was a truly strong candidate. A truly good one! When someone might point out a mistake she made, it really pissed these people off. “HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT SHE MADE A MISTAKE!!! SHE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH!!!”

    “Maybe it was bad that she passed out at the 9/11 thing.”
    “IT WAS REALLY HOT THAT DAY! HOW DARE YOU?!?”

    And after months and months of explaining that Clinton was really good at this, really savvy, and the best candidate you could ask for, well… she lost to Trump.

    So the assumption that too many people made was that Trump was even better than the best candidate the Democrats could have run!!! When, really, Trump was better than Clinton. He wasn’t good. He wasn’t *CLOSE* to good.

    He was just better than Clinton.

    And so the people who thought that Clinton was good made the mistake of thinking that Trump must have been good too.

    And he wasn’t.Report

    • Greg In Ak in reply to Jaybird says:

      trump lost the pop vote to a “shockingly weak candidate.” That win was an electoral college bank shot and other stuff that must not be mentioned. He wasn’t even better at being popular or liked. Less popular then Hillz. Shouldn’t that be embarrassing?Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Greg In Ak says:

        Hillary was barely able to beat Trump, then. And only just barely! And only in a way that didn’t matter.Report

        • Greg In Ak in reply to Jaybird says:

          Lol. The point is that people have consistently inflated trump despite evidence to the contrary. He was never popular but he had rabid fans which confused people. Trump is a terrible candidate among other things he is terrible at. So you are the one inflating trump. You aren’t a trumper but still fluff him.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Greg In Ak says:

            It’s crazy that he ended up in the White House instead of the really strong candidate.

            Seriously, I’m not fluffing him.

            I’m saying, here, let me copy and paste this:
            “He wasn’t good. He wasn’t *CLOSE* to good.”

            He was just better than Clinton.

            But thank you for demonstrating that people take Clinton’s strength as a candidate personally.Report

            • Greg In Ak in reply to Jaybird says:

              Lol. I never said Hillary was a good candidate. She was it seems not good. So we’re agreeing , right? Hillz was bad and trump sucked worse then her. Which seems like a major slam on him. We’re agreeing again, right? But he wasn’t better then H because he was less popular. High fives all around. Where is the disagreement? H bad, trump even less popular.

              How you get this to me defending her strength is beyond me.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Greg In Ak says:

                The assigning of “Good” or “Bad” to candidates is just a personal aesthetic preference dressed up as an objective fact.

                There isn’t any way to measure or define it and it obviously doesn’t correlate with vote totals, raw or electoral.

                So it really is just barstool punditry.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Greg In Ak says:

                Yes, the worse candidate ended up in the White House.

                Anyway, back to my original point, Trump was never a particularly good candidate.

                He just happened to beat someone that a lot of people had an emotional connection to and who took the idea that she was not a strong candidate personally.

                And it was easier to say that Trump was better than he was than Clinton was someone who would lose to someone as awful as Trump.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

      Vote totals:
      Clinton: 66 Million
      Trump: 63 Million
      EV:304 Trump, 227 Clinton

      Biden: 81 Million
      Trump: 74 Million
      EV:306 Biden, 232 Trump

      Both races came down to razor thin margins in just a handful of states which could have tipped the election.

      So the takeaway is that Trump is competitive against virtually any contender, from any party.

      There is no one, anywhere on the political horizon who beats him by large margins.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        Thanks, I was worried that someone would call this a straw man.Report

      • Because there are approximately the same number of R’s as there are D’s, taking the country as a whole, and a larger number of R’s and I’s-who-would-otherwise-vote-R are repelled by T than the number of D’s and I’s-who-otherwise-would-vote-D who are drawn to him.

        And because the electoral college advantages (though less dramatically than reform advocates imply) smaller, more rural states, and thus advantages R’s. And there are enough R’s out there to block any effort to meaningfully reform or abolish the electoral college. We’re not going to get to popular election of the President, much as that would be consistent with contemporary notions of what democracy is.

        This is well-worn, well-discussed territory. As is the notion that a lot of T’s votes come from being the R. If T runs as an I, T loses (and the D almost certainly wins, because the R and I-leaning-R vote splits). Note that it doesn’t much matter who the R or the D is in that scenario, unless the D is abysmally bad.

        The only thing left unsettled is whether C was indeed that bad. Ask yourselves, is that argument worth another twelve rounds, today, in 2023, seven years after the event? She isn’t running in ’24. B is. We know B can win — at least, we know he can beat T, if T is the R again.Report

  4. Burt Likko says:

    Headline: Trump’s Name-calling Now Comes Off As Desperate, Not Intriguing.

    My thought: It was always a desperate, tiresome-ab-initio gimmick, arising out of a fundamental weakness or at least the self-perception of weakness. It was never intriguing. It was always the signature of a self-doubting, over-compensating bully.

    Article: [Compares Trump to aging glam-rockers with pot-bellies and man-boobs]

    My thought: Trump always had a big belly and man-boobs. Not that I’m in a position to be throwing that particular rock. But again, this is something that was always on open and obvious display.

    Article: [Argues that rivals to Trump need to point out the obvious fact that Trump cost R’s the House of Representatives in ’18 and the White House in ’20 because he isn’t actually all that popular and does awful things]

    My thought: Once again, the observation here is not that these facts are true. That’s as obvious as the weather. It’s that a substantial portion of R’s apparently need to be explicitly told this in the first place.Report

    • North in reply to Burt Likko says:

      I think the bigger story, but one that right wingers don’t like to dwell on, is that this aging, goofy TV personality with a big belly, man boobs and intemperate gimmicky shocking manner slithered into the GOP’s nomination ecosystem, defied the GOP elite on multiple established dogmas (preserving entitlements, overt rather than dog whistled racialist language, denouncing Bush W’s foreign adventures for the dumpster fires they were) and the GOP voting masses so despised their own GOP elite and so agreed with Trump on those issues that they went to him instead of a GOP candidate.Report

  5. Jesse says:

    This whole article is proof of the split in the GOP.

    College-educated Republican’s are desperate for somebody like DeSantis, who does all the terrible things, but isn’t quite as openly mean about it, so Mary in the Milwaukee suburbs won’t notice it as much.

    But, non-college-educated Republicans? Especially new voters, brought in by Trump? They love the open lib owning.

    This is shown in basically every primary poll. If you look at Twitter, you’d think DeSantis is in a commanding lead, because ironically, Twitter is a bad way to determine what the GOP base wants, because it’s full of college-educatedd conservatives who all supported Cruz, Rubio, or JEB in 2016.

    In actual polling, Trump is still dominating among non-college educated voters and why not? They still think Trump won in 2020.

    That’s going to be the secret big issue of the primary in 2024 – how are DeSantis and everybody else going to react to a question about whether Trump had the election stolen from him in 2020?Report

  6. Slade the Leveller says:

    Not gonna lie, I thought Ron DeSanctimonious was pretty good. I also think DJT had to be taught how to say it by whoever came up with it.Report

    • InMD in reply to Slade the Leveller says:

      I thought it was pretty good too but therein lies the problem for his constituency. You have to actually know what the word means to get the joke.Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to InMD says:

        Nah… it insulted the people it was supposed to attract – basically it labels the (popular) things RDS is doing as Sanctimonious – which, of course, is why it sounds good to the anti-RDS/anti-Trump team. It was, in fact, a miss by Trump.

        Little Marco, Lying Ted, Crooked Hillary – those stick to the target and not the group. Ted’s a liar, but you, dear voter, are not (well, not necessarily).

        Meatball, if it sticks, along these metrics is ‘better’ and more in line with Trumpian rhetoric. Now contra meatball, it offers RDS a way to ‘lean-in’ to the epithet… I mean, unlike liars and crooks, hey meatballs are delicious!

        So, I suspect this is only a phase of nickname for RDS, I suspect Trump will move on to something a bit more vile. It’s who he is.Report

  7. His name is came in many of the nicknames in social media as well as in search engines. This becomes a issue and Federal court asked to Sundar Pichai regarding the issue. Good post. Keep sharing more good blogs.Report