Anyone remember 2008? I do! Back when the democratic nominations where drawing to a close and it was clear that Obama would win, a new group of people started popping up, the so called puma's. These where women who voted for Clinton and refused to vote for Obama in the general. They where angry, they where insulted. They hated the “obama bots” or the “koolaid drinking obama followers” or the "hopey changey” crowd with a passion and felt there was sexism at play. They where a combination of very dissapointed Clinton fans and republican trolls trying to stir up controversy.
They even had their own website Hillaryis44. A website filled with unbridled hate against Obama and victomhood. It's a not so well kept secret that this site was actually run by republican operatives. Hillary voters united behind Obama, but this site and their republican trolls kept up the hatred against Obama for the full 8 years of his presidency. 4 years ago they begged Hillary to run against Obama and supported Mitt Romney eventually.
Of course now that Hillary is actually running they changed their name to Hillaryis45 and support Hilla...oh wait no they didn't. The site has now actually transformed into a hate Hillary pro Trump site because Hillary was perfect in 2008 but is a demon now and Trump is the new Hillary..or something.
Anyways, the funny thing is that this year republican variations of Hillaryis44 are popping up, websites that spew the same unbridled hatred against their nominee (in this case trump). The Weekly Standard, National Review and especially redstate really attack their own nominee with the same hatred and vitriol that Hillaryis44 has done.
There are some differences though.
1. Weekly Standard, National Review and Redstate are not fringe websites, they are the mainstream intellectual conservative websites and well established as loyally republican and ideological conservative before this nomination.
2. Unlike Hillaryis44, The Weekly Standard, Redstate and National Review are not secretly run by operatives of the other party.
3. Because of point 2 that means they aren't yet trying to get their readers to vote for the other parties nominee, although a third party option or refraining from voting is the best next thing for Hillary.
So how have you been enjoying reading these websites the last couple of weeks? Do you think one or more will cave eventually (some, though not all pundits on national review seem to) or will they remain like this up until Hillary wins the election in november?