While I understand the 'know your audience' angle, and we know that in the political realm the group that has shown they respond very well to juvenile, mindless, name calling are ardent Trump supporters, I think you're falling just short of the level of 'knowing' needed there.
They don't respond well because it is mindless, nor juvenile, nor mean, nor clever, nor name-calling. They don't respond only because of the way it makes them feel. It isn't the quality of the mockery that factors in at all. Colbert, Meyers, even Kimmel and Bee are orders of magnitude better at it than anyone supporting Trump can be.
They respond that way because of who the name calling is directed at. They do so because it does feel good, to signal your group. Yes, they are 'loyalists' in that proving 'loyalty' to their tribe and virtue signaling is more important that facts, or even for many their own best interests. The more absurd the absurdity they are supporting is, the more it proves their loyalty. You will never make them feel bad about mockery, yours or their own, because the function it serves is almost entirely loyalty based for them. Even if they honestly think most people think them vile, it still isn't even on them personally, because they've rejected any meaningful implementation of the idea of personal responsibility and have abdicated their agency to their master. Good things are credited to the master. Bad things, even their own dark feelings and insecurities, are blamed on the other. They want a god-anointed king.
That is why you'll never have a nickname that does meaningful damage to Trump for the audience we know embraces meanspirited mockery in the political realm. That is why they'll never actually be the audience for such things. The audience I was addressing was those here. And make no mistake, we are engaging in it for some of the same reasons; to signal our unity on opposition to 45. The main difference is the level of importance we put on it, and other aspects like the cleverness.
