Support NeoGAF

[Blader]

Norman Thomas uncannily looks like Joe Biden.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Side eye me for a word when the man is literally telling people who are concerned over the status of their healthcare being repealed is a non-issue.

Using the term "retarded" as a derogatory term is something 12 year old boys do.

 

[tedrotheredro]

Spicer just spouted a whole bunch of nonsense from the podium. It's basically just window dressing on defensive-sounding inaccuracies and lies. The press needs to work together to fact check and dive into points, but they're all looking out for their own story/ass.

 

[Apathy]

Spicer continued to try and paint all these angry voters at town halls as being at least partially fabricated as to downplay peoples actual concerns is so underhanded

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Saying the protesters are paid is a really dumb angle.

- They are pretty obviously not paid
- Not all of them are even Democrat
- All it does is just rile them up to protest even louder, more frequent and gives them a rallying cry

 

[studyguy]

Spicer continued to try and paint all these angry voters at town halls as being at least partially fabricated as to downplay peoples actual concerns is so underhanded

It's clearly the memo that was passed around since last week as it's the go-to defense of basically every R that's been asked about it. The deepest red seats don't have to worry about making their own constituency look bad since they'll never lose a seat anyway which is the most embarrassing part about our reps imo, I don't know how these people can look at themselves in the mirror. I don't know what is more disgraceful than openly throwing the same people who voted you in under the bus to save face.

 

[Plinko]

Saying the protesters are paid is a really dumb angle.

- They are pretty obviously not paid
- Not all of them are even Democrat
- All it does is just rile them up to protest even louder, more frequent and gives them a rallying cry

It's already working to divide, though. I see the Trump diehards on Twitter all repeating the same thing: "Soros-paid protestors."

Usually that happens when either Limbaugh or Hannity say it, so it's obviously catching on.

 

[excelsiorlef]

God I hate these people.

 

[Ogodei]

Saying the protesters are paid is a really dumb angle.

- They are pretty obviously not paid
- Not all of them are even Democrat
- All it does is just rile them up to protest even louder, more frequent and gives them a rallying cry

You have to think of Trump his movement as the "Nigerian Prince" movement.

Nigerian 419 scams are riddled with shoddy spelling and grammar. Why do this, when the scammers are often so clever in other respects. Could they not find and copy-paste official-looking verbage from a bank's website, or even from a novel or something?

No, the shoddiness is deliberate, because it pre-screens for the intelligence of possible marks. Anybody who reads that and thinks "this *might* be real," is much more likely to fall for it than if you made it look neat and official up-front. You're more likely to waste time on someone who will eventually see through the scam rather than pick up a solid mark right from the beginning.

This is why the GOP keeps embracing reality-denial tactics. Anyone who's willing to go a little further away from fact-based reality is someone who's more loyal. With each "test" they reduce their base in a small way, but they also harden it, because those who remain are those who are already willing to buy anything the GOP sells.

 

[Blader]

As Dems found out in 2010, you dismiss protesters among your constituencies at your own peril.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

You have to think of Trump his movement as the "Nigerian Prince" movement.

Nigerian 419 scams are riddled with shoddy spelling and grammar. Why do this, when the scammers are often so clever in other respects. Could they not find and copy-paste official-looking verbage from a bank's website, or even from a novel or something?

No, the shoddiness is deliberate, because it pre-screens for the intelligence of possible marks. Anybody who reads that and thinks "this *might* be real," is much more likely to fall for it than if you made it look neat and official up-front. You're more likely to waste time on someone who will eventually see through the scam rather than pick up a solid mark right from the beginning.

This is why the GOP keeps embracing reality-denial tactics. Anyone who's willing to go a little further away from fact-based reality is someone who's more loyal. With each "test" they reduce their base in a small way, but they also harden it, because those who remain are those who are already willing to buy anything the GOP sells.

Those people already vote GOP in 100% of elections. It's really poor politics to reduce your own base to solidify a bunch of people who were already always voting for you.

There's no alternative sinister strategy or high level politics here. It's just a stupid, incompetent administration that doesn't know how to handle issues or "do politics" after coasting along for almost a decade on anger because the president was black. Now that they hold the keys, they don't really know what to do, since their only actual reason they were even elected left office a month and a half ago.

 

[studyguy]

2018 looks like this will have impact, the hope is that the anger carries to 2020 as well. 4 years is a long time to bank anger going into 2020, things will definitely change, hopefully not in favor of these 22 R seats up for grabs then.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

2018 looks like this will have impact, the hope is that the anger carries to 2020 as well. 4 years is a long time to bank anger going into 2020, things will definitely change, hopefully not in favor of these 22 R seats up for grabs then.

Tensions and anger were a lot more mild by comparison in the mid 2000s and that anger managed to continue on right into 2008.

 

[studyguy]

Tensions and anger were a lot more mild by comparison in the mid 2000s and that anger managed to continue on right into 2008.

I'd wager the mild anger was also bankrolled a lot heavier in that period too though.

 

[Blader]

2018 looks like this will have impact, the hope is that the anger carries to 2020 as well. 4 years is a long time to bank anger going into 2020, things will definitely change, hopefully not in favor of these 22 R seats up for grabs then.

It's a good thing this administration and this Congress gives us reasons for anger on a daily basis.

 

[Lord_Byron28]

https://mobile.twitter.com/CoreyStewartVA/status/834397787794108421

Glad to see my current County chairman who is running for VA governor is tweeting things like this. Granted Corey Stewart is just as vile as the Tea Party. He implemented the toughest immigration crackdown to our county in 2007 and led attacks against any moderate republicans who tried to compromise on the issue. He was the chairman on Trump's VA race. He also gave away free AR-15s for Christmas as apart of his campaign for governon.

 

[Ogodei]

Those people already vote GOP in 100% of elections. It's really poor politics to reduce your own base to solidify a bunch of people who were already always voting for you.

There's no alternative sinister strategy or high level politics here. It's just a stupid, incompetent administration that doesn't know how to handle issues or "do politics" after coasting along for almost a decade on anger because the president was black. Now that they hold the keys, they don't really know what to do, since their only actual reason they were even elected left office a month and a half ago.

It assumes that they care about expanding their base. I agree that it's not 5th-dimensional chess or anything like that, but the way forward for the GOP is voter suppression, by law and by apathy. Convincing folks that no activism is genuine both helps solidify the loyalty of their base and tries to convince others that there's no "good" in the world, that everything's phony so why bother trying while the rich men rob you blind?

 

[studyguy]

It's a good thing this administration and this Congress gives us reasons for anger on a daily basis.

Fortunate that, my hopes is gerrymandering takes more serious hits along the path to 2020 to boot. That'd be the real turning point.

 

[soul creator]

People say "Why not do both?", but it's not that easy.

It's pretty easy...if you don't have to spend time worrying about appealing to the influential moneyed interests that largely have power both within the Democratic Party, and the country as a whole, that have a vested interest in not rocking the boat too much economically.

Most people's issue priorities, even among marginalized groups, are tied into economic issues anyway (polling shows this repeatedly), so I actually don't agree with the premise that those groups were "turned off" by economic talk or that they keep them in completely separate bubbles as the debate often implies. I often feel like this is more of a debate for us hardcore followers of politics, rather than the mass voting population in those groups.

Black people use social security too. Latinos need jobs as well. Women do more than just get abortions. Gay people need health care, and not just via marriage.

Sure, one can always improve how they connect and talk about all of these issues, so I'm not opposed to that. And obviously, there are some people that might get turned off by it. But I don't think "economics vs. identity" is some bitter divide among the vast majority of voters, Democrat or otherwise, the way we often make it sound.

It actually is. Clinton did both, but wasn't credible on the economic side compared to Bernie.

And I agree with this as well, since even if you have the message, your bio/history/record also has to support it. The issue isn't that Democrats "don't campaign on the economy". It's that, at least in the specific case of the 2016 election (and maybe even going back the past 6-8 years), candidates often aren't very credible on it, and largely don't really offer a bold new vision that motivates people. I don't think it's a surprise to say that many people (rightfully, imo) were skeptical that a Clinton was going to challenge power in any way to get us on the road to major change. One could argue that 2016 Hillary is obviously more progressive than 1992 Bill, but considering the Clintons pretty much perfected the idea of "triangulation" what's to stop them from doing the same if they have to deal with a more right-wing 2016 GOP congress? The pressure to "compromise and get something done" would be strong, and the Clintons have certainly in the past had no issue with embracing right-wing framing and policies on various issues. And the Clinton side of the party doesn't seem to be very grassroots focused; after all, her main selling point was that she's the best one that can work inside the system, and not challenge it.

As with Obama's signature progressive accomplishment, it was done in a way that tries to not challenge power at all. Which can certainly lead to some improvements, and is "pragmatic", but it's hard to build increased turnout around that. And if you're not a charismatic, transformative speaking figure the way Obama is, you need that issue credibility to shore up that weakness. Unfortunately, Clinton (and one can argue, Democrats as a whole) didn't have that, and was unable to compensate for it in key states.

Of course, it's easy to say "yeah, but you should still vote for the one that isn't fucking Donald Trump", but just on a pure psychology level, that's not really the greatest GOTV message. And then when you get things like that Joy Reid tweet about latinos, it almost becomes abusive in a way, since it's not like those same issues just started happening when Trump was elected. "Silly Latinos, why didn't you vote for the party that deported your family...but spoke really nicely about it" doesn't really seem like a good political message to win people over, to say the least.

 

[Ogodei]

Fortunate that, my hopes is gerrymandering takes more serious hits along the path to 2020 to boot. That'd be the real turning point.

The Wisconsin case is crucial, unlike the North Carolina one which is predicated on racial lines and would only affect certain states with large minority populations (like Florida and Texas). Wisconson's is basically that the idea of gerrymandering itself is unconstitutional, at least in its most extreme form, and that would send a good majority of the state maps back to the drawing boards, probably (including Illinois, on the Dem side, they've drawn very wacky districts).

Pennsylvania's in a good place because the Supreme Court appoints the tiebreaker on their redistricting commission, and the court will be D in 2020 due to a successful election in 2015.

 

[Crocodile]

Source

 

[balladofwindfishes]

It assumes that they care about expanding their base. I agree that it's not 5th-dimensional chess or anything like that, but the way forward for the GOP is voter suppression, by law and by apathy. Convincing folks that no activism is genuine both helps solidify the loyalty of their base and tries to convince others that there's no "good" in the world, that everything's phony so why bother trying while the rich men rob you blind?

The GOP coasted on nothing but "we hate Obama and so do you!" for a decade and now that excuse is dead and they literally have no idea what the heck they're doing. All those fresh new Tea Party crazies elected in 2010 have never had to actually win an election on anything other than "I hate Obama" and without that big mean black boogeyman in office, we're witnessing their entire political careers collapse because there was no substance to them.

They're poor politicians when they're the party in charge. There's nothing else to it. No amount of voter suppression or redistricting will help that. 2018 will likely be a bloodbath for the GOP.

 

[Vixdean]

People need to remember that Trump wasn't elected by a wave popular support or an affirmative endorsement of his agenda. He won due to a fluke of the news cycle where a bunch of regular D voters couldn't be assed to pull the lever for Hillary out of disgust towards her scandals or the party as a whole. There's more than enough people who hate Trump out there to deny him a second term, the key is making sure they actually turn out and vote for the D on the ballot.

 

[studyguy]

It assumes that they care about expanding their base. I agree that it's not 5th-dimensional chess or anything like that, but the way forward for the GOP is voter suppression, by law and by apathy. Convincing folks that no activism is genuine both helps solidify the loyalty of their base and tries to convince others that there's no "good" in the world, that everything's phony so why bother trying while the rich men rob you blind?

I mean this is evident by the fact that they intend to defund PBS/NPR. While on the coasts both of the local stations will likely be well funded and secure, middle American will basically only have conservative AM station to tune to and even less choices for educational broadcasting on TV. Depressing voters is absolutely critical to their success, it was evident in the primary, it was evident in the general and absolutely evident going forward considering the pressure for 'securing voter rights' through ID enforcement and the like. Gerrymandering, odd hours for polling locations or reduced staff at polling locations, more stringent voting laws, etc all work in tandem to get as few people to the polls as humanly possible and secure their victory.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Of course, it's easy to say "yeah, but you should still vote for the one that isn't fucking Donald Trump", but just on a pure psychology level, that's not really the greatest GOTV message. And then when you get things like that Joy Reid tweet about latinos, it almost becomes abusive in a way, since it's not like those same issues just started happening when Trump was elected. "Silly Latinos, why didn't you vote for the party that deported your family...but spoke really nicely about it" doesn't really seem like a good political message to win people over, to say the least.

It also totally ignores why most people vote in the first place. Because the real utility of voting (as in, your voting affecting the outcome) is astronomically tiny especially in a system as unrepresentative as ours, people largely vote because it makes them feel good. They get to participate in civil society, they vote for a candidate they like, and they *feel* like it matters, so the utility comes from the feeling and experience of voting rather than the actual impact of voting. This is why stuff like voter ID works! It's all about making the costs of voting outweigh the desire to still cast the ballot.

Trying to ignore this reality and instead trying to blame them for needing to feel like they're voting for, not against, someone is misguided.

People need to remember that Trump wasn't elected by a wave popular support or an affirmative endorsement of his agenda. He won due to a fluke of the news cycle where a bunch of regular D voters couldn't be assed to pull the lever for Hillary out of disgust towards her scandals or the party as a whole. There's more than enough people who hate Trump out there to deny him a second term, the key is making sure they actually turn out and vote for the D on the ballot.

I mean this is important to keep in mind in the short-term, but in the long term we should probably try to make sure the country isn't in a position to elect another Trump again. We've been edging towards this for quite a while, and temporary success won't prevent us from edging closer.

 

[Box of Kittens]

I mean this is evident by the fact that they intend to defund PBS/NPR. While on the coasts both of the local stations will likely be well funded and secure, middle American will basically only have conservative AM station to tune to and even less choices for educational broadcasting on TV. Depressing voters is absolutely critical to their success, it was evident in the primary, it was evident in the general and absolutely evident going forward considering the pressure for 'securing voter rights' through ID enforcement and the like. Gerrymandering, odd hours for polling locations or reduced staff at polling locations, more stringent voting laws, etc all work in tandem to get as few people to the polls as humanly possible and secure their victory.

This was a big part of Trump's strategy. His campaign used targeted ads that were ostensibly telling people to vote for him, but whose real purpose was to get them to stay home.

 

[whyamihere]

New QPac poll. These numbers are Very Bad for Trump:

https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us02222017_Urj52hkb.pdf/

Topline is 38/55 job approval. 39/55 approval rating. Was 42/51 earlier this month.

Opinions on most of Trump's personal qualities also are negative, as American voters say:

 55 – 40 percent that he is not honest;
 55 – 42 percent that he does not have good leadership skills;
 53 – 44 percent that he does not care about average Americans;
 63 – 33 percent that he is not level-headed;
 64 – 32 percent that he is a strong person;
 58 – 38 percent that he is intelligent;
 60 – 37 percent that he does not share their values.

Trump is doing more to unite the country, 36 percent of American voters say, while 58
percent say he is doing more to divide the nation.

”President Donald Trump's popularity is sinking like a rock," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

”He gets slammed on honesty, empathy, level headedness and the ability to unite. And two of his strong points, leadership and intelligence, are sinking to new lows.

”This is a terrible survey one month in."

Looking at Trump's immigration proposals, voters oppose:
 49 – 43 percent ”suspending immigration from ‘terror prone' regions ...;"
 53 – 45 percent suspending for 90 days all travel to the U.S. by citizens from seven
Middle Eastern nations;
 60 – 37 percent suspending for 120 days immigration of all refugees to the U.S. from any
nation;
 68 – 27 percent suspending indefinitely all immigration to the U.S. of Syrian refugees

Of course:

Voters approve 47 – 41 percent of the way Trump is handling the economy. Looking at his handling of other issues, voters:

 Disapprove 56 – 36 percent of the way he is handling foreign policy;
 44 percent approve of his handling of terrorism, as 49 percent disapprove;
 Disapprove 58 – 40 percent of the way he is handling immigration issues.

10% disapproval rating with Republicans. Independents are 38/55 disapprove of Trump.

EDIT: Just want to say that 7% Don't Know seems a bit high. My guess is they are shy Trump voters.

EDIT 2: Jesus, he has 43% Strong Approval from Non-College Educated White voters.

 

[Officerrob]

EDIT 2: Jesus, he has 43% Strong Approval from Non-College Educated White voters.

That's his base

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

We really could use a recession to kill Trump's rep among people who think he's smart...

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

New QPac poll. These numbers are Very Bad for Trump:

https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us02222017_Urj52hkb.pdf/

Topline is 38/55 job approval. 39/55 approval rating. Was 42/51 earlier this month.




Of course:



10% disapproval rating with Republicans. Independents are 38/55 disapprove of Trump.

EDIT: Just want to say that 7% Don't Know seems a bit high. My guess is they are shy Trump voters.

EDIT 2: Jesus, he has 43% Strong Approval from Non-College Educated White voters.

The opposition to his immigration plans make me wonder if there really was an element of "I didn't think he'd actually do it."

Or maybe this just a shy Tory thing idk

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The people who think Donald Trump is a smart business man who understands economics shows that people are very economically stupid.

 

[Emerson]

It's already working to divide, though. I see the Trump diehards on Twitter all repeating the same thing: "Soros-paid protestors."

Usually that happens when either Limbaugh or Hannity say it, so it's obviously catching on.

Trump diehards are literal fucking idiots. I cannot be clear enough about this. I ain't talking about 'Trump voters' either. The people on reddit and Twitter who praise every single move he makes and somehow all of a sudden idolize a man who for twenty years was universally seen as a joke in popular culture until he obtained the Republican nomination? They're fucking worthless, garbage nothings of people. Don't even bother thinking about them. They aren't what won the election, and they won't win it alone if the majority of people with functioning brains are unhappy with what Trump has done.

 

[whyamihere]

Looking at this, my guess it's Perez, but: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/eb51...emains-tight-energized-democrats-combat-trump

ATLANTA (AP) — Just days before Democratic activists pick a new party chair, the contest to head the Democratic National Committee remains fluid, as national leaders grapple with how to turn an outpouring of liberal protest against President Donald Trump into political gains.

The tight race between former Labor Secretary Tom Perez and Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota marks the first heavily contested battle to run the organization in recent history, a reflection of a newly energized Democratic party struggling to find the best path forward after years of losses in Congress, governor's mansions and statehouses.

Perez, who was encouraged by Obama administration officials to run for the post, has emerged as the front-runner with the backing of 205 committee members, according to independent Democratic strategists tracking the race. The strategists spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not allowed to discuss the voting publicly. Ellison, backed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and his supporters, has the support of 153 members.

South Carolina Democratic Party chair Jaime Harrison has support from 27 members, creating a role for him to become a potential kingmaker in the race.

Two other candidates — Idaho executive director Sally Boynton Brown and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana — have 10 and eight votes, respectively. Jehmu Greene, a Democratic organizer and a former Fox News contributor, has no supporters.

The remaining members are uncommitted, meaning the race could easily go to either Perez or Ellison.

Aides to Ellison disputed the count, saying their internal count is higher. Multiple other campaigns said they accurately reflect the state of the still-competitive race.

The 447 DNC members will vote during the party's meeting in Atlanta on Saturday, with as many rounds as required for a candidate to get 224 votes. The candidates will meet for a forum hosted by CNN on Wednesday night and spend the next several days wooing the state party chairs, longtime activists and donors who make up the voting members.

 

[The Technomancer]

Oh god damnit just give it to Ellison I really don't want to fucking do this

 

[studyguy]

Good lord this is stupid.

Honestly my only argument at this point is I don't believe anyone in the mainstream even knows who Perez or Ellison are. While in the end the majority might not give a flying fuck about this once it passes, it also makes it much easier to drive a shitty narrative dividing the party.

 

[whyamihere]

Oh god damnit just give it to Ellison I really don't want to fucking do this

Yup. Bah.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I'm surprised there haven't been more pundit takes about why more educated people could see through Trump more easily.

We have used education to say "educated people are less accepting of open racism and sexism because of life experiences" and that could easily be true, but it could also be true that less educated people are just more prone to falling to con men and don't understand that shouting "I'm very smart!" doesn't make you smart.

People are starting to figure it out though!

 

[whyamihere]

@Nate_Cohn
Trump's ratings on intelligence and good leadership have dropped the most since his post-election honeymoon, per Quinnipiac pic.twitter.com/GsNzeg8cFr

lol

 

[thepotatoman]

Looking at this, my guess it's Perez, but: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/eb51...emains-tight-energized-democrats-combat-trump

Democrats continuing to not give a shit about pissing off thier base, even if the base is wrong to be.

 

[tedrotheredro]

I feel like the Democratic Primary has been on repeat for the past year. Figured electing a fascist would wake people up, but here we are.

 

[Wilsongt]

Looking at this, my guess it's Perez, but: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/eb51...emains-tight-energized-democrats-combat-trump

God damnit. Don't these idiots see that the bigger threat here is the bald tangerine ape in the white house and not each other?

 

[gutter_trash]

New QPac poll. These numbers are Very Bad for Trump:

https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us02222017_Urj52hkb.pdf/

Topline is 38/55 job approval. 39/55 approval rating. Was 42/51 earlier this month.




Of course:



10% disapproval rating with Republicans. Independents are 38/55 disapprove of Trump.

EDIT: Just want to say that 7% Don't Know seems a bit high. My guess is they are shy Trump voters.

EDIT 2: Jesus, he has 43% Strong Approval from Non-College Educated White voters.

64% percent that he is a strong person
gah! I hate it when people confuse loudmouthed with strength

 

[kirblar]

Perez's labor background is likely a big thing here that's pulled support in.

I'm surprised there haven't been more pundit takes about why more educated people could see through Trump more easily.

We have used education to say "educated people are less accepting of open racism and sexism because of life experiences" and that could easily be true, but it could also be true that less educated people are just more prone to falling to con men and don't understand that shouting "I'm very smart!" doesn't make you smart.

Fox News is full of scam advertisements - it's obviously a root cause of the problems.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Democrats continuing to not give a shit about pissing off thier base, even if the base is wrong to be.

The better person should get the job. This position isn't meant to be overtly political.

 

[Dominican Power]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-twitter-staffer-235263#pq=pnFE6U

What a fucking baby. This isn't going to help in the long run.

 

[B-Dubs]

Looking at this, my guess it's Perez, but: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/eb51...emains-tight-energized-democrats-combat-trump

Can we just give it to Mayor Pete?

 

[Blader]

According to people close to Buckley who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, he had asked his rivals for control of day-to-day operations of the organization, as well as the next presidential convention, in return for his support.

If Perez wins, this is what he should do with Ellison. I want these guys as co-chairs. There's virtually no daylight between them, and the only major difference is the Dems and non-Dems using this race to relitigate the primary and paint Ellison as the second coming of Bernie and Perez as another centrist, corporatist party hack, or whatever the fuck.

For that reason, I think the party would be better off just giving it to Ellison, whose loss would cause more consternation than Perez's. But since it seems like the race is leaning in Perez's favor, I think Perez needs to pretty immediately promise to give Ellison a high-profile role in the party organizing. And hopefully they touched on that when they met recently.

Can we just give it to Mayor Pete?

He has better things to do. I'd rather Mayor Pete build a bigger profile for himself and run for higher office than sit in party chair gig for the next four years.

 

[thepotatoman]

I feel like the Democratic Primary has been on repeat for the past year. Figured electing a fascist would wake people up, but here we are.

Yeah, but picking Ellison is how you get those idiots to shut up.

The better person should get the job. This position isn't meant to be overtly political.

Even in tiny companies, jobs are often determined by politics over merit, especially when merit is pretty equal.

 

[Emerson]

If Ellison loses, any person that decides they'd rather take their ball and go home rather than get over it and get to work fighting Trump over this is a complete moron.

You so upset that the less progressive Progressive won? You gonna vote for Trump now or what? Fuck off.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Yeah, but picking Ellison is how you get those idiots to shut up.

No it isn't. They'll just pick some other meaningless battle to whine about