2024

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Harris beating Trump in Iowa" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. For years, the Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll has been referred to as the "gold standard" for polls of Iowa politics. Pollster J. Ann Selzer has not been afraid to deviate from conventional wisdom and other pollsters and has often announced findings that are surprising at the time but later prove prescient. In 2016, Selzer spotted a trend toward former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump that other pollsters had missed. Her polling predicted that Trump would win Iowa by 7 points. He ended up winning by 9. Four years later, the DMR poll showed that Trump would win Iowa by 7. The actual result was Trump winning by 8 points. Selzer's final poll of this cycle showing Vice President Harris leading Trump 47% to 44% among likely voters was easily the most surprising news over the weekend. For Democrats, this was an invigorating shot of adrenaline. Democrats are by nature a pessimistic bunch, likely to see black clouds regardless of the amount of sunshine. For once, they began showing a hint of optimism as a result of the poll findings. Selzer found that the impetus for Harris' lead was support from older women. For many DCUM posters, this was not surprising because, they argued, many of these women had lived in a world where abortion was prohibited and were well aware of the dangers such a state of affairs can bring. They are furious about rights being stripped away. Moreover, this is one of the most dependable voting blocks in existence. As such, the Iowa findings might also translate to other states. The general attitude among DCUM liberal posters was that even if Trump were to pull out a slim victory in Iowa — something that is within the DMR poll's margin of error — he would be in terrible circumstances nationwide. The conservative response was one of disbelief and anger. Ignoring Selzer's history of accurately predicting Trump victories, Republican posters accused the poll of being a "Democratic poll," something that is obviously not true. Some suggested that Selzer had been bribed by the Democrats. Others argued that she is retiring and that the poll was her parting gift to Democrats. Others pointed to poll results by Emerson that were released the same day. That poll showed Trump leading by 10%. However, the DMR poll has a much better record than Emerson. Many of the conservative posters mocked liberals for taking the DMR results seriously, saying that there is no way that Iowa would vote for Harris. There is no doubt that if this poll turns out to be a big miss, it will be reputation-ending for Selzer. On the other hand, if the results are correct, it is likely that Trump has no hope of winning the election. As one pundit in my social media feeds said, this poll will either be the end of Selzer or Trump. They both can't survive these poll results.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and will skip today. The third most active thread was one titled, "Puerto Rico". All of the top threads that I will discuss today were posted in the "Political Discussion" forum and that will likely be the case for at least the next week and perhaps indefinitely after that depending on events. When I wrote yesterday about the thread discussing former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump's Madison Square Garden rally, I mentioned "jokes" by Tony Hinchcliffe that many found offensive. One of those described Puerto Rico as an "island of garbage". The original poster of this thread embedded a tweet describing Vice President Kamala Harris' plan for Puerto Rico, which includes improving health care and rebuilding the power grid, and a video of Hinchcliffe's remarks. The original poster noted the contrast in messages. It is interesting how late in a campaign something unexpected can take on a life of its own. Think back to 2012 when Mitt Romney was filmed saying that "Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax". Romney was technically correct, but the context of the statement — he also described that 47 percent as dependent on the government and as considering themselves victims and was speaking to a room full of extremely wealthy people — infuriated many voters. The statement helped catalyze the impression that the election was a choice between a candidate who would serve the wealthy and a candidate supportive of the interests of the poor and middle class. In many ways, Romney's quote came to define that campaign. Hinchcliffe's "jokes" could well end up serving the same role this time around. Trump has always made opposition to immigration, especially by those from poor countries and specifically by Mexicans and other Hispanics, the bedrock of his campaigns. But over the years, Trump has been somewhat successful in convincing the public that he is really concerned with undocumented migrants and violent criminals and not the broader community of legal, Spanish-speaking immigrants. Hinchcliffe's jokes, however, tore away that facade. To many, Hinchcliffe demonstrated exactly what Trump and his supporters really believe about Hispanics, and not only undocumented migrants. Puerto Ricans, after all, are U.S. citizens. Along with a second joke about Latinos making babies, Hinchcliffe made clear that his target included all whose origins are poor Spanish-speaking countries (or in the case of Puerto Rico, a U.S. commonwealth). The impact seems to have been the waking of a sleeping giant. Puerto Ricans specifically and Hispanics generally are outraged. Throughout this thread posters report sending links to Hinchcliffe's remarks to friends and relatives. There are reportedly a half million Puerto Ricans in Pennsylvania, enough to easily sway the election to Harris. Several Republican politicians, understanding the electoral danger, criticized Hinchcliffe's remarks. The Trump campaign even disassociated itself. However, Trump himself has been silent. MAGAs in this thread are beside themselves, complaining that it was only a joke and refusing to recognize how Hinchcliffe's "jokes" have been received. MAGAs have never believed that they should suffer consequences for what they say. Their understanding of the 1st Amendment is that it allows them to say whatever they want without repercussions. Even criticizing their hateful statements is considered a free speech violation. The fact that they could lose an election as a result of a joke is beyond their ability to comprehend.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Spin Off - Do a Kids’ Parents Political Views Impact You Allowing A Friendship?" and posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum. With the election two weeks away and this website being based in Washington, DC, a lot of our users' minds are on politics. While we have two political forums — one for local politics and one for the rest — politics is finding its way into almost every forum. It's been a bit of whack-a-mole trying to keep up with them. That was the case with this thread which I didn't know about until earlier this morning when it was reported to me. Admittedly, the original poster has a nice story to discuss, dare I say heartwarming even. As the original poster explains, her daughter, who is Black, made friends at her public elementary school with another girl who is White. The other girl's parents supported a political candidate who the original poster could not stand. Because of these political differences, the original poster did not pursue a relationship with the other mother and hoped that the girls' friendship would die down. However, despite her hopes, the girls became best friends. Moreover, she discovered that the other girl and her mom were literally the nicest people she had ever met. The other family eventually moved away but after the George Floyd murder, the other mother wrote to the original poster describing how that had impacted her and asking if they could talk about it. The original poster never talked about politics with the other mother and the point of this post seems to be that close friendships are possible despite political differences. Fair enough, but I am not sure what this has to do with private and independent schools. Not surprisingly given DCUM's audience, most of those responding are Democrats. Therefore, the families who have different political views are mostly Republicans. What becomes clear almost immediately is that many of the posters make distinctions between traditional Republicans and supporters of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. The liberal posters don't seem to have much of an issue with those who are Republican because they support lower taxes, fewer business regulations, smaller government, and tough on crime public safety measures. But they have real problems with MAGAs. Most of the posters would be fine socializing with families whose political views are of the first category, but many would do their best to avoid those in the second. The posters who would avoid either Republicans generally or Trump supporters specifically are criticized for being intolerant and narrow-minded. But many of them offer no apologies for avoiding those who they claim are tolerant of racism, sexism, homophobia, and who support Trump despite his felony convictions and liability for sexual assault. I will say to my fellow liberals, particularly those who refuse to tolerate MAGAs, that you might consider opening your mind a bit. On a personal level, most MAGAs with whom I associate are very nice. Contrary to what you may believe, they don't have horns spouting from their heads. Generally they are not eager to bring up politics and, when they do, it is very gingerly. There is really no reason to be concerned about your kids making friends with their kids. As for this thread, it eventually turned into a general political debate that had no connection to the original topic, let alone private school issues. As a result, as soon as it was reported to me this morning I locked it.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and, therefore, I will start with yesterday's third most active thread. That thread was titled, "Event everyone can celebrate: terrorist leader Sinwar dead", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster started this thread soon after reports emerged that Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas, had been killed in Gaza by Israeli forces. The original poster believes that this is an event that will please both Israelis and Palestinians. In addition, the original poster expresses hope that Sinwar's death will lead to an end to the fighting in Gaza, the release of the hostages being held by Hamas, and peace in the Middle East. I don't want to be too critical of the original poster because this view was commonly expressed yesterday, including by those much more prominent than the anonymous original poster. But this perspective mostly highlights the disconnect between U.S. perceptions of the war and the reality of what is actually occurring. Far from bringing an end to the war, Israel is continuing to widen the conflict in the region. Almost immediately, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu assured his nation that the fighting would continue. What will happen with the hostages is unclear. It is possible that some will be killed in retaliation. More likely there will be no real impact. It is probable that even before Sinwar's death, Hamas had lost most of its ability to exert top down control of its members. The fate of the hostages could well be left to the individual groups that are holding them. As for peace in the region, it will be a long time before Gaza is anything more than a catalyst for further violence in the region. Moreover, as I wrote recently on this blog, Netanyahu's personal motivations are for continual war. Based on what I observed on social media, the reaction of Palestinians and Lebanese, even among some who were no fans of Sinwar, is not one of celebration. Israel released video from a drone that entered the building in which Sinwar had taken refuge after a firefight with Israeli troops. Sinwar's right arm appeared to have been amputated near his wrist and he seems to have applied a tourniquet himself. Using his left arm, he threw a stick at the drone. Arabs point out that rather than hiding in a tunnel, Sinwar was above ground leading the battle against Israeli forces and resisted to the last moment of his life. It appears that Israel may have just created a martyr whose life will inspire others. We have seen how little impact Israel's assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has had as Israel continues to face stiff resistance in southern Lebanon. Hamas and Hezbollah are resistance organizations whose members face the choice of fighting to the death or surrendering their homelands. Quite a few will prefer the former. The biggest impact of Sinwar's killing may be on U.S. - Israeli relations. For President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, this provides an off-ramp for Israel. Rather than the continued slaughter and starvation of Gazans which is costing Harris votes and possibly even the election, she would much rather see an end to the violence which might decrease the war's importance as an election issue. But Netanyahu appears determined to bomb and starve Gazans into submission. Biden and Harris will be forced to choose between their own interests and Netanyahu's.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "How is it a close race?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster points out a number of flaws in former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump such as his frequent failure to pay contractors, his cheating with a porn star, his modifying a weather map with a Sharpie, the way he kowtows to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and his lies about election fraud, and asks how Trump supporters cannot see all of this. The original poster compares the situation to the "Emperor's New Clothes" fairytale in which everyone realizes the truth but is afraid to say it. The original poster is perplexed that this is even a close election given the numerous problems with Trump. Many Trump supporters respond by saying that they recognize Trump's personal flaws and don't really like his personality. However, they claim that they are supporting him because of policy issues. Frequently these posters cite immigration and the economy as areas where they belive Trump has better policies than Vice President Kamala Harris. A number of Trump supporters look back at Trump's previous presidency and suggest that he did a laudable job. Trump opponents point out that Trump accomplished very little as President. His legislative accomplishments were mostly limited to passing tax cuts which caused the national debt to skyrocket. He mishandled the COVID pandemic and never reached even 50% popularity. Given that all the posters in this thread participate in DCUM's political forum, they must have some interest in politics. Yet, many of the Trump supporters demonstrate that they are very poorly informed. Almost universally these posters are acting on the basis of "vibes". They perceive that things were better under Trump than they were under President Joe Biden and Harris but they struggle to support that perception with actual data. Their primary basis for this perception is higher prices and increased immigration. The fact that prices are higher as a result of the pandemic and that Republicans have repeatedly prevented immigration reforms is lost to them. During the Trump administration, Americans suffered shortages of toilet paper and other everyday goods. Automakers could not obtain chips to manufacture cars. The economy was on the brink of disaster. Biden and Harris turned this around and did it without massive unemployment. But Republicans still "feel" that things are worse now. In the face of the January 6th insurrection, Trump's admission that he will be a dictator on the first day, the anti-democratic Project 2025, and Trump's obvious infatuation with dictators, MAGA supporters have convinced themselves that Harris is a bigger threat to democracy. This is absolutely delusional. As the original poster stated, and I repeat almost daily, MAGA really is a cult.

The most active thread yesterday continued to be the presidential debate thread that has been among the most active threads since Monday. The most active thread after that was somewhat related. Titled, "Taylor Swift has announced that she is voting for Harris after watching the debate.", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the original poster simply linked to pop star Taylor Swift's Instagram page where she urged her fans to research the presidential candidates. Swift went on to say that she would be voting for Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. She signed her post, "Childless Cat Lady" and was pictured holding her cat, an obvious reference to statements by Republican Vice Presidential candidate J. D. Vance. As those responding in the thread pointed out, Swift had been expected to endorse Harris after previously endorsing President Joe Biden. However, there had been some concerns about Swift lately due to her close relationship with Britany Mahomes, wife of Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes, and a supporter of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. In addition, Trump recently posted a fake video produced using artificial intelligence showing Swift endorsing Trump, something that Swift mentioned in her Instagram post. Supporters of the billionaire celebrity Trump, including his running mate Vance, immediately began suggesting that nobody cares about the opinion of billionaire celebrities. However, Swift seemed to have some impact because interest in voter registration surged as demonstrated by both search engine queries and traffic on vote.gov. There was also discussion about the timing of Swift's post. Her fans suggested that she had been smart to post after the debate because that showed that she had made an informed decision. Critics, however, argued that she was trying to draw attention away from Harris' poor debate performance. This was particularly deluded because Harris was almost universally seen to have had a great debate performance. If anything, the Harris campaign would have preferred the endorsement to have come at another time since they clearly wanted the limelight on Harris and the debate. Like Vance, many of those responding proved to be obsessed with the fertility and marital status of women. Despite Swift's clear ownership of the "childless cat lady" label that Vance has popularized, several posters criticized not only Swift, but Oprah, and Harris herself for not having children. Misogyny from anonymous posters on DCUM may not be important, but then the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, weighed in on X offering to give Swift a child. While Swift is encouraging millions of fans to support Harris, Musk is cementing the Republican Party as the home of misogynist weirdos.

The most active thread yesterday was, unfortunately, about the British Royal Family. Titled, "New Princess Catherine video", and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum, the original poster made about as little effort as possible starting this thread. She simply wrote that a "stunning" video involving Catherine, The Princess of Wales, was available on Youtube, not even bothering to link to the video. Yet, this was enough to create the most active thread of the day. In the video, which I must stress I have not watched, Catherine apparently announces that she has completed her chemotherapy treatment. Immediately posters reacted critically, complaining that the video was overproduced and boring. The few posters who were glad to see Kate seeming to be in good health and who wished her well were mostly drowned out by those who claimed not to care about her or the Royal Family in general. In fact, those posters cared so little that they posted about how little they cared. That, of course, is the ultimate sign of not caring. Beyond that, a large portion of the thread was devoted to Catherine's hair, or more specifically, why she still has hair. Many posters expect that the chemo treatments would have caused the Princess to lose her hair, which based on this video, she hasn't. Posters had plenty of theories explaining this apparent discrepancy. There was also considerable discussion of Kate's specific medical condition. Many posters questioned how accurate of a story the public has been provided. They pointed out what they believe to be discrepancies or holes in the story. Getting back to the video itself, posters were unrelenting in their criticism. There were constant complaints that it was fake and simply a public relations effort. Posters described scene after scene as being "set up" and not natural. Not a single frame was safe from nitpicking. Fans of Kate posted every now and again, but their posts tended to be lost in the sea of criticism. As a result, many of fans resorted to reporting posts that they considered inappropriate. I received at least 10 reports about posts in this thread. Eventually it seemed that this thread would go nowhere and simply continue a cycle of critical posts and reports to me. As a result, I locked the thread which is the normal fate of most Royal Family threads.

The most active thread yesterday was the school shooting thread that I already discussed and, therefore, will skip today. The most active thread after that was titled, "WSJ Rankings 2025" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Apparently this is the college ranking season and we will probably have as many threads as there are different rankings. Based on what we've seen so far, every one of them will be controversial. This list was developed by the Wall Street Journal and College Pulse. The rankings in the list was determined by how well colleges set students up for financial success. That makes this list a bit different than others. What is not different is that the list is topped by Princeton, something that seems to be fairly common. However, in second place is Babson College, a school that I don't recall have ever heard of previously. Though that may well say more about me than the school. Many posters expressed surprise about Bentley University which was ranked 11th and is another school of which I have never heard. While some posters expressed appreciation for the list, many more were critical of it. If anything, reaction was very polarized with posters either hating the list or loving it with not many in between. There were, of course, lots of reactions to the placement of specific schools. Virginia Tech at 19th surprised and, in many cases, excited posters. The same was true of Towson University which was ranked 40th. One thing this list does is draw attention to a topic on which I have commented several times and which is really starting to become my pet issue with regard college education. Is the purpose of college to educate in the broadest sense of that term or to simply be an on-ramp to a high salary? I have tended to personally land somewhere between the middle and the eduction end of the spectrum. I don't think college should be a glorified vocational school but I also think that it is important to be able to command a living wage upon graduation. This list is clearly weighted toward the opposite end of the spectrum, prioritizing high salaries. However, I have difficulty believing that Princeton is not providing a broad education so it's place at the top may be somewhat redeeming. Many posters praised the rankings because they were based on actual data and, therefore, believed to be more objective. But posters may be familiar with the saying that there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics." Several posters criticized the methodology which they viewed as fundamentally flawed. As one poster colorfully put it, "it's like measuring your schwantz from the floor up. Does not give an accurate measurement of what it claims to. It's data, not information."

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Are all the good guys taken by early 30s", and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster didn't have much more to say beyond the thread's title, writing nothing more than "Please give me hope" in the body of her post. However, the original poster did have a lot to say in her follow-up posts. Sadly, most of those posts were sock puppeted. The original poster's first response to herself was to offer assurance that not all was lost in DC, writing, "I would say 30-33 is the perfect age for dating in DC.". She then followed that by saying, "Every big law guy I ever dated (which is to say a lot, sadly) was at least 30." In another post, she wrote, "I know a lot of late 30s/early 40s guys who are catches." In fact, the original poster did such a great job of offering herself encouragement, I am not sure why a thread was needed. She could have handled this whole thing in her personal diary. Or maybe she could just give herself daily affirmations like Stuart Smalley. She could simply stand in front of her mirror and intone, "I'm considered pretty attractive and the two times I've been on dating apps I got a boyfriend within like 3 weeks." One would assume from the first post that the original poster is a single woman who is looking for a guy. But a later post by the original poster suggested that might not be the case. In that post she wrote,"My boyfriend and I are both in our 30s and work for nonprofits." I doubt that the original poster is actually seeking greener pastures at the moment, though I guess I wouldn't rule it out completely. I suspect that she is just trolling for entertainment. But the most hilarious post by the original poster was the one complaining that, "As always, this thread does nothing to help OP." Not true, the original poster gae herself plenty of help. The original poster clearly took to heart the advice that "if you want something done right, do it yourself." When the going got tough, the original poster even started quoting her own posts and providing responses to them. It looks like the original poster's goal was to trigger incels so that she could then complain about incels. Or, maybe she wanted to trigger single women in their 30s and beyond? I didn't read every reply in the thread, but from what I did see, posters were pretty untriggered. One male poster who might have been off-putting mostly embarrassed himself rather than upsetting the women. If the thread had been serious it would have been a pretty depressing read. Perhaps it still is, but the original poster's dialogue with herself is amusing. It would be interesting to know which parts are true.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Helicopter parents and their presence out of control?", and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster describes three cousins that attended large southern universities. One of the cousin's parents purchased an apartment in the town so that they could attend football games. The other two cousins' parents bought houses where the universities are located so that they could attend games as well. The original poster asks whether this type of clingy parenting is common these days, saying that it was unheard of when she went to college. As the first poster to respond says, "This seems to be more of an SEC football thing than a helicopter thing." Several posters agree that this sounds more like well-to-do parents who are dedicated to football rather than traditional helicopter parents. Moreover, several justifications for purchasing real estate in college towns that didn't involve helicopter parenting were suggested. Other posters, however, do have stories that describe what would be expected from helicopter parents. One poster told of parents sitting in on Zoom interviews for graduating students applying for jobs. Several of those responding mentioned Facebook groups for parents in which all sorts of helicopter behavior is on display. Another poster said that at her son's college, parents of freshmen had to be told that they could not attend "student only" bonding events. On the other hand, one poster — later supported by several others — defended helicopter parents, saying that being a close-knit family is not inherently bad. These posters argued that parents were all trying to do their best and should not be criticized. They argued that helicopter parenting was not hurting those who opposed it and, therefore, they shouldn't care about it. However, other posters contended that helicopter parenting does have negative effects. They describe kids who have been coddled their entire lives failing to develop resiliency. When such students are hired, they crumble instantly when things get rough. Some posters say that this phenomenon significantly increased when the cost of colleges grew. Because college is now often one of a family's biggest expenses, they want to make sure they are getting their investment's worth. Several posters defend this attitude, saying they have paid for services and want to make sure those services are being provided. Other posters don't disagree that getting what is paid for is important, but they argue that it is the role of the students to advocate on their own behalf and that parents shouldn't intervene.