Wednesday's Most Active Threads

For the first time in a long time, yesterday's top 4 most active threads did not include any threads that I've already discussed. However, the top threads were heavily weighted towards the political forum, with 3 of the top 4 being posted there. The first of those was titled, "Who do you think is going to win and why?" and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As you would expect, this thread mostly consists of posters responding with the name of the candidate they expect to win and, in most cases, some commentary supporting their answer. I've only skimmed this thread, but what I noticed is the very different attitudes generally reflected by Democrats and Republicans. For reasons that I've never understood, nearly the entire Democratic Party turns into Woody Allen during campaigns. Democrats in this thread are anxiety-ridden, pessimistic, and practically ready to concede before a single vote has been counted. Republicans, on the other hand, are euphoric and, opposite the Democrats, prepared to claim victory before a single vote has been counted. I suspect that both parties are being affected by the same Republican-led efforts. For weeks, Republican-leaning "polling firms" — I put that in quotes because these firms are really activist organizations pursing political agendas rather than authentic polling companies — have flooded the zone with garbage polls that show former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump easily winning the election. These polls have been used to convince Trump's cult followers that he is leading. One impact of this manufactured expectation is increased enthusiasm among MAGAs, but I suspect that the more important goal is to make eventual claims that the election was stolen more believable. If Trump loses, which I expect, he will say that the Democrats cheated and the proof is that he has been leading the polls. The near total conviction with which MAGAs have been predicting Trump's victory has rubbed off on others, including some Democrats. Democrats, predisposed to being disappointed in the first place, have generally been timid in pushing back on the Republican irrational exuberance. I've long understood that I could hardly act with the authority and alleged subject matter expertise that I do here in many places outside the DCUM sandbox. But that phenomenon is often even more extreme for our anonymous posters who are free to represent themselves any way that they would like. Based on some of the responses in this thread, our forum is filled with a number of Nate Silver and Nate Cohn wannabes. They crunch some numbers, provide some intelligent sounding analysis, and make their predictions. They sound like they know what they are talking about, but do they? Time will tell. I recently saw a warning on one of my social media feeds that professional campaigns have a lot of detailed data about voters and voting trends, going down to the block level. As such, they can make sense of information such as early voting numbers in ways that us mere mortals can't. Therefore, it is probably not wise to put too much emphasis on the data that is coming out now about early voting, mail-in ballots and such. Those who really know are probably not telling. My own prediction, based on little more than my gut and the analysis of pundits that I trust, is that Vice President Kamala Harris will edge out a comfortable victory. I have one caveat, however, which I will discuss later in this post.

Yesterday's next most active thread was not posted in the political forum but rather in the "Off-Topic" forum. Titled, "Top regrets in life", the original poster's entire post consisted of only, "What is yours?" Not only did the original poster not offer her own regret in the post, she doesn't seem to have done so anywhere else in the thread either. Instead she limited herself to a few comments on other's regrets. So perhaps she is among the lucky few to have no regrets. As for the others, it is hard to summarize 10 pages of responses. It looks like a lot of posters have career-related regrets. Similarly, many posters regret going to law school. Several posters regretted other decisions about colleges and majors. Quite a few posters have regrets about relationships, either ones in which they engaged or ones that they avoided. Foremost among those were marriages. Some regrets were more light-hearted such as the poster who regretted opening the bag of Halloween candy. Other common regrets involved investment opportunities that were missed. One poster regretted not marrying the man she loved with all of her heart. She is now separated and her lost love may be as well. Posters engaged with her in a fairly long running discussion encouraging her to contact him. But the poster seems reluctant and her failure to do so may end up as a regret in a future version of this thread. Frankly, the posters in this thread were kind of boring. Nobody had any really interesting regrets. Doesn't anyone regret not dropping out of college and playing in a punk band? Conversely, nobody regrets dropping out of college and playing in a punk band? Are there no punk band related regrets at all? And don't get me started on the lack of circus-related regrets. Instead we have posters who regret skipping a semester abroad, as well as a poster who apparently enjoys kicking others when they are down and just had to say how happy she was about her decision to take a semester abroad. Hopefully that second poster regrets not understanding the purpose of the thread. I regret that I don't have anything else to say about this thread.

Next was a thread titled, "CNBC host stunned from a panel of Michigan voters" and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster describes a discussion on CNBC in which host Yasmin Vossoughian asked several Michigan residents if they would vote for Vice President Kamala Harris and none said that they would. They all cited the fighting in Gaza and Lebanon as their reason. I was an active participant in this thread which probably shouldn't surprise any regular readers of this blog because I have repeatedly complained that Arab-American and Muslim-American voters are being alienated by the Democratic Party. The caveat that I mentioned while discussing the thread about predicting the election winner is related to this. Michigan is home to the largest Arab-American population in the U.S. Numbering nearly 400,000, the group is easily large enough to make the difference in Michigan's presidential voting. To be clear about who is being discussed, there are Arabs in the state who are both Muslim and Christian. There are also Muslims who are not Arab, but still may have very strong feelings about Gaza and Lebanon. Not unsurprisingly, many of the Arab-Americans in Michigan have been upset for the past year over U.S. policy regarding Israel and Gaza. In their view, a U.S.-supported genocide is being conducted and they hold President Joe Biden and, by extension, Vice President Kamala Harris responsible. Things got even worse after Israel's invasion of Lebanon because a very significant number of the Arabs in Michigan have roots in southern Lebanon. So the anger has increased exponentially. Neither Biden nor Harris has done much to alleviate the anger in the community. On the other hand, former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump has actively reached out to Arabs and Muslims in the state. Trump's daughter Tiffany is married to a man of Lebanese descent and her father-in-law has been actively courting Michigan's Arab community. The result is that what was once a dependable voting block for the Democrats is now in great part up for grabs. I have been active in the Arab American community for over 40 years (my mother is of Lebanese descent). Based on my observations, very few Arab-Americans have any faith in Trump. Some Muslims have found common ground based on conservative social values, but they are not ignorant of Trump's past policies regarding Muslims and Arabs. As for Harris, this is much more than simple political differences. What is happening in Gaza, and now Lebanon as well, is often personal to these voters. They have friends and family who are being killed, left homeless, or displaced. They can't easily overlook this. They have literally been begging Harris for the smallest of concessions so that they can justify voting for her. What they have received in return is the likes of Richie Torres coming to Michigan and bragging that the Harris campaign has made no concessions to get the Arab vote. The result is that this population largely feels like it is presented with three undesirable choices. Some will hold their noses and vote for Trump, others will also hold their noses, but vote for Harris. But many, I fear too many, will either not vote or vote for a third party. Many posters in this thread argue that Arabs and Muslims would be making a mistake by voting for Trump or a third party because, they suggest, Trump will be worse in the Middle East and also worse for the community here in the U.S. Frankly, it would be very, very hard to be worse than Biden on the Middle East. As for Trump, there is an argument to be made that Trump may be marginally better for the region and some in the community are willing to risk civil rights problems at home in the U.S. in exchange for an end to the killing in Gaza and Lebanon. I don't now if Harris can win the presidency without Michigan and I don't know if she can win Michigan without Arab-Americans. But, I do know that if Harris loses Michigan and, hence the election, she only has herself to blame.

The final thread that I will discuss today was, as previously explained, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was titled, "Former Trump Chief of Staff Kelly Warns Trump would Rule as a dictator". One of the threads that I discussed in yesterday's blog post involved remarks by General John Kelly, a former chief of staff for former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. Apparently Kelly was not done after speaking to The Atlantic and also gave an interview to The New York Times. The Times reported Kelly's concerns that Trump would rule as a dictator if he were to be reelected. Kelly has been the source of negative anecdotes involving Trump for a while. However, the General has normally refused to confirm such stories publicly. In this case, however, he not only went on the record with the Times, but agreed to be recorded and the newspaper also published the recordings. As a result, there is no disagreement about what Kelly had to say. For liberals, Kelly confirms their worst fears about Trump. Kelly describes Trump as unknowledgeable and uninterested in the U.S. Constitution and willing to pursue his goals regardless of their legality. Kelly is particularly bothered by Trump's suggestions that he would use the U.S. military against the country's own people. Trump's defenders in the thread paint Kelly as a disgruntled former employee who is still upset about being fired. One might ask why almost every former Trump cabinet member is now a "disgruntled former employee", but that never seems to occur to MAGAs. Far from raising red flags for the MAGAs, Kelly's interview only furthers their belief that the "deep state" is working to stop Trump. They claim that Kelly is only speaking now because the Harris campaign is failing and has become desparate. For some, Trump's dictatorial tendencies are actually a feature rather than a bug. They want him to take swift and decisive action if he returns to the White House and they don't want his agenda stymied by namby-pamby bureaucrats and deep state plants. This all results in a combination of liberals basically saying "we told you so" and conservatives arguing that what Kelly said is not true but if it is true, it's actually a good thing. Some posters, obviously MAGA-leaning, simply refuse to believe anything coming from the mainstream media. They see the Kelly interview as just another "biased hit job." However, this didn't stop them from suddenly going on a rampage complaining about Trump being called "Hitler". Nobody actually called Trump "Hitler". Rather, the allegation was that Trump said that he needed generals like Hitler's. But the MAGA crowd is not big on accuracy. Trump supporters thrive on resentment and the can now add "Trump being called Hitler" to their pile of grievances. This is quite the crowd that refuses to believe something they can hear with their own ears but completely accepts as truth something that didn't happen.