RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Yanni Gourde and Jaden Schwartz had a goal and an assist each and the Seattle Kraken snapped a three-game skid, beating the Carolina Hurricanes 4-2 on Tuesday night.

Seattle Kraken 4, Carolina Hurricanes 2: Box score

Gourde’s wrist shot at 10:48 in the third period broke a 2-2 tie. Brandon Tanev and Eeli Tolvanen also scored for Seattle and Matty Beniers added two assists. Joey Daccord stopped 15 shots.

Eric Robinson and Martin Necas scored for the Hurricanes, who lost their third straight. Necas added an assist to improve his team-leading point total to 39. The Hurricanes finished with a season-low 16 shots. Pyotr Kochetkov made 24 saves in his first start after missing four games with a concussion.

YANNI YANNI YANNI pic.twitter.com/SzY6u9x1Da

— Seattle Kraken (@SeattleKraken) December 4, 2024

Takeaways

Kraken: Typically, it’s the Hurricanes who dominate puck possession and significantly outshoot their opponent. Seattle controlled Tuesday’s game and was particularly effective in the second period with a 14-2 shot advantage. It was only the second time this season the Kraken held their opponent to fewer than 20 shots.

Hurricanes: Kochetkov’s return was supposed to stabilize the goaltending situation. After he gave up Schwartz’s goal 19 seconds into the game, he settled down. Kochetkov missed four games after he suffered a concussion on Nov. 23 in a shootout loss in Columbus. The Hurricanes went 2-2 without Kochetkov. They’ve been without top goalie Frederik Andersen with a knee injury since a 4-1 win at Seattle on Oct. 26. Andersen is expected to be out for another six to 10 weeks.

Key moment

At 10:02 in the third, Jack Drury’s goal for Carolina was overturned on a successful coach’s challenge for goaltender interference. Fifty seconds later, Gourde beat Kochetkov to give Seattle a 3-2 lead.

Key stat

The Kraken improved to 7-1-1 this season when scoring first.

Up Next

The Kraken continue a four-game road trip at the New York Islanders and the Hurricanes host Colorado, both on Thursday night.

Last game: Kraken fall to Sharks 4-2 for third straight loss

A December analysis released by WalletHub breaks down which of the 182 most highly-populated U.S. cities are best, and worst, for singles. And Atlanta, Seattle, and Denver are among the top 10.

“The already difficult process of finding the perfect partner can be made even tougher when cities lack the conditions necessary to make dating successful,” WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo said in the report.

“The best cities for singles have large, gender-balanced single populations, along with a wide variety of indoor and outdoor, daytime and nighttime activities,” he said. “They also have reasonable prices for dating activities or high average incomes to help ease the sting of inflation.”  

Don’t worry if you want to date and aren’t having much luck. Census data puts singles at roughly 46% of the entire U.S. adult population. But as WalletHub notes in its analysis, those singles are concentrated very differently throughout the country.

The new rankings are based on a set of “35 key indicators of dating-friendliness,” according to WalletHub. With inflation driving up prices, WalletHub looked at the average price of popular date activities in each area, including movie tickets and restaurant meal costs. The analysts also took into consideration the number of nightlife options available to residents in each city, rent prices, salon costs, and online dating opportunities.

Another key factor was the total percentage of singles living in an area—since you kind of need other singles around to find success dating, unless we’re officially in the AI dating era.

Here’s more on the top three cities for singles:

Atlanta

Atlanta claims the top spot for singles thanks to its dynamic social scene, which includes a wealth of nightlife, restaurants, and attractions. The city stands out with its high density of shopping centers, spas, and social clubs, providing a variety of settings for first (and hopefully second and third) dates. Additionally, Atlanta’s accessibility—ranked 22nd in the U.S. for biking, walking, and public transportation—makes getting to these destinations convenient.

Another key factor is Atlanta’s substantial population of unattached residents, with over 69% of its citizens identifying as single. This ranks the city eighth nationally for available partners. Furthermore, the median household income here approaches $79,000, making it likely you’ll meet someone with solid financial security.

Las Vegas

Las Vegas earns the second spot for singles by offering some of the most diverse entertainment and social opportunities in the country, according to WalletHub. With its array of music festivals, spas, shopping destinations, fitness facilities, and social clubs, the city caters to many different interests. Surprisingly, dating here can also be cost-effective, with low average expenses for grooming and fitness, including some of the country’s cheapest haircuts and gym memberships, the WalletHub analysis found.

The city also ranks 23rd for gender parity among unattached individuals, offering a balanced environment for those seeking companionship. For singles who find love in this vibrant city, the quick and quirky wedding options, like Elvis-themed chapels, add a touch of fun to the romance.

Seattle

WalletHub’s analysis puts Seattle on the map as a haven for singles, ranking third overall due to its variety of cultural and outdoor offerings. The city excels in providing unique date opportunities, from parks and music festivals to upscale dining and shopping centers. For those seeking meaningful connections, the city’s community-oriented atmosphere makes it a great place to build relationships, according to WalletHub.

Known for its thriving tech industry, Seattle boasts a high median household income of over $80,000, adjusted for cost of living, increasing the likelihood you’ll meet someone financially secure. The city also ranks among the best for online and app-based dating, offering ample chances to connect virtually.

The Seattle Times is again masquerading advocacy as journalism. The goal this time appears to be to advocate for remote workers to stay away from the office, likely in response to a vocal group of staff opposing return-to-office policies.

Business reporter Jessica Fu laments the supposed financial burdens of returning to the office, blaming everything from gas prices to food costs. But instead of offering newsworthy insights, the article reads like a poorly veiled lobbying effort to keep workers remote. Fu even solicited specific stories to tell that fit what appears to be her personal view that remote working should be adopted by businesses.

And let’s be honest: this isn’t about household budgets—it’s about perpetuating progressive narratives that their policies are not to blame for the very affordability crisis they complain about.

More from Jason Rantz: Seattle Times columnist embarrasses himself, claims Trump would hurt Seattle economy

What does The Seattle Times believe is so bad about returning to work?

Fu frames the piece to be sympathetic to remote workers who don’t want to return to the office like adults.

The article, titled “Seattle-area return-to-office mandates strain household budgets,” centers around Jessica Poe, a 41-year-old divorcee who moved to Spanaway with her two dogs because she couldn’t find a spacious enough apartment with her $1,900-a-month budget. The house she moved to belonged to her brother, and consequently, her rent was just $750 a month.

Three months after the move, Poe was laid off but found a new job in Bellevue with what Fu calls “a catch” — like most jobs, it required staff to work in the office.

“Such a requirement may come as no surprise to workers in the Seattle area,” Fu bizarrely notes. No one is surprised by this requirement because it’s how the workforce has always operated until a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic that remote workers took advantage of in order to stay home from work.

More from Jason Rantz: Sorry, but Kamala’s loss isn’t due to racist, sexist Americans

Ignoring root causes

Fu goes on to note the stress of people like Poe, “who have organized their lives around working remotely.”

She took the job, even though it is in Bellevue. To get to work, she had to drive two hours each way, or more depending on traffic. Her costs ballooned massively. On gas alone, Poe was spending nearly $500 a month. Depending on how backed up her normal commute was, she sometimes opted to pay a $15 toll each way to take a faster route. On average, that added $300 a month or more, she estimates. The costs compounded quickly, eating into her annual income of $75,000.

The business reporter even complains about the depreciation of Poe’s car: “Each day, she would put another 100 miles on it. In three months, she had to get two oil changes.”

Of course, Fu conveniently ignores the root causes of these financial burdens on remote workers feigning outrage or surprise of having to return to the office.

Housing costs? Driven sky-high by Democrats’ policies that throttle development and overregulate landlords. Food and gas prices? Thank the Biden administration’s inflationary spending and, locally, Washington’s Climate Commitment Act, which voters recently declined to repeal. This law, sold as a climate win, has raised gas prices to some of the highest in the nation.

These are the very policies the Times’ staff and remote workers likely championed, yet now they bemoan the very predictable fallout.

The news report is missing any news

There’s no actual news in The Seattle Times article. It’s just a string of complaints from people who pretended they’d never have to return to the office.

Did these folks think the pandemic was permanent? Remote work was a temporary adjustment, not a new way of life. Employers, who’ve been paying for high leases on empty office space, have every right to call their employees back. And the rest of you, who’ve endured the traffic and rising costs throughout, are likely done hearing sob stories about how someone’s Starbucks bill went up because they’re commuting again.

The importance of returning to the office cannot be overstated. It’s an important detail left out of the advocacy journalism lobbying for remote workers.

More from Jason Rantz: Starbucks joins Amazon in wisely threatening to fire selfish employees who won’t return to office

Remote workers should think about the economy

Beyond boosting productivity and collaboration (remember those things?), working in an office revitalizes local economies that have been decimated by the remote-work era.

Restaurants, coffee shops, dry cleaners, and countless other small businesses have been suffering because the workforce stayed home. Bringing people back restores vibrancy to our downtowns and helps repair the damage done by years of draconian COVID-19 policies.

The Seattle Times completely misses this bigger picture. Instead, Fu feeds into the entitlement of a remote workforce that doesn’t want to adapt to reality. Want to cut costs? Pack a lunch. Take public transit like progressives keep pushing on the rest of us. Or better yet, pressure the policymakers you voted for to enact reforms that reduce the cost of living.

A bunch of whining from remote workers

This report isn’t journalism — it’s advocacy-via-whining.

The Seattle Times is clearly siding with a particular agenda, hoping to shift public opinion against return-to-work policies. But their argument falls apart when you realize the hardships they highlight are self-inflicted wounds caused by the very leaders they defend and prop up.

If anything, this article should be a wake-up call to its readers: Democrats’ policies have created these burdens, and their enablers in the media would rather you work from home than demand better policies.

Listen to The Jason Rantz Show on weekday afternoons from 3-7 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to the podcast here. Follow Jason Rantz on X, Instagram, YouTube and Facebook.

Follow @https://twitter.com/jasonrantz