BOE election candidates 2024

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s a lot of words to say she was definitely running against Evans but not Harris. There must be a big difference between the two but I can’t quite put my finger on it.

Sure. Evans has been there eight years and does nothing but agree with central office staff. Time for her to go.

Pretty much

But we would never vote out the other do-nothing incumbent who happens to be Stewart’s bestie and carbon copy. Is there some magic number of years of BOE service when Lynne Harris becomes eligible for being voted out? 4 years isn’t enough apparently? Is 8 the magic number?

Have you ever even watched a board meeting? Nearly every meeting Harris is having budget items held from the block vote so staff have to come to the table and explain what is being requested and why. This is what board members should be doing, on behalf of the public. Evans just votes yes on anything without asking for any information.

I know it's open season for many people on incumbent BOE members after the McKnight-Beidleman fiasco, but Harris has been trying to hold the staff accountable. There is a well-oiled culture of stonewalling that has gone on for dozens of years in MCPS. Harris has taken plenty of push-back from staff and some BOE members during her tenure.

I would throw a few members off the BOE, but Harris isn't one of them.

Nothing against this PP at all because I agree for the most part, but isn’t the fact that we’re congratulating members of the BOE for merely asking questions of MCPS staff a sign that major structural reform is due? If the idea that asking some follow up questions of staff during a meeting that may or may not be answered via email to the member later on is a badge of honor worthy of reelection, I think we have a long way to go to get to the level of oversight and accountability that the toxic vipers nest of MCPS central office needs at this point.

DP. I agree that we need structural reform. With the current structure, the BOE is not able to direct and oversee MCPS, no matter who's on it.

Agreed +1,000. If we don't demand it now, we will never get it.

What are you demanding, specifically, and whom are you demanding it of? Also, how are you demanding it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rolling Stone has taken notice of the Bethany Mandel campaign:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/bethany-mandel-conservative-school-board-1234968716/

This is just click-bait.

She's not running as a Democrat. It's a nonpartisan race. She's registered as a Democrat because in this county it's the only way to have an impact on the primary race. I wish MD had open primaries.

Signed,
Stewart supporter

Someone should let Stewart it’s a nonpartisan race.

Signed,
A Democrat who voted for Jawando and Mink

When one of your opponents is Bethany Mandel, I don't think it's possible to campaign without mentioning partisan political issues.

It’s not the issues that bother me. It’s the “Vote for me because I’m a leader in the women’s democratic club” that bothers me.”

It's a relevant part of her background, no? Do you think she just shouldn't mention it?

Vote for her, don't vote for her, it's your decision not mine, but I do think it's interesting how the vast majority, like 90% of posts, on this thread are about one candidate, as though nobody else were running for BoE. It's also interesting how apparently this one candidate is bad both because she hides her background and also because she doesn't hide her background.

+1 I didn't come into this conversation as a huge Stewart fan and in fact, am the first person who said that I wasn't inclined to vote for her because she seemed like a nice white lady who is reluctant to ask difficult questions.

However, the addition of Mandel to this race changes everything for me. She is someone who has a stated platform of making life difficult for families like mine. That overrides any less significant concerns I have about Stewart.

Moreover, the thing about being a Democratic party official seems like a nothing burger. I don't think it makes the race partisan, and I see it as just signaling that she is politically engaged beyond school stuff. That's fine and normal, particularly in this area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rolling Stone has taken notice of the Bethany Mandel campaign:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/bethany-mandel-conservative-school-board-1234968716/

This is just click-bait.

She's not running as a Democrat. It's a nonpartisan race. She's registered as a Democrat because in this county it's the only way to have an impact on the primary race. I wish MD had open primaries.

Signed,
Stewart supporter

Someone should let Stewart it’s a nonpartisan race.

Signed,
A Democrat who voted for Jawando and Mink

When one of your opponents is Bethany Mandel, I don't think it's possible to campaign without mentioning partisan political issues.

It’s not the issues that bother me. It’s the “Vote for me because I’m a leader in the women’s democratic club” that bothers me.”

It's a relevant part of her background, no? Do you think she just shouldn't mention it?

Vote for her, don't vote for her, it's your decision not mine, but I do think it's interesting how the vast majority, like 90% of posts, on this thread are about one candidate, as though nobody else were running for BoE. It's also interesting how apparently this one candidate is bad both because she hides her background and also because she doesn't hide her background.

+1 I didn't come into this conversation as a huge Stewart fan and in fact, am the first person who said that I wasn't inclined to vote for her because she seemed like a nice white lady who is reluctant to ask difficult questions.

However, the addition of Mandel to this race changes everything for me. She is someone who has a stated platform of making life difficult for families like mine. That overrides any less significant concerns I have about Stewart.

Moreover, the thing about being a Democratic party official seems like a nothing burger. I don't think it makes the race partisan, and I see it as just signaling that she is politically engaged beyond school stuff. That's fine and normal, particularly in this area.

Same here in terms of being on the fence before Mandel entered the race. Now that she's running, I feel like we need to do everything we can to make sure she doesn't win. With Shebra Evans proving she can win a couple elections already, I'm inclined to vote for her again. I'm worried that a vote for Laura Stewart is a vote for Mandel, since it will split the reasonable vote and empower Mandel going into the general. I don't love any incumbent in this race, but given their track record of getting elected, I'd rather put my chips on someone who has proven they can win already rather than run the risk of letting a crazy person get a seat on the boe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rolling Stone has taken notice of the Bethany Mandel campaign:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/bethany-mandel-conservative-school-board-1234968716/

This is just click-bait.

She's not running as a Democrat. It's a nonpartisan race. She's registered as a Democrat because in this county it's the only way to have an impact on the primary race. I wish MD had open primaries.

Signed,
Stewart supporter

Someone should let Stewart it’s a nonpartisan race.

Signed,
A Democrat who voted for Jawando and Mink

When one of your opponents is Bethany Mandel, I don't think it's possible to campaign without mentioning partisan political issues.

It’s not the issues that bother me. It’s the “Vote for me because I’m a leader in the women’s democratic club” that bothers me.”

It's a relevant part of her background, no? Do you think she just shouldn't mention it?

Vote for her, don't vote for her, it's your decision not mine, but I do think it's interesting how the vast majority, like 90% of posts, on this thread are about one candidate, as though nobody else were running for BoE. It's also interesting how apparently this one candidate is bad both because she hides her background and also because she doesn't hide her background.

+1 I didn't come into this conversation as a huge Stewart fan and in fact, am the first person who said that I wasn't inclined to vote for her because she seemed like a nice white lady who is reluctant to ask difficult questions.

However, the addition of Mandel to this race changes everything for me. She is someone who has a stated platform of making life difficult for families like mine. That overrides any less significant concerns I have about Stewart.

Moreover, the thing about being a Democratic party official seems like a nothing burger. I don't think it makes the race partisan, and I see it as just signaling that she is politically engaged beyond school stuff. That's fine and normal, particularly in this area.

Same here in terms of being on the fence before Mandel entered the race. Now that she's running, I feel like we need to do everything we can to make sure she doesn't win. With Shebra Evans proving she can win a couple elections already, I'm inclined to vote for her again. I'm worried that a vote for Laura Stewart is a vote for Mandel, since it will split the reasonable vote and empower Mandel going into the general. I don't love any incumbent in this race, but given their track record of getting elected, I'd rather put my chips on someone who has proven they can win already rather than run the risk of letting a crazy person get a seat on the boe.

Evans vs. Mandel, Evans wins.
Stewart vs. Mandel, Stewart wins.
My cat vs. Mandel, my cat wins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rolling Stone has taken notice of the Bethany Mandel campaign:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/bethany-mandel-conservative-school-board-1234968716/

This is just click-bait.

She's not running as a Democrat. It's a nonpartisan race. She's registered as a Democrat because in this county it's the only way to have an impact on the primary race. I wish MD had open primaries.

Signed,
Stewart supporter

Someone should let Stewart it’s a nonpartisan race.

Signed,
A Democrat who voted for Jawando and Mink

When one of your opponents is Bethany Mandel, I don't think it's possible to campaign without mentioning partisan political issues.

It’s not the issues that bother me. It’s the “Vote for me because I’m a leader in the women’s democratic club” that bothers me.”

It's a relevant part of her background, no? Do you think she just shouldn't mention it?

Vote for her, don't vote for her, it's your decision not mine, but I do think it's interesting how the vast majority, like 90% of posts, on this thread are about one candidate, as though nobody else were running for BoE. It's also interesting how apparently this one candidate is bad both because she hides her background and also because she doesn't hide her background.

+1 I didn't come into this conversation as a huge Stewart fan and in fact, am the first person who said that I wasn't inclined to vote for her because she seemed like a nice white lady who is reluctant to ask difficult questions.

However, the addition of Mandel to this race changes everything for me. She is someone who has a stated platform of making life difficult for families like mine. That overrides any less significant concerns I have about Stewart.

Moreover, the thing about being a Democratic party official seems like a nothing burger. I don't think it makes the race partisan, and I see it as just signaling that she is politically engaged beyond school stuff. That's fine and normal, particularly in this area.

Same here in terms of being on the fence before Mandel entered the race. Now that she's running, I feel like we need to do everything we can to make sure she doesn't win. With Shebra Evans proving she can win a couple elections already, I'm inclined to vote for her again. I'm worried that a vote for Laura Stewart is a vote for Mandel, since it will split the reasonable vote and empower Mandel going into the general. I don't love any incumbent in this race, but given their track record of getting elected, I'd rather put my chips on someone who has proven they can win already rather than run the risk of letting a crazy person get a seat on the boe.

Evans vs. Mandel, Evans wins.
Stewart vs. Mandel, Stewart wins.
My cat vs. Mandel, my cat wins.

I think that depends on whether your cat recently hid her twitter account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rolling Stone has taken notice of the Bethany Mandel campaign:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/bethany-mandel-conservative-school-board-1234968716/

This is just click-bait.

She's not running as a Democrat. It's a nonpartisan race. She's registered as a Democrat because in this county it's the only way to have an impact on the primary race. I wish MD had open primaries.

Signed,
Stewart supporter

Someone should let Stewart it’s a nonpartisan race.

Signed,
A Democrat who voted for Jawando and Mink

When one of your opponents is Bethany Mandel, I don't think it's possible to campaign without mentioning partisan political issues.

It’s not the issues that bother me. It’s the “Vote for me because I’m a leader in the women’s democratic club” that bothers me.”

It's a relevant part of her background, no? Do you think she just shouldn't mention it?

Vote for her, don't vote for her, it's your decision not mine, but I do think it's interesting how the vast majority, like 90% of posts, on this thread are about one candidate, as though nobody else were running for BoE. It's also interesting how apparently this one candidate is bad both because she hides her background and also because she doesn't hide her background.

+1 I didn't come into this conversation as a huge Stewart fan and in fact, am the first person who said that I wasn't inclined to vote for her because she seemed like a nice white lady who is reluctant to ask difficult questions.

However, the addition of Mandel to this race changes everything for me. She is someone who has a stated platform of making life difficult for families like mine. That overrides any less significant concerns I have about Stewart.

Moreover, the thing about being a Democratic party official seems like a nothing burger. I don't think it makes the race partisan, and I see it as just signaling that she is politically engaged beyond school stuff. That's fine and normal, particularly in this area.

Same here in terms of being on the fence before Mandel entered the race. Now that she's running, I feel like we need to do everything we can to make sure she doesn't win. With Shebra Evans proving she can win a couple elections already, I'm inclined to vote for her again. I'm worried that a vote for Laura Stewart is a vote for Mandel, since it will split the reasonable vote and empower Mandel going into the general. I don't love any incumbent in this race, but given their track record of getting elected, I'd rather put my chips on someone who has proven they can win already rather than run the risk of letting a crazy person get a seat on the boe.

Evans vs. Mandel, Evans wins.
Stewart vs. Mandel, Stewart wins.
My cat vs. Mandel, my cat wins.

So if it's Evans vs Stewart does Mandel win?

[Anonymous]

A failed local political blogger whose last name rhymes with Whiner is a known stalker whose most recent peace order included him giving up his weapons. He threatens women and Stewart is his latest online target. That's the kind of reason why people lock down personal accounts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rolling Stone has taken notice of the Bethany Mandel campaign:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/bethany-mandel-conservative-school-board-1234968716/

This is just click-bait.

She's not running as a Democrat. It's a nonpartisan race. She's registered as a Democrat because in this county it's the only way to have an impact on the primary race. I wish MD had open primaries.

Signed,
Stewart supporter

Someone should let Stewart it’s a nonpartisan race.

Signed,
A Democrat who voted for Jawando and Mink

When one of your opponents is Bethany Mandel, I don't think it's possible to campaign without mentioning partisan political issues.

It’s not the issues that bother me. It’s the “Vote for me because I’m a leader in the women’s democratic club” that bothers me.”

It's a relevant part of her background, no? Do you think she just shouldn't mention it?

Vote for her, don't vote for her, it's your decision not mine, but I do think it's interesting how the vast majority, like 90% of posts, on this thread are about one candidate, as though nobody else were running for BoE. It's also interesting how apparently this one candidate is bad both because she hides her background and also because she doesn't hide her background.

+1 I didn't come into this conversation as a huge Stewart fan and in fact, am the first person who said that I wasn't inclined to vote for her because she seemed like a nice white lady who is reluctant to ask difficult questions.

However, the addition of Mandel to this race changes everything for me. She is someone who has a stated platform of making life difficult for families like mine. That overrides any less significant concerns I have about Stewart.

Moreover, the thing about being a Democratic party official seems like a nothing burger. I don't think it makes the race partisan, and I see it as just signaling that she is politically engaged beyond school stuff. That's fine and normal, particularly in this area.

Same here in terms of being on the fence before Mandel entered the race. Now that she's running, I feel like we need to do everything we can to make sure she doesn't win. With Shebra Evans proving she can win a couple elections already, I'm inclined to vote for her again. I'm worried that a vote for Laura Stewart is a vote for Mandel, since it will split the reasonable vote and empower Mandel going into the general. I don't love any incumbent in this race, but given their track record of getting elected, I'd rather put my chips on someone who has proven they can win already rather than run the risk of letting a crazy person get a seat on the boe.

Evans vs. Mandel, Evans wins.
Stewart vs. Mandel, Stewart wins.
My cat vs. Mandel, my cat wins.

So if it's Evans vs Stewart does Mandel win?

No, there is no scenario where Mandel wins - assuming that people do at least the minimum in campaigning against her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A failed local political blogger whose last name rhymes with Whiner is a known stalker whose most recent peace order included him giving up his weapons. He threatens women and Stewart is his latest online target. That's the kind of reason why people lock down personal accounts.

I figured it was something like this rather than the wacky conspiracy nonsense posted earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A failed local political blogger whose last name rhymes with Whiner is a known stalker whose most recent peace order included him giving up his weapons. He threatens women and Stewart is his latest online target. That's the kind of reason why people lock down personal accounts.

He’s threatened a lot of candidates and officials. They didn’t lock their accounts. Not a single elected official has taken this step, and I can’t recall any candidate doing it either but I don’t have time to look them all up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A failed local political blogger whose last name rhymes with Whiner is a known stalker whose most recent peace order included him giving up his weapons. He threatens women and Stewart is his latest online target. That's the kind of reason why people lock down personal accounts.

He’s threatened a lot of candidates and officials. They didn’t lock their accounts. Not a single elected official has taken this step, and I can’t recall any candidate doing it either but I don’t have time to look them all up.

Not true. The timing is merely a coincidence. It had nothing to do with political expedience.

You’ll see soon enough when Stewart makes her previous political tweets public again. As the candidate focused on Accountability and Transparency, she’s taking this time to curate her feed and remove and personal information she’s concerned with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A failed local political blogger whose last name rhymes with Whiner is a known stalker whose most recent peace order included him giving up his weapons. He threatens women and Stewart is his latest online target. That's the kind of reason why people lock down personal accounts.

He’s threatened a lot of candidates and officials. They didn’t lock their accounts. Not a single elected official has taken this step, and I can’t recall any candidate doing it either but I don’t have time to look them all up.

Remember when that candidate whose name rhymes with Lawn blocked people she didn't agree with on X/Twitter? Despite that, that Whiner guy is a horrible human.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A failed local political blogger whose last name rhymes with Whiner is a known stalker whose most recent peace order included him giving up his weapons. He threatens women and Stewart is his latest online target. That's the kind of reason why people lock down personal accounts.

He’s threatened a lot of candidates and officials. They didn’t lock their accounts. Not a single elected official has taken this step, and I can’t recall any candidate doing it either but I don’t have time to look them all up.

Not true. The timing is merely a coincidence. It had nothing to do with political expedience.

You’ll see soon enough when Stewart makes her previous political tweets public again. As the candidate focused on Accountability and Transparency, she’s taking this time to curate her feed and remove and personal information she’s concerned with.

I look forward to seeing her political tweets becoming public again. I’m also looking forward to her explaining what she means by accountability and transparency with some specific initiatives that she’ll offer for biased consideration.

[Anonymous]

The Bethany Mandel concern trolling here is way over the top. She’s going to run worse than Ficker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rolling Stone has taken notice of the Bethany Mandel campaign:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/bethany-mandel-conservative-school-board-1234968716/

This is just click-bait.

She's not running as a Democrat. It's a nonpartisan race. She's registered as a Democrat because in this county it's the only way to have an impact on the primary race. I wish MD had open primaries.

Signed,
Stewart supporter

Someone should let Stewart it’s a nonpartisan race.

Signed,
A Democrat who voted for Jawando and Mink

When one of your opponents is Bethany Mandel, I don't think it's possible to campaign without mentioning partisan political issues.

It’s not the issues that bother me. It’s the “Vote for me because I’m a leader in the women’s democratic club” that bothers me.”

It's a relevant part of her background, no? Do you think she just shouldn't mention it?

Vote for her, don't vote for her, it's your decision not mine, but I do think it's interesting how the vast majority, like 90% of posts, on this thread are about one candidate, as though nobody else were running for BoE. It's also interesting how apparently this one candidate is bad both because she hides her background and also because she doesn't hide her background.

+1 I didn't come into this conversation as a huge Stewart fan and in fact, am the first person who said that I wasn't inclined to vote for her because she seemed like a nice white lady who is reluctant to ask difficult questions.

However, the addition of Mandel to this race changes everything for me. She is someone who has a stated platform of making life difficult for families like mine. That overrides any less significant concerns I have about Stewart.

Moreover, the thing about being a Democratic party official seems like a nothing burger. I don't think it makes the race partisan, and I see it as just signaling that she is politically engaged beyond school stuff. That's fine and normal, particularly in this area.

Same here in terms of being on the fence before Mandel entered the race. Now that she's running, I feel like we need to do everything we can to make sure she doesn't win. With Shebra Evans proving she can win a couple elections already, I'm inclined to vote for her again. I'm worried that a vote for Laura Stewart is a vote for Mandel, since it will split the reasonable vote and empower Mandel going into the general. I don't love any incumbent in this race, but given their track record of getting elected, I'd rather put my chips on someone who has proven they can win already rather than run the risk of letting a crazy person get a seat on the boe.

The first time Shebra ran, she faced Jill Ortman-Fouse, and Shebra lost. The next two times she ran, Shebra has not had significant competition. In fact, Shebra may not have had any opponent in 2020. I can't find that information online. So, in terms of Shebra being the more likely to be reelected because she is the incumbent, I don't know I put much belief in that. Especially this year, after the problems this last year with MCPS.