Janeese Lewis George is keeping our kids safe from TURF

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:That tweet has an interesting history. Note the date, October, 21, 2019. The "Defund the Police" movement did not really get started until after the death of George Floyd in May 2020. To believe the DC Police Union, DFER — who used the tweet in multiple mailers for which it later apologized because they were deceptive — and Brandon Todd, JLG was six months ahead of the movement. What actually happened is that JLG launched her campaign based on issues such as affordable housing, affordable childcare, and access to healthcare. Among her concerns was the militarization of police who were increasingly receiving military weapons. If you look back at what she was saying at that time, it dealt with preventing this militarization which she wanted to stop and used the funds in more appropriate ways.

The fact that JLG opponents have nothing beyond a 2019 tweet to support their claims that "defund the police" was the "signature issue" of her campaign tells you everything you need to know. That tweet was actually the signature issue of JLG's opponents. As DFER later said with regard to mailers that printed the tweet, "These mailers oversimplified a more nuanced conversation about public safety... We made a mistake".

DFER, to its credit, says it learned from the mistake. The DC Police Union and the anonymous poster here, clearly has not.

Defund the Police began after the Ferguson Riots, which were in 2014.

I can't find any evidence that the slogan was at all popular before George Floyd's death. If you do any Internet searches, the oldest hits are in 2020.

JLG is so far left wing, she’s an unashamed Democratic Socialist after all, that she was promoting this radical policy of defunding the police before it got popular. She was the cutting edge, the vanguard of the defund movement.

Even if this is true, why did she never mention it again? After that, the only time "Defund the Police" came up, it was coming from her opponents. That is a really strange way to handle what some claim was the ""signature issue" of her campaign. Don't candidates normally talk about their "signature issue" quite a bit?

You could ask her? She was running for public office and trying to get elected. As a result, I am going to guess that she was saying things that she thought would get her votes and not saying things that she thought wouldn’t get votes. She’s a smart lady, so she stopped saying it.

If she stopped saying it, how could it be her signature issue? I ask again, don't candidates normally talk about their signature issue?

The fact is that it was not her signature issue. Her opponents lied about it. Now, four years later, they still haven't thought of a better lie and are simply using the same one. Even the Washington Post has joined in with an accusation that is rebutted by its own reporting. I wonder if anyone will have to repeat DFER's performance and issue a retraction this time.

I am not sure who you’re arguing with but it’s not me.

Strange that you joined the conversation in that case.

Sorry, I’m not your bogeyman. I personally think that anyone who chooses to affiliate with left wing extremist Democratic Socialists who have a history of antisemitism are unserious and have disqualified themselves from public service and the Washington Post was correct to not endorse her. She also admitted to shifting her position on defund the police to the Washington Post. Everything else after that, including the accusations and counter accusations about election law and DFER and everything else is between you and whoever else you’re arguing with.

She did not admit to "shifting her position on defund the police". She said that "It wasn’t the best verbiage used" which has basically always been her position. In 2020 she said, “I don’t think it’s an issue that we can put into one sentence, like defund the police".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/07/protests-defund-police/

As for your allegation that she associates with anti-Semites, that will probably surprise her Jewish supporters.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But are you seriously claiming that Democratic Socialists don’t have a history of troubling antisemitism?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:That tweet has an interesting history. Note the date, October, 21, 2019. The "Defund the Police" movement did not really get started until after the death of George Floyd in May 2020. To believe the DC Police Union, DFER — who used the tweet in multiple mailers for which it later apologized because they were deceptive — and Brandon Todd, JLG was six months ahead of the movement. What actually happened is that JLG launched her campaign based on issues such as affordable housing, affordable childcare, and access to healthcare. Among her concerns was the militarization of police who were increasingly receiving military weapons. If you look back at what she was saying at that time, it dealt with preventing this militarization which she wanted to stop and used the funds in more appropriate ways.

The fact that JLG opponents have nothing beyond a 2019 tweet to support their claims that "defund the police" was the "signature issue" of her campaign tells you everything you need to know. That tweet was actually the signature issue of JLG's opponents. As DFER later said with regard to mailers that printed the tweet, "These mailers oversimplified a more nuanced conversation about public safety... We made a mistake".

DFER, to its credit, says it learned from the mistake. The DC Police Union and the anonymous poster here, clearly has not.

Defund the Police began after the Ferguson Riots, which were in 2014.

I can't find any evidence that the slogan was at all popular before George Floyd's death. If you do any Internet searches, the oldest hits are in 2020.

JLG is so far left wing, she’s an unashamed Democratic Socialist after all, that she was promoting this radical policy of defunding the police before it got popular. She was the cutting edge, the vanguard of the defund movement.

Even if this is true, why did she never mention it again? After that, the only time "Defund the Police" came up, it was coming from her opponents. That is a really strange way to handle what some claim was the ""signature issue" of her campaign. Don't candidates normally talk about their "signature issue" quite a bit?

You could ask her? She was running for public office and trying to get elected. As a result, I am going to guess that she was saying things that she thought would get her votes and not saying things that she thought wouldn’t get votes. She’s a smart lady, so she stopped saying it.

If she stopped saying it, how could it be her signature issue? I ask again, don't candidates normally talk about their signature issue?

The fact is that it was not her signature issue. Her opponents lied about it. Now, four years later, they still haven't thought of a better lie and are simply using the same one. Even the Washington Post has joined in with an accusation that is rebutted by its own reporting. I wonder if anyone will have to repeat DFER's performance and issue a retraction this time.

I am not sure who you’re arguing with but it’s not me.

Strange that you joined the conversation in that case.

Sorry, I’m not your bogeyman. I personally think that anyone who chooses to affiliate with left wing extremist Democratic Socialists who have a history of antisemitism are unserious and have disqualified themselves from public service and the Washington Post was correct to not endorse her. She also admitted to shifting her position on defund the police to the Washington Post. Everything else after that, including the accusations and counter accusations about election law and DFER and everything else is between you and whoever else you’re arguing with.

She did not admit to "shifting her position on defund the police". She said that "It wasn’t the best verbiage used" which has basically always been her position. In 2020 she said, “I don’t think it’s an issue that we can put into one sentence, like defund the police".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/07/protests-defund-police/

As for your allegation that she associates with anti-Semites, that will probably surprise her Jewish supporters.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But are you seriously claiming that Democratic Socialists don’t have a history of troubling antisemitism?

First, I don't know if you are referring to democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders or members of the Democratic Socialists of America. Beyond that, I think that any reasonably large group will likely include a few anti-Semites, as well as a few racists. That's an unfortunate fact about America. But, I have seen no evidence that Janeese Lewis George has any close association with anti-Semites. I will remind you that a close associate of Mayor Muriel Bowser personally held a megaphone while a Nation of Islam representative called Elissa Silverman a "fake Jew".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/at-a-rally-to-end-divisive-politics-in-dc-a-speaker-called-a-lawmaker-a-fake-jew/2018/04/27/e3c0b182-4a34-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html

So if anti-Semitism is your issue, there are plenty of places to look beyond JLG.

[Anonymous]

How do we get rid of these moron career politicians who have no skills except running for office and making idiotic decisions?

[Anonymous]

There's a lady in Bethesda who does this, tries to stop every turf field MCPS is putting in yet her kid goes to Landon where they have installed turf fields yet she doesn't say anything to them.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:That tweet has an interesting history. Note the date, October, 21, 2019. The "Defund the Police" movement did not really get started until after the death of George Floyd in May 2020. To believe the DC Police Union, DFER — who used the tweet in multiple mailers for which it later apologized because they were deceptive — and Brandon Todd, JLG was six months ahead of the movement. What actually happened is that JLG launched her campaign based on issues such as affordable housing, affordable childcare, and access to healthcare. Among her concerns was the militarization of police who were increasingly receiving military weapons. If you look back at what she was saying at that time, it dealt with preventing this militarization which she wanted to stop and used the funds in more appropriate ways.

The fact that JLG opponents have nothing beyond a 2019 tweet to support their claims that "defund the police" was the "signature issue" of her campaign tells you everything you need to know. That tweet was actually the signature issue of JLG's opponents. As DFER later said with regard to mailers that printed the tweet, "These mailers oversimplified a more nuanced conversation about public safety... We made a mistake".

DFER, to its credit, says it learned from the mistake. The DC Police Union and the anonymous poster here, clearly has not.

Defund the Police began after the Ferguson Riots, which were in 2014.

I can't find any evidence that the slogan was at all popular before George Floyd's death. If you do any Internet searches, the oldest hits are in 2020.

JLG is so far left wing, she’s an unashamed Democratic Socialist after all, that she was promoting this radical policy of defunding the police before it got popular. She was the cutting edge, the vanguard of the defund movement.

Even if this is true, why did she never mention it again? After that, the only time "Defund the Police" came up, it was coming from her opponents. That is a really strange way to handle what some claim was the ""signature issue" of her campaign. Don't candidates normally talk about their "signature issue" quite a bit?

You could ask her? She was running for public office and trying to get elected. As a result, I am going to guess that she was saying things that she thought would get her votes and not saying things that she thought wouldn’t get votes. She’s a smart lady, so she stopped saying it.

If she stopped saying it, how could it be her signature issue? I ask again, don't candidates normally talk about their signature issue?

The fact is that it was not her signature issue. Her opponents lied about it. Now, four years later, they still haven't thought of a better lie and are simply using the same one. Even the Washington Post has joined in with an accusation that is rebutted by its own reporting. I wonder if anyone will have to repeat DFER's performance and issue a retraction this time.

I am not sure who you’re arguing with but it’s not me.

Strange that you joined the conversation in that case.

Sorry, I’m not your bogeyman. I personally think that anyone who chooses to affiliate with left wing extremist Democratic Socialists who have a history of antisemitism are unserious and have disqualified themselves from public service and the Washington Post was correct to not endorse her. She also admitted to shifting her position on defund the police to the Washington Post. Everything else after that, including the accusations and counter accusations about election law and DFER and everything else is between you and whoever else you’re arguing with.

She did not admit to "shifting her position on defund the police". She said that "It wasn’t the best verbiage used" which has basically always been her position. In 2020 she said, “I don’t think it’s an issue that we can put into one sentence, like defund the police".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/07/protests-defund-police/

As for your allegation that she associates with anti-Semites, that will probably surprise her Jewish supporters.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But are you seriously claiming that Democratic Socialists don’t have a history of troubling antisemitism?

First, I don't know if you are referring to democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders or members of the Democratic Socialists of America. Beyond that, I think that any reasonably large group will likely include a few anti-Semites, as well as a few racists. That's an unfortunate fact about America. But, I have seen no evidence that Janeese Lewis George has any close association with anti-Semites. I will remind you that a close associate of Mayor Muriel Bowser personally held a megaphone while a Nation of Islam representative called Elissa Silverman a "fake Jew".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/at-a-rally-to-end-divisive-politics-in-dc-a-speaker-called-a-lawmaker-a-fake-jew/2018/04/27/e3c0b182-4a34-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html

So if anti-Semitism is your issue, there are plenty of places to look beyond JLG.

You mistake me as someone who situationally defends antisemitism. And it’s a nice touch of whataboutism to bring up the mayor’s affiliations with antisemitism. She also also deserve scorn.

As for Janeese, she has made no secret of her close relationship with the Democratic Socialists of America. She calls herself a Democratic Socialist. She has actively sought the endorsement of the DC chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America twice and the DSA has been a huge source of volunteers for both of her campaigns.

The DSA also has close affiliations with antisemitism that has erupted since October 7. So much so that even Ocasio-Cortez has had enough. I could understand if these were just fringe supporters in her campaign, but they have been her core volunteers. I personally would not want to be actively associated with folks who dabble in antisemitism. But to each their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:That tweet has an interesting history. Note the date, October, 21, 2019. The "Defund the Police" movement did not really get started until after the death of George Floyd in May 2020. To believe the DC Police Union, DFER — who used the tweet in multiple mailers for which it later apologized because they were deceptive — and Brandon Todd, JLG was six months ahead of the movement. What actually happened is that JLG launched her campaign based on issues such as affordable housing, affordable childcare, and access to healthcare. Among her concerns was the militarization of police who were increasingly receiving military weapons. If you look back at what she was saying at that time, it dealt with preventing this militarization which she wanted to stop and used the funds in more appropriate ways.

The fact that JLG opponents have nothing beyond a 2019 tweet to support their claims that "defund the police" was the "signature issue" of her campaign tells you everything you need to know. That tweet was actually the signature issue of JLG's opponents. As DFER later said with regard to mailers that printed the tweet, "These mailers oversimplified a more nuanced conversation about public safety... We made a mistake".

DFER, to its credit, says it learned from the mistake. The DC Police Union and the anonymous poster here, clearly has not.

Defund the Police began after the Ferguson Riots, which were in 2014.

I can't find any evidence that the slogan was at all popular before George Floyd's death. If you do any Internet searches, the oldest hits are in 2020.

JLG is so far left wing, she’s an unashamed Democratic Socialist after all, that she was promoting this radical policy of defunding the police before it got popular. She was the cutting edge, the vanguard of the defund movement.

Even if this is true, why did she never mention it again? After that, the only time "Defund the Police" came up, it was coming from her opponents. That is a really strange way to handle what some claim was the ""signature issue" of her campaign. Don't candidates normally talk about their "signature issue" quite a bit?

You could ask her? She was running for public office and trying to get elected. As a result, I am going to guess that she was saying things that she thought would get her votes and not saying things that she thought wouldn’t get votes. She’s a smart lady, so she stopped saying it.

If she stopped saying it, how could it be her signature issue? I ask again, don't candidates normally talk about their signature issue?

The fact is that it was not her signature issue. Her opponents lied about it. Now, four years later, they still haven't thought of a better lie and are simply using the same one. Even the Washington Post has joined in with an accusation that is rebutted by its own reporting. I wonder if anyone will have to repeat DFER's performance and issue a retraction this time.

I am not sure who you’re arguing with but it’s not me.

Strange that you joined the conversation in that case.

Sorry, I’m not your bogeyman. I personally think that anyone who chooses to affiliate with left wing extremist Democratic Socialists who have a history of antisemitism are unserious and have disqualified themselves from public service and the Washington Post was correct to not endorse her. She also admitted to shifting her position on defund the police to the Washington Post. Everything else after that, including the accusations and counter accusations about election law and DFER and everything else is between you and whoever else you’re arguing with.

She did not admit to "shifting her position on defund the police". She said that "It wasn’t the best verbiage used" which has basically always been her position. In 2020 she said, “I don’t think it’s an issue that we can put into one sentence, like defund the police".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/07/protests-defund-police/

As for your allegation that she associates with anti-Semites, that will probably surprise her Jewish supporters.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But are you seriously claiming that Democratic Socialists don’t have a history of troubling antisemitism?

First, I don't know if you are referring to democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders or members of the Democratic Socialists of America. Beyond that, I think that any reasonably large group will likely include a few anti-Semites, as well as a few racists. That's an unfortunate fact about America. But, I have seen no evidence that Janeese Lewis George has any close association with anti-Semites. I will remind you that a close associate of Mayor Muriel Bowser personally held a megaphone while a Nation of Islam representative called Elissa Silverman a "fake Jew".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/at-a-rally-to-end-divisive-politics-in-dc-a-speaker-called-a-lawmaker-a-fake-jew/2018/04/27/e3c0b182-4a34-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html

So if anti-Semitism is your issue, there are plenty of places to look beyond JLG.

You mistake me as someone who situationally defends antisemitism. And it’s a nice touch of whataboutism to bring up the mayor’s affiliations with antisemitism. She also also deserve scorn.

As for Janeese, she has made no secret of her close relationship with the Democratic Socialists of America. She calls herself a Democratic Socialist. She has actively sought the endorsement of the DC chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America twice and the DSA has been a huge source of volunteers for both of her campaigns.

The DSA also has close affiliations with antisemitism that has erupted since October 7. So much so that even Ocasio-Cortez has had enough. I could understand if these were just fringe supporters in her campaign, but they have been her core volunteers. I personally would not want to be actively associated with folks who dabble in antisemitism. But to each their own.

So anyone who affiliates with democratic socialists or their progressive values is an anti-semite? Yeah, nice try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully we are in the final days of JLG’s nutty term in office. Go Lisa!

Honestly I think JLG is a shoo in. Her constituent services team is top notch and she seems quite popular in the lower part of the ward where I live.

Janeese’s constituent services team is a flop. But I think you are right that she will win. Too many want to signal their virtue by supporting the wokest candidate.

Regardless, I will not be voting for her.

She has NEVER been to my part of Ward 4. I read her website and laughed. What a joke. All of my neighbors hate her. As a matter of fact, I don't personally know anyone who likes her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:That tweet has an interesting history. Note the date, October, 21, 2019. The "Defund the Police" movement did not really get started until after the death of George Floyd in May 2020. To believe the DC Police Union, DFER — who used the tweet in multiple mailers for which it later apologized because they were deceptive — and Brandon Todd, JLG was six months ahead of the movement. What actually happened is that JLG launched her campaign based on issues such as affordable housing, affordable childcare, and access to healthcare. Among her concerns was the militarization of police who were increasingly receiving military weapons. If you look back at what she was saying at that time, it dealt with preventing this militarization which she wanted to stop and used the funds in more appropriate ways.

The fact that JLG opponents have nothing beyond a 2019 tweet to support their claims that "defund the police" was the "signature issue" of her campaign tells you everything you need to know. That tweet was actually the signature issue of JLG's opponents. As DFER later said with regard to mailers that printed the tweet, "These mailers oversimplified a more nuanced conversation about public safety... We made a mistake".

DFER, to its credit, says it learned from the mistake. The DC Police Union and the anonymous poster here, clearly has not.

Defund the Police began after the Ferguson Riots, which were in 2014.

I can't find any evidence that the slogan was at all popular before George Floyd's death. If you do any Internet searches, the oldest hits are in 2020.

JLG is so far left wing, she’s an unashamed Democratic Socialist after all, that she was promoting this radical policy of defunding the police before it got popular. She was the cutting edge, the vanguard of the defund movement.

Even if this is true, why did she never mention it again? After that, the only time "Defund the Police" came up, it was coming from her opponents. That is a really strange way to handle what some claim was the ""signature issue" of her campaign. Don't candidates normally talk about their "signature issue" quite a bit?

You could ask her? She was running for public office and trying to get elected. As a result, I am going to guess that she was saying things that she thought would get her votes and not saying things that she thought wouldn’t get votes. She’s a smart lady, so she stopped saying it.

If she stopped saying it, how could it be her signature issue? I ask again, don't candidates normally talk about their signature issue?

The fact is that it was not her signature issue. Her opponents lied about it. Now, four years later, they still haven't thought of a better lie and are simply using the same one. Even the Washington Post has joined in with an accusation that is rebutted by its own reporting. I wonder if anyone will have to repeat DFER's performance and issue a retraction this time.

I am not sure who you’re arguing with but it’s not me.

Strange that you joined the conversation in that case.

Sorry, I’m not your bogeyman. I personally think that anyone who chooses to affiliate with left wing extremist Democratic Socialists who have a history of antisemitism are unserious and have disqualified themselves from public service and the Washington Post was correct to not endorse her. She also admitted to shifting her position on defund the police to the Washington Post. Everything else after that, including the accusations and counter accusations about election law and DFER and everything else is between you and whoever else you’re arguing with.

She did not admit to "shifting her position on defund the police". She said that "It wasn’t the best verbiage used" which has basically always been her position. In 2020 she said, “I don’t think it’s an issue that we can put into one sentence, like defund the police".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/07/protests-defund-police/

As for your allegation that she associates with anti-Semites, that will probably surprise her Jewish supporters.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But are you seriously claiming that Democratic Socialists don’t have a history of troubling antisemitism?

First, I don't know if you are referring to democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders or members of the Democratic Socialists of America. Beyond that, I think that any reasonably large group will likely include a few anti-Semites, as well as a few racists. That's an unfortunate fact about America. But, I have seen no evidence that Janeese Lewis George has any close association with anti-Semites. I will remind you that a close associate of Mayor Muriel Bowser personally held a megaphone while a Nation of Islam representative called Elissa Silverman a "fake Jew".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/at-a-rally-to-end-divisive-politics-in-dc-a-speaker-called-a-lawmaker-a-fake-jew/2018/04/27/e3c0b182-4a34-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html

So if anti-Semitism is your issue, there are plenty of places to look beyond JLG.

You mistake me as someone who situationally defends antisemitism. And it’s a nice touch of whataboutism to bring up the mayor’s affiliations with antisemitism. She also also deserve scorn.

As for Janeese, she has made no secret of her close relationship with the Democratic Socialists of America. She calls herself a Democratic Socialist. She has actively sought the endorsement of the DC chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America twice and the DSA has been a huge source of volunteers for both of her campaigns.

The DSA also has close affiliations with antisemitism that has erupted since October 7. So much so that even Ocasio-Cortez has had enough. I could understand if these were just fringe supporters in her campaign, but they have been her core volunteers. I personally would not want to be actively associated with folks who dabble in antisemitism. But to each their own.

Stop. Voting. For. Crazy. People.

[Anonymous]

The only reason people like Janeese Lewis George get elected is because hardly anyone votes in primaries. It is ridiculous how few people bother to vote in primaries. Please vote. Your vote really can make a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Washington Post endorses Lisa Gore for Ward 4:


“In Ward 4, incumbent Janeese Lewis George (D) ran, and won, on defunding the police in 2020 — and now is running away from that position. “It wasn’t the best verbiage used,” she said this past week. Shifting along with public sentiment, she voted in March for the Secure D.C. law but led efforts on the council to water down key provisions. Last summer, she was the only member to vote “no” on emergency legislation to address the crime wave and fought efforts to expand pretrial detention for adults accused of violent crimes…”

Really glad to see the Washington Post bringing facts. There’s been a lot of obfuscation from her and her supporters about her record. While she may not be saying the radical slogans she has not changed one bit on the substance of her policies.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully we are in the final days of JLG’s nutty term in office. Go Lisa!

Honestly I think JLG is a shoo in. Her constituent services team is top notch and she seems quite popular in the lower part of the ward where I live.

Janeese’s constituent services team is a flop. But I think you are right that she will win. Too many want to signal their virtue by supporting the wokest candidate.

Regardless, I will not be voting for her.

She has NEVER been to my part of Ward 4. I read her website and laughed. What a joke. All of my neighbors hate her. As a matter of fact, I don't personally know anyone who likes her.

And that's why this thread is so stupid and Gore messed up by not vocally supporting it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only reason people like Janeese Lewis George get elected is because hardly anyone votes in primaries. It is ridiculous how few people bother to vote in primaries. Please vote. Your vote really can make a difference.

JLG won in 2020 with a little more than 10,000 votes. There's 90,000 people in Ward 4. Turnout in primaries is extremely low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason people like Janeese Lewis George get elected is because hardly anyone votes in primaries. It is ridiculous how few people bother to vote in primaries. Please vote. Your vote really can make a difference.

JLG won in 2020 with a little more than 10,000 votes. There's 90,000 people in Ward 4. Turnout in primaries is extremely low.

Democratic primaries in DC are a whole lot like Republican primaries in the House of Representatives.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/09/29/house-shutdown-primaries-voters/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason people like Janeese Lewis George get elected is because hardly anyone votes in primaries. It is ridiculous how few people bother to vote in primaries. Please vote. Your vote really can make a difference.

JLG won in 2020 with a little more than 10,000 votes. There's 90,000 people in Ward 4. Turnout in primaries is extremely low.

Latest estimates are that Ward 4 population is 86,000, of which approx 25% are under 18. So 10k votes is actually not that bad for a primary. It probably helped that it was a Democratic presidential primary contest on the ballot. Turnout should be expected to be significantly lower this year.

[Anonymous]

I am a long time southern Ward 4 resident and voter and I'll be voting for Janeese. I like Janeese and feel she has the best interests of Ward 4 residents in mind. She supports improved transportation options aside from personal car ownership. She has personally responded to my emails and her staff have helped me with issues. Looks like she has done a lot to help improvements to DCPS schools in the ward.

I met Lisa and I personally like her. I was surprised to see her rate very highly by GGW for supporting progressive transportation. I respect her federal service. I simply think Janeese is better for Ward 4 and I'll be voting for her again.