Kenyan or Janeese?

[Anonymous]

For all the talent in this city, why can’t we field a strong mayoral candidate? I hate them both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lewis George said using curfews as a tool with young people is “dangerous,” pointing to the presence of federal troops and immigration agents in the city who she said are “not individuals who are trained in de-escalation,” and “are not accountable to to D.C. residents.”

Democrats going to Democrat. It's now "dangerous" to discipline the budding criminal.


https://wtop.com/dc/2026/05/dc-mayoral-candidates-offer-competing-visions-on-teen-curfews-housing-economy/

I was open to Janeese, have many friends who are publicly backing her, but everything she has said and done this week has made me really, really nervous.

She always sees crime from the point of view of the criminals, and never from the perspective of the victims of violent crime, and of law abiding people who want to feel safe. Maybe this is because of her experience as a prosecutor? But it's no good. Pouring money into rec centers and giving criminals jobs is fine. But a mayor needs to be very, very clear that people who commit violent crimes will be punished. I've never heard her talk about punishment.

Yep. Unless she has a very clear, very rapid, fully funded, strong out-of-the-gates program to fix the root of the problem, just being anti-curfew is going to destroy a lot of lives. Mainly of DC youth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lewis George said using curfews as a tool with young people is “dangerous,” pointing to the presence of federal troops and immigration agents in the city who she said are “not individuals who are trained in de-escalation,” and “are not accountable to to D.C. residents.”

Democrats going to Democrat. It's now "dangerous" to discipline the budding criminal.


https://wtop.com/dc/2026/05/dc-mayoral-candidates-offer-competing-visions-on-teen-curfews-housing-economy/

I was open to Janeese, have many friends who are publicly backing her, but everything she has said and done this week has made me really, really nervous.

She always sees crime from the point of view of the criminals, and never from the perspective of the victims of violent crime, and of law abiding people who want to feel safe. Maybe this is because of her experience as a prosecutor? But it's no good. Pouring money into rec centers and giving criminals jobs is fine. But a mayor needs to be very, very clear that people who commit violent crimes will be punished. I've never heard her talk about punishment.

This is exactly how I feel. Empathy is good. But empathy without accountability is just cheering for crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


I was open to Janeese, have many friends who are publicly backing her, but everything she has said and done this week has made me really, really nervous.

She always sees crime from the point of view of the criminals, and never from the perspective of the victims of violent crime, and of law abiding people who want to feel safe. Maybe this is because of her experience as a prosecutor? But it's no good. Pouring money into rec centers and giving criminals jobs is fine. But a mayor needs to be very, very clear that people who commit violent crimes will be punished. I've never heard her talk about punishment.



This is exactly how I feel. Empathy is good. But empathy without accountability is just cheering for crime.

Yep. And all the midnight basketball/rec center spending is not going to move the needle for the kids already out there committing violent crime. Those kids aren't coming to those programs. Those kids need accountability and real rehabilitative-oriented juvenile DETENTION programs that get them out of the communities they are terrorizing so that the kids/families who aren't committing crimes can go to the rec center without fearing being shot for their sneakers on the way there.

[Anonymous]

I watched last night’s debate and I think Lewis George came across as the most impressive. I thought the question about how they would deal with the possibility of losing federal dollars for standing up to the federal government was tough and the moderators pushed them to give real answers. McDuffie and Goodweather both struggled repeatedly to answer it, but I thought Lewis George’s answer about using litigation and working with Congress was the most realistic and most thoughtful. Same with her identifying chronic absenteeism and middle schools as two of the biggest problems in education.

It seemed like McDuffie came with a list of jabs for Lewis George and it got tiresome about ten minutes in. I also think it’s true that he has done a 180 pivot on public safety…he authored and championed the NEAR Act which created the office that runs the violence interrupters program. You would think the police union would hate him for that, but most of their fury seems to directed at Lewis George. It’s the same for many posters on this thread; people seem to think he is much more law and order but nothing about his record supports that. Based on what he said and did on the Council versus what he’s been saying on the campaign trail, it’s hard to know what McDuffie actually believes on public safety or what his approach would be as mayor. I’m also the previous poster who finds his stance on reckless driving so bad I won’t rank him. Obviously I wasn’t swayed by the debate.

Goodweather was fine but he doesn’t have a shot. I was hoping they would have let Rini in the debate.

[Anonymous]

I just watched the most recent debate. Mcduffie seemed pretty clueless and didn't have a plan for anything besides safety. And even then, it was just more cops and more consequences. It didn't really give me confidence in his ability as an administrator.

I don't agree with a number of JLG positions (I don't disagree either). But at least it seems like she's given thought to everything. I live in a safe, upper middle class part of the city, so I doubt any of these candidates will meaningfully affect me as mayor, just to be frank. I'll be voting JLG but not with enthusiasm.

FWIW, I think we should come down hard on the parents of these teens, not the teens themselves. This stuff starts at home. But I recognize DC can't do that bc it doesn't have jurisdiction over adult crimes. That's why I was disappointed no candidate would help Pirro prosecute the parents.

I'm a Democrat by the way. Looking forward to being flamed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I watched last night’s debate and I think Lewis George came across as the most impressive. I thought the question about how they would deal with the possibility of losing federal dollars for standing up to the federal government was tough and the moderators pushed them to give real answers. McDuffie and Goodweather both struggled repeatedly to answer it, but I thought Lewis George’s answer about using litigation and working with Congress was the most realistic and most thoughtful. Same with her identifying chronic absenteeism and middle schools as two of the biggest problems in education.

It seemed like McDuffie came with a list of jabs for Lewis George and it got tiresome about ten minutes in. I also think it’s true that he has done a 180 pivot on public safety…he authored and championed the NEAR Act which created the office that runs the violence interrupters program. You would think the police union would hate him for that, but most of their fury seems to directed at Lewis George. It’s the same for many posters on this thread; people seem to think he is much more law and order but nothing about his record supports that. Based on what he said and did on the Council versus what he’s been saying on the campaign trail, it’s hard to know what McDuffie actually believes on public safety or what his approach would be as mayor. I’m also the previous poster who finds his stance on reckless driving so bad I won’t rank him. Obviously I wasn’t swayed by the debate.

Goodweather was fine but he doesn’t have a shot. I was hoping they would have let Rini in the debate.

I'm the PP that also watched the debate. I agree with you (obviously) except I could not take Goodweather seriously at all.

[Anonymous]

I think that JLG just says stuff (albeit more persuasively than McDuffie) but there's no substance behind it. She seriously thinks that she is going to say FU to Trump and then, when DC gets whacked for it-- somehow the courts or a Republican-controlled Congress are going to save her? How incredibly shortsighted. Even DSA Mamdani figured out pretty quickly that flattering and placating the Narcissist-in-Chief was the way to keep him from interfering in NYC. Same with the "I will use the DC pension fund" to invest in housing. What does that even mean? If private equity (including many pension funds) is refusing to invest in DC because equity believes that the absurdly one-sided pro-tenant laws and new rent control initiatives will not provide sufficient investment returns, then is she prepared to blow the DC government employees' pensions on substandard investments. And if she does and the fund suffers losses, will she then be crying to the DC taxpayer to bail her out of a mess she shouldn't have gotten the pension fund into? I'm not wild about McDuffie, but I do at least feel like he might have some interest in rational economic policy.

[Anonymous]

HI, Ward 4 resident here. I will not be voting for Janesee Lewis George. She has been a poor job of representing residents. She's great when things are good. She shows up for the fun events. But when something serious happens? Good luck. This week there have been multiple shooting in the neighborhood,including at an elementary school.

We have heard nothing from JLG. Finally, after being sent emails by our ANC rep and neighborhood association leaders, we got a response. But not from JLG herself. Nope. She had her communication director send a nothing email. No action. Didn't even care enough to send out an email with her name on it.


Maybe Kenyan is just as bad. Please share your thoughts. But I know that JLG doesn't really have ideas about how to fix crime in our neighborhood and, worse, doesn't seem to care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lewis George said using curfews as a tool with young people is “dangerous,” pointing to the presence of federal troops and immigration agents in the city who she said are “not individuals who are trained in de-escalation,” and “are not accountable to to D.C. residents.”

Democrats going to Democrat. It's now "dangerous" to discipline the budding criminal.


https://wtop.com/dc/2026/05/dc-mayoral-candidates-offer-competing-visions-on-teen-curfews-housing-economy/

I was open to Janeese, have many friends who are publicly backing her, but everything she has said and done this week has made me really, really nervous.

She always sees crime from the point of view of the criminals, and never from the perspective of the victims of violent crime, and of law abiding people who want to feel safe. Maybe this is because of her experience as a prosecutor? But it's no good. Pouring money into rec centers and giving criminals jobs is fine. But a mayor needs to be very, very clear that people who commit violent crimes will be punished. I've never heard her talk about punishment.

+1 I don’t see why it has to be either or. Do the crime prevention programs but also punish crimes when they happen.

Wild, that's exactly what Janeese has said and done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lewis George said using curfews as a tool with young people is “dangerous,” pointing to the presence of federal troops and immigration agents in the city who she said are “not individuals who are trained in de-escalation,” and “are not accountable to to D.C. residents.”

Democrats going to Democrat. It's now "dangerous" to discipline the budding criminal.


https://wtop.com/dc/2026/05/dc-mayoral-candidates-offer-competing-visions-on-teen-curfews-housing-economy/

I was open to Janeese, have many friends who are publicly backing her, but everything she has said and done this week has made me really, really nervous.

She always sees crime from the point of view of the criminals, and never from the perspective of the victims of violent crime, and of law abiding people who want to feel safe. Maybe this is because of her experience as a prosecutor? But it's no good. Pouring money into rec centers and giving criminals jobs is fine. But a mayor needs to be very, very clear that people who commit violent crimes will be punished. I've never heard her talk about punishment.

+1 I don’t see why it has to be either or. Do the crime prevention programs but also punish crimes when they happen.

Wild, that's exactly what Janeese has said and done.

Wrong. She's voted against making strangulation a felony, she's voted against allowing landlords to evict adjudicated violent criminals, and her highest-paid campaign staffer is the co-chair of the Defund MPD Coalition and a police abolitionist.

Everything that she has done indicates that she will continue to coddle criminals, not punish them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lewis George said using curfews as a tool with young people is “dangerous,” pointing to the presence of federal troops and immigration agents in the city who she said are “not individuals who are trained in de-escalation,” and “are not accountable to to D.C. residents.”

Democrats going to Democrat. It's now "dangerous" to discipline the budding criminal.


https://wtop.com/dc/2026/05/dc-mayoral-candidates-offer-competing-visions-on-teen-curfews-housing-economy/

I was open to Janeese, have many friends who are publicly backing her, but everything she has said and done this week has made me really, really nervous.

She always sees crime from the point of view of the criminals, and never from the perspective of the victims of violent crime, and of law abiding people who want to feel safe. Maybe this is because of her experience as a prosecutor? But it's no good. Pouring money into rec centers and giving criminals jobs is fine. But a mayor needs to be very, very clear that people who commit violent crimes will be punished. I've never heard her talk about punishment.

+1 I don’t see why it has to be either or. Do the crime prevention programs but also punish crimes when they happen.

Wild, that's exactly what Janeese has said and done.

Wrong. She's voted against making strangulation a felony, she's voted against allowing landlords to evict adjudicated violent criminals, and her highest-paid campaign staffer is the co-chair of the Defund MPD Coalition and a police abolitionist.

Everything that she has done indicates that she will continue to coddle criminals, not punish them.

There you go cherry picking things out of context. You think we're too dumb to see political cheap shots? I stop caring about the rest of what you write. It reflects really poorly on McDuffie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lewis George said using curfews as a tool with young people is “dangerous,” pointing to the presence of federal troops and immigration agents in the city who she said are “not individuals who are trained in de-escalation,” and “are not accountable to to D.C. residents.”

Democrats going to Democrat. It's now "dangerous" to discipline the budding criminal.


https://wtop.com/dc/2026/05/dc-mayoral-candidates-offer-competing-visions-on-teen-curfews-housing-economy/

I was open to Janeese, have many friends who are publicly backing her, but everything she has said and done this week has made me really, really nervous.

She always sees crime from the point of view of the criminals, and never from the perspective of the victims of violent crime, and of law abiding people who want to feel safe. Maybe this is because of her experience as a prosecutor? But it's no good. Pouring money into rec centers and giving criminals jobs is fine. But a mayor needs to be very, very clear that people who commit violent crimes will be punished. I've never heard her talk about punishment.

+1 I don’t see why it has to be either or. Do the crime prevention programs but also punish crimes when they happen.

Wild, that's exactly what Janeese has said and done.

Wrong. She's voted against making strangulation a felony, she's voted against allowing landlords to evict adjudicated violent criminals, and her highest-paid campaign staffer is the co-chair of the Defund MPD Coalition and a police abolitionist.

Everything that she has done indicates that she will continue to coddle criminals, not punish them.

There you go cherry picking things out of context. You think we're too dumb to see political cheap shots? I stop caring about the rest of what you write. It reflects really poorly on McDuffie.

What is the proper context of campaigning with and praising an avowed antisemite who accepted bribes? What is the proper context of hiring a police abolitionist to be your highest-paid staffer? What is the proper context of voting against making strangulation a felony?

These are not political cheap shots. They are facts and they reveal a pattern of consistently poor judgement. And these facts portray someone who will coddle criminals, not make our city safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McDuffie seems like the more sensible choice.

I disagree. He is insipid and lackluster. What platform is he even running on? Anti-Janeese platform? He seems to be all about pick me, I’m Bowser 2.0.
Janeese at least has some personality. I’m hopeful that if she wins, Mamdani, Bernie and AOC will help guide her until she finds her footing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McDuffie seems like the more sensible choice.

I disagree. He is insipid and lackluster. What platform is he even running on? Anti-Janeese platform? He seems to be all about pick me, I’m Bowser 2.0.
Janeese at least has some personality. I’m hopeful that if she wins, Mamdani, Bernie and AOC will help guide her until she finds her footing.

I dunno man, this is exactly the lazy thinking that independents had about Clinton being an uninspired continuation of the Obama administration and hey, at least Trump had some personality, what's the worst that could happen?

As it turns out, electing people with dumb ideas and no desire for good governance is bad!