Elrich Wins

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you Elrich voters, make sure to call Elrich and not the police if your home gets broken into, or your child is getting the sh1t beat out of them. Elrich knows better than cops how to stop these criminals.

Interesting that you should choose to bring up a “child … getting the sh1t beat out of them” as a reason to support cops.


https://www.npr.org/local/305/2021/03/29/982278876/footage-shows-montgomery-county-police-officers-threatening-a-5-year-old-black-boy

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/maryland/montgomery-co-council-president-introduces-police-accountability-bill/65-4a9437d4-3352-4c95-8691-b44405467a34


As to your first point, I’ll assume that you’re familiar with Breonna Taylor — and how incidents like this impact how many of us view mindsets that are completely without nuance in their support of policing.

There are many points to be made for increased policing. Most of them can’t effectively be made, let alone implemented, without addressing some deep-seated systemic issues that become even more important when the armed police officers charged to serve and protect do exactly the opposite.

Yea, there are bad cops. But are you telling me that you won't be calling the cops if your child is getting the sh1t beat out of them? Who are you going to call? Elrich?

In reality, I’d probably call the cops, and I’d be desperately hoping that I got one of the “good” ones. And I say this as someone who has had multiple, direct experiences with both — or, more accurately: multiple— types of cops.

I will also continue to work for training and recruiting cops who truly want to protect and serve ALL members of their communities.

pp here.. 100% agree with you

But, demonizing the entire MCPD is not the way to move forward, just like demonizing an entire racial group for the bad actions of a few across the country is not right, either.

I question Elrich's competency in this regard given his choice of the Civilian Police Chief overseeing this. I mean, was this person the best Elrich could do if he was serious about making sure MCPD disciplined bad cops?

https://wjla.com/news/local/carmen-facciolo-montgomery-county-civilian-assistant-police-chief-fired-let-go-removed-multiple-alleged-violations-abuse-of-power-executive-marc-elrich-mcpd-law-enforcement-violating-department-policy-maryland

Thanks for the link. I quite agree with you. As for Elrich’s competency, well, he could definitely do better. Much better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, it's clear MoCo residents give zero craps about their economy. The county continues to circle the drain like a turd.

Well, it’s clear that MoCo residents care only about the financial success of the “haves” and developers, and not about the quality of life and well-being for the rest of us. /s

See how that goes? Perhaps instead of pretending that the political divides focus only on one issue — “zero craps” Really? — voters can focus on multiple issues impacting multiple constituents in complex ways.

tldr: As a colleague used to say: Clear as mud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Riemer voters: Don’t blame us. This wouldn’t have happened if we had Ranked Choice Voting.

Also Riemer Voters: Don’t blame us, we would have voted for Elrich anyway.

Can someone help to explain to me how RCV would have led to a different outcome?

Ranked choice voting would take the last place candidate and distribute their votes to the candidates ranked second on those ballots. So if you think a majority of Riemer voters would have Blair as their second choice he would have won once Riemer was eliminated.

It’s common for Blair supporters to argue Riemer voters are also anti-Elrich voters but there is no way to know— they could also be anti-rich businessman

I was tracking each daily mail in ballot count and while Elrich's percentage stayed relatively stable, Blair's decreased as Riemer's went up. It's not proof, of course. I think Riemer and Blair votes are much more about being anti-Elrich than truly being passionate about either candidate.

The idea that someone is motivated to vote for Riemer over Elrich because they are anti-rich is an odd stance. Sure voters are irrational. However that’s pretty up there.

I think the point was that there might be some people who would rank the candidates Riemer then Elrich then Blair (possibly because they don't like a businessman with little to no government experience trying to buy the election), but it's hard to know how many of those people there would be.

The problem with this is that there is an incumbent running. So there is a first binary choice: pro-incumbent and anti-incumbent. And Riemer understood this which is why his campaign messaging was:

- Elrich cannot win
- only Riemer and Blair are viable (the anti-Elrich’s)
- don’t let the ex-Republican Blair buy the election (disregard my own billionaire funded super-PAC)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Riemer voters: Don’t blame us. This wouldn’t have happened if we had Ranked Choice Voting.

Also Riemer Voters: Don’t blame us, we would have voted for Elrich anyway.

Can someone help to explain to me how RCV would have led to a different outcome?

Ranked choice voting would take the last place candidate and distribute their votes to the candidates ranked second on those ballots. So if you think a majority of Riemer voters would have Blair as their second choice he would have won once Riemer was eliminated.

It’s common for Blair supporters to argue Riemer voters are also anti-Elrich voters but there is no way to know— they could also be anti-rich businessman

I was tracking each daily mail in ballot count and while Elrich's percentage stayed relatively stable, Blair's decreased as Riemer's went up. It's not proof, of course. I think Riemer and Blair votes are much more about being anti-Elrich than truly being passionate about either candidate.

The idea that someone is motivated to vote for Riemer over Elrich because they are anti-rich is an odd stance. Sure voters are irrational. However that’s pretty up there.

I think the point was that there might be some people who would rank the candidates Riemer then Elrich then Blair (possibly because they don't like a businessman with little to no government experience trying to buy the election), but it's hard to know how many of those people there would be.

The problem with this is that there is an incumbent running. So there is a first binary choice: pro-incumbent and anti-incumbent. And Riemer understood this which is why his campaign messaging was:

- Elrich cannot win
- only Riemer and Blair are viable (the anti-Elrich’s)
- don’t let the ex-Republican Blair buy the election (disregard my own billionaire funded super-PAC)

You mean “my own billionaire-funded Super-PAC that just coincidentally was run by my friend with the neat bee costume.”

[Anonymous]

covfefe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:covfefe

Was he drunk, or high?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, it's clear MoCo residents give zero craps about their economy. The county continues to circle the drain like a turd.

No..actually almost half of them do according to those who voted in the primaries. If some people had switched their party to Democrat, Blair would have won

If democrats were not so dumb, Blair would have won.

So true. Independent here who switched to Dem just to vote off Elrich. Now I' have to vote for Sully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:covfefe

Then why is the county wasting money on a recount?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:covfefe

Was he drunk, or high?

High.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Riemer voters: Don’t blame us. This wouldn’t have happened if we had Ranked Choice Voting.

Also Riemer Voters: Don’t blame us, we would have voted for Elrich anyway.

Can someone help to explain to me how RCV would have led to a different outcome?

Ranked choice voting would take the last place candidate and distribute their votes to the candidates ranked second on those ballots. So if you think a majority of Riemer voters would have Blair as their second choice he would have won once Riemer was eliminated.

It’s common for Blair supporters to argue Riemer voters are also anti-Elrich voters but there is no way to know— they could also be anti-rich businessman

I was tracking each daily mail in ballot count and while Elrich's percentage stayed relatively stable, Blair's decreased as Riemer's went up. It's not proof, of course. I think Riemer and Blair votes are much more about being anti-Elrich than truly being passionate about either candidate.

The idea that someone is motivated to vote for Riemer over Elrich because they are anti-rich is an odd stance. Sure voters are irrational. However that’s pretty up there.

I think the point was that there might be some people who would rank the candidates Riemer then Elrich then Blair (possibly because they don't like a businessman with little to no government experience trying to buy the election), but it's hard to know how many of those people there would be.

The problem with this is that there is an incumbent running. So there is a first binary choice: pro-incumbent and anti-incumbent. And Riemer understood this which is why his campaign messaging was:

- Elrich cannot win
- only Riemer and Blair are viable (the anti-Elrich’s)
- don’t let the ex-Republican Blair buy the election (disregard my own billionaire funded super-PAC)

You mean “my own billionaire-funded Super-PAC that just coincidentally was run by my friend with the neat bee costume.”

Yup. That very one that helped to reflect Marc Elrich. I hope Marc sends a thank you card to Riemer’s Takoma Park buddies.

There is some fascinating psychology around Riemer. So much arrogance from him and his supporters and so little competence to justify it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:covfefe

Was he drunk, or high?

High.

Drunk and having a good time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:covfefe

Then why is the county wasting money on a recount?

Legally mandated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:covfefe

Was he drunk, or high?

High.

Drunk and having a good time.

I love him so much.