Sullivan — deliberately misleading

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you still think Sullivan wasn't embellishing what he heard from residents when he LITERALLY SAID they are afraid to leave their homes, take a look at the Montgomery County Crime Map and look up how much violent crime there is in the Asbury community. Spoiler alert, there hasn't been much if any.

You people are thick. The point is even though there is no crime at Asbury, people are afraid to leave to go to the movies. That is a better example of what he was referring to! OK? Lakeforest Mall was taken over by MS-13, Wheaton Mall can be dicey
, and of late crime has moved into Montgomery Mall too.

They're afraid to go to Rio or Kentlands?

I don’t think Sully is totally up to speed on crime. But there very well may be people who are afraid to go to the Rio.


A quick look at dispatched calls to the Rio at Washingtonian:
Firearms violation today at noon
Domestic violence on 10/24 at 5pm
Assault on 10/23 at 4pm
Assault on 10/11 at 10pm
Suspicious person on 10/08 at 1am
Bomb device found on 10/7 at 5pm
Overdose on 10/7 at 10am

And a bunch of traffic calls. So it’s definitely not Veterans Plaza but it could be outside an older person’s comfort level.

Are you really suggesting Sullivan's comments were about Asbury residents being afraid to go to the Rio? What you are describing is essentially a couple of fights. Very typical for the Rio and other commercial areas even pre-pandemic. And the dispatch data is based on what people reported to police, not what they actually found. They did not find a bomb device lol.

[Anonymous]

Who cares? He doesn't have a chance of winning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? He doesn't have a chance of winning

This is true.

But what is threshold for people to pause and ask if maybe the Elrich message/campaign is not resonating?

Ficker got 16% of the vote

What if Sully gets 25%, or 32% (double Ficker)

That's probably the more realistic possibility vs him winning.

Truthfully, the most likely outcome is that Sullivan sees a slight uptick. Ficker got 65k votes; I could see Sullivan getting 70-75k. But that's probably not enough to start a conversation on county frustration with Democratic leadership

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? He doesn't have a chance of winning

This is true.

But what is threshold for people to pause and ask if maybe the Elrich message/campaign is not resonating?

Ficker got 16% of the vote

What if Sully gets 25%, or 32% (double Ficker)

That's probably the more realistic possibility vs him winning.

Truthfully, the most likely outcome is that Sullivan sees a slight uptick. Ficker got 65k votes; I could see Sullivan getting 70-75k. But that's probably not enough to start a conversation on county frustration with Democratic leadership

Even if Sully gets 30% no reasonable person would think that means Elrich does not have a mandate. GTFOOH. The reality is that Elrich is pretty ideologically aligned with voters in this county. Those negatively affected by his policies and/or mismanagement voted for Blair in the primary, but these types of issues related to actual leadership skills carry little weight. We'll have to see what happens when the recession hits and the CE and Council have to make actual difficult decisions, made more difficult because they have already locked in higher costs with the raises and benefit changes they approved.

[Anonymous]

I was looking at those Democrats for Sullivan signs today and my first thought was another GOP lie. The only lawns I see that sign in also includes Cox for governor signs. Coincidentally, the same lawns used to have Trump signs in them. One still has a trump flag.

Is this slogan "Democrats for Sullivan" supposed to fool Democrats into thinking there's a large Democratic population who wants to vote for this dude???

The sign is misleading and a lie. It's Republicans for Sullivan. Not Democrats. I may not be 100% behind Ellrich, but I'm voting for him because Sullivan would be oh so much worse.

[Anonymous]

Moore is going to win by 30 points, Elrich is going to win, and weed is going to win. Maryland is one of the remaining states, along with Massachusetts, that won’t lose its mind to the incoming red wave.

For people who want balance, try to check your own false equivalency. One side thinks the 2020 election was stolen, the government has authority over your uterus, corporations are above the law, and Drag Queen Story Hour is mandated to corrupt your children. The other side maybe thinks poor people should have healthcare and are cool with LGBTQ people just existing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Moore is going to win by 30 points, Elrich is going to win, and weed is going to win. Maryland is one of the remaining states, along with Massachusetts, that won’t lose its mind to the incoming red wave.

For people who want balance, try to check your own false equivalency. One side thinks the 2020 election was stolen, the government has authority over your uterus, corporations are above the law, and Drag Queen Story Hour is mandated to corrupt your children. The other side maybe thinks poor people should have healthcare and are cool with LGBTQ people just existing.

Nope. People’s politics don’t fall neatly into your little boxes above. You know that, too. There are many of us who are tired (exhausted) of the “us vs. them” mentality being pumped out by extremists. When we say we want “balance,” we want a return to rational, reasonable governance instead of hyperbolic thinking.
- Dem supporting Sullivan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? He doesn't have a chance of winning

People who value honesty and transparency. It matters because it sets precedents for deliberately misleading campaign materials. Whether or not he — or any one particular candidate — has a chance of winning isn’t the most critical issue here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? He doesn't have a chance of winning

People who value honesty and transparency. It matters because it sets precedents for deliberately misleading campaign materials. Whether or not he — or any one particular candidate — has a chance of winning isn’t the most critical issue here.

I agree with you. Which is why I hope you are as equally, or more, upset with the Maryland democratic committee that created ads on behalf of Dan Cox, when he was running against Kelly Schultz in the primary.

Its pure manipulation by the left.

And it really pisses me off, because it works. I cannot vote for Dan Cox. But I would’ve voted for Kelly. It was incredibly dishonest by the Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? He doesn't have a chance of winning

People who value honesty and transparency. It matters because it sets precedents for deliberately misleading campaign materials. Whether or not he — or any one particular candidate — has a chance of winning isn’t the most critical issue here.

I commented above that it’s happening on both sides of the aisle right now in our local elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? He doesn't have a chance of winning

People who value honesty and transparency. It matters because it sets precedents for deliberately misleading campaign materials. Whether or not he — or any one particular candidate — has a chance of winning isn’t the most critical issue here.

I agree with you. Which is why I hope you are as equally, or more, upset with the Maryland democratic committee that created ads on behalf of Dan Cox, when he was running against Kelly Schultz in the primary.

Its pure manipulation by the left.

And it really pisses me off, because it works. I cannot vote for Dan Cox. But I would’ve voted for Kelly. It was incredibly dishonest by the Democrats.

You mean the ad from the DGA with the tag line "Dan Cox: Too close to Trump, too conservative for Maryland"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? He doesn't have a chance of winning

People who value honesty and transparency. It matters because it sets precedents for deliberately misleading campaign materials. Whether or not he — or any one particular candidate — has a chance of winning isn’t the most critical issue here.

I agree with you. Which is why I hope you are as equally, or more, upset with the Maryland democratic committee that created ads on behalf of Dan Cox, when he was running against Kelly Schultz in the primary.

Its pure manipulation by the left.

And it really pisses me off, because it works. I cannot vote for Dan Cox. But I would’ve voted for Kelly. It was incredibly dishonest by the Democrats.

You mean the ad from the DGA with the tag line "Dan Cox: Too close to Trump, too conservative for Maryland"

There was certain manipulation/strategic political shenanigans.

“David Turner, a spokesman for the D.G.A., said his organization was focused on “winning these elections in November.” If giving a boost to far-right candidates increases the chances that Democrats will prevail, he said, it is worth the risk of placing in a governor’s mansion someone like Mr. Cox”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/07/20/us/primary-elections-midterms

The entire article is worth reading. Dan Cox also scrubbed his Q anon and far right conspiracy theories from his social media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? He doesn't have a chance of winning

This is true.

But what is threshold for people to pause and ask if maybe the Elrich message/campaign is not resonating?

Ficker got 16% of the vote

What if Sully gets 25%, or 32% (double Ficker)

That's probably the more realistic possibility vs him winning.

Truthfully, the most likely outcome is that Sullivan sees a slight uptick. Ficker got 65k votes; I could see Sullivan getting 70-75k. But that's probably not enough to start a conversation on county frustration with Democratic leadership

Sully will get a higher percentage than Ficker because Floreen is not running as an Independent. Most post-election analysis from four years ago determined that Floreen had zero effect on Elrich’s vote share but a significant effect on Ficker’s vote share. I expect Sully to probably get around 35% of the vote this time around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? He doesn't have a chance of winning

People who value honesty and transparency. It matters because it sets precedents for deliberately misleading campaign materials. Whether or not he — or any one particular candidate — has a chance of winning isn’t the most critical issue here.

I agree with you. Which is why I hope you are as equally, or more, upset with the Maryland democratic committee that created ads on behalf of Dan Cox, when he was running against Kelly Schultz in the primary.

Its pure manipulation by the left.

And it really pisses me off, because it works. I cannot vote for Dan Cox. But I would’ve voted for Kelly. It was incredibly dishonest by the Democrats.

I can’t answer that without seeing the ads. If the ads correctly identified his party and his positions, and correctly indicated who was paying for the ads, I probably would have been ok with them. If the ads did not do those things, I would view that as being extremely problematic. OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that Elrich is pretty ideologically aligned with voters in this county.

Then why did he win the primary by only 33 votes?