Got to get rid of Nadeau. Complete waste of time and money. Giving the vote to non-residents killed statehood.

Anonymous wrote:Yes on 82 but the council may overrule it just like the last time we voted on it. Sigh!

The At-Large race is between Silverman, McDuffie, and Bonds. No one else has a chance. Bonds is horrible and needs to go.
While you can vote for two candidates, you should only vote for EITHER Silverman or McDuffie or they will cancel each other out and we're stuck with Bonds.

This makes no sense. The two people with the most votes win. If you want Bonds to lose, you should want Silverman AND McDuffie to get as many votes as possible. Don’t bullet vote!

I’m a yes on 82.

I’m planning to vote Silverman and McDuffie. They and Bonds are the only ones with a chance, and I would love to see Bonds lose. I don’t agree with both of them on everything, but I appreciate their perspectives (and that they differ) and think they are both committed and effective.

I know McLaughlin professionally. He’s a nice guy, and I respect his commitment to supporting returning citizens, but I find his pro-business stance unappealing (but not surprising). The canvassing with Krucoff doesn’t surprise me, and it’s a total disqualifier in my mind. Anyone who joined the Republican Party in 2020 (as Krucoff did) is unfit to serve this city, and McLaughlin’s willingness to campaign with him displays terrible judgment.

I’m probably most aligned on the issues with Marshall, but I don’t think he can win. I hope he runs again in the future.

Anonymous wrote:i overall like karim marshall. is that a wasted vote?

I voted for him and Silverman.

i overall like karim marshall. is that a wasted vote?

Anonymous wrote:Yes on 82 but the council may overrule it just like the last time we voted on it. Sigh!

The At-Large race is between Silverman, McDuffie, and Bonds. No one else has a chance. Bonds is horrible and needs to go.
While you can vote for two candidates, you should only vote for EITHER Silverman or McDuffie or they will cancel each other out and we're stuck with Bonds.

You need to come to grips with the fact that Bonds will win her seat back. What happens beyond that is anyone's guess.

Yes on 82 but the council may overrule it just like the last time we voted on it. Sigh!

The At-Large race is between Silverman, McDuffie, and Bonds. No one else has a chance. Bonds is horrible and needs to go.
While you can vote for two candidates, you should only vote for EITHER Silverman or McDuffie or they will cancel each other out and we're stuck with Bonds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McLaughlin campaigning with Krucoff (the anti-statehood Republican)

krucoff and mclaughlin are republicans, and are endorsed by the notoriously-conservative WaPo ed board.

Elissa Silverman has my vote. Probably bullet voting. Anita Bonds should be out of a job. She doesn't even TRY to do oversight of DCHA.

Silverman doesn't even try to do oversight of DOES, there just hasn't been a federal investigation of the agency.

Yet.

Anonymous wrote:McLaughlin campaigning with Krucoff (the anti-statehood Republican)

krucoff and mclaughlin are republicans, and are endorsed by the notoriously-conservative WaPo ed board.

Elissa Silverman has my vote. Probably bullet voting. Anita Bonds should be out of a job. She doesn't even TRY to do oversight of DCHA.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you all share your thoughts on McLaughlin and Bonds?

Bonds is a disaster. She oversees DCHA which HUD just reported is a disaster with the highest number of vacant units of any jurisdiction. Twenty-five percent of the units are empty. Bonds has done nothing about it. I don't know anything about McLaughlin.

Because Silverman's oversight of DOES has been so stellar?

If you're going to call Bonds a "disaster" for her oversight of DCHA, then you have to call Silverman a disaster for her oversight of DOES. Massive fraud, people not getting their benefits, a computer system straight from the 1990s: she hit the trifecta. Silverman has done nothing about it.