Anonymous wrote:I want Judy Feder to run against her.

Anonymous wrote:Hasn't Barbara voted WITH Trump 100% of the time? I know she voted for allowing cable companies to sell browsing histories and for allowing mentally ill people to buy guns.

Has she actually cast a vote against anything on the Trump agenda?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do believe Comstock has been quite responsive, at least in my personal experience.

For me, there is one very important thing she needs to do to continue having my support: Stand against unnecessary cuts to the federal government. I'm fine with cuts, but they need to be well thought out. It's not fair to scapegoat all federal employees, and its hard to deny federal employment fuels the economy of the district she represents. Nobody can represent Virginia's 10th seriously while also supporting major cuts to the federal workforce.

To me, health care would be the next priority. I don't want Congress to rush through healthcare reform just because the President needs an accomplishment. The ACA needs fixing, but there is no need to rush things. I was not happy with the way she handled the first replacement attempt, but then again it never got to a vote, so I don't know for sure what she would have done.

You sound pretty politically savvy so you will probably understand, then, this response. Barbara, as an individual Congresswoman, can do only so much in this particular Congress. Because she opposed Trump when the videos appeared, she is not in his inner group of politicos. That's good and bad. Plus we are only through the first 100 days and no one knows how it will play out. She is just one vote amongst 435 so what Barbara says on a particular issue is actually pretty irrelevant. You say you want her to come out and say X on an issue. Fine, but what does that accomplish? Actually nothing. On votes in the House on particular nationally-sweeping issues to look to her stance on cutting federal employees and healthcare means just about zero. The House will vote with the majority it has on Republican issues as a unit. One Congressman cannot make a difference. Trump won on draining the swamp and that means killing the bloat in agencies. Barbara can't stand against that alone. And, even if she does, she won't have much say in the matter because she is just one voice amongst 425 and to say otherwise is politically naive. Where having a congresswoman who has been in office for a few sessions is valuable is in the personal services they can do for the district and in that regard, Barbara is superb. Contrary to what the DNC wants to say about this Town Hall nonsense, Barbara IS very responsive to her constituents. She has an xlnt staff. She has great case workers. She does work for her constituents who have a myriad of problems because her district is so expansive. That's where having a responsive Congresswoman who is active on committees and experienced pays off, not on votes on ACA or killing agency bloat. However, if you have a particular health care issue or a particular job retention issue, then you take it to her chief of staff and they assign a caseworker to it. That's where having an experienced, responsive Congressman pays off - not in individual votes on Healthcare or other sweeping issues - she simply doesn't have the power to effect anything on those matters.

This is a great post and I fully agree with it. But I also think there's a tipping point at which point voting for Comstock is no longer worth it for me personally. If you are a federal employee living in the 10th district, and there are many of us, even if I like Comstock and think she does an excellent job (which I certainly do), if I believe her party's current agenda represents a threat to my livelihood, and she is unable to stand against that agenda for practical reasons, at what point does it make sense for me to bite the bullet and vote for someone that belongs to a different party that will not demonize federal employees? I certainly can't do much to increase the weight and impact of Comstock's vote, which as you say small on its own, but I can help increase the weight and impact of her opposition. That's the difficult decision that I think many of us in this district will face during the next election cycle. It's a very difficult position for Comstock to be in, no doubts, given the way the GOP sees federal government and the tight links between federal government and Comstock's district.

That's of course just my opinion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do believe Comstock has been quite responsive, at least in my personal experience.

For me, there is one very important thing she needs to do to continue having my support: Stand against unnecessary cuts to the federal government. I'm fine with cuts, but they need to be well thought out. It's not fair to scapegoat all federal employees, and its hard to deny federal employment fuels the economy of the district she represents. Nobody can represent Virginia's 10th seriously while also supporting major cuts to the federal workforce.

To me, health care would be the next priority. I don't want Congress to rush through healthcare reform just because the President needs an accomplishment. The ACA needs fixing, but there is no need to rush things. I was not happy with the way she handled the first replacement attempt, but then again it never got to a vote, so I don't know for sure what she would have done.

You sound pretty politically savvy so you will probably understand, then, this response. Barbara, as an individual Congresswoman, can do only so much in this particular Congress. Because she opposed Trump when the videos appeared, she is not in his inner group of politicos. That's good and bad. Plus we are only through the first 100 days and no one knows how it will play out. She is just one vote amongst 435 so what Barbara says on a particular issue is actually pretty irrelevant. You say you want her to come out and say X on an issue. Fine, but what does that accomplish? Actually nothing. On votes in the House on particular nationally-sweeping issues to look to her stance on cutting federal employees and healthcare means just about zero. The House will vote with the majority it has on Republican issues as a unit. One Congressman cannot make a difference. Trump won on draining the swamp and that means killing the bloat in agencies. Barbara can't stand against that alone. And, even if she does, she won't have much say in the matter because she is just one voice amongst 425 and to say otherwise is politically naive. Where having a congresswoman who has been in office for a few sessions is valuable is in the personal services they can do for the district and in that regard, Barbara is superb. Contrary to what the DNC wants to say about this Town Hall nonsense, Barbara IS very responsive to her constituents. She has an xlnt staff. She has great case workers. She does work for her constituents who have a myriad of problems because her district is so expansive. That's where having a responsive Congresswoman who is active on committees and experienced pays off, not on votes on ACA or killing agency bloat. However, if you have a particular health care issue or a particular job retention issue, then you take it to her chief of staff and they assign a caseworker to it. That's where having an experienced, responsive Congressman pays off - not in individual votes on Healthcare or other sweeping issues - she simply doesn't have the power to effect anything on those matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do believe Comstock has been quite responsive, at least in my personal experience.

For me, there is one very important thing she needs to do to continue having my support: Stand against unnecessary cuts to the federal government. I'm fine with cuts, but they need to be well thought out. It's not fair to scapegoat all federal employees, and its hard to deny federal employment fuels the economy of the district she represents. Nobody can represent Virginia's 10th seriously while also supporting major cuts to the federal workforce.

To me, health care would be the next priority. I don't want Congress to rush through healthcare reform just because the President needs an accomplishment. The ACA needs fixing, but there is no need to rush things. I was not happy with the way she handled the first replacement attempt, but then again it never got to a vote, so I don't know for sure what she would have done.

You sound pretty politically savvy so you will probably understand, then, this response. Barbara, as an individual Congresswoman, can do only so much in this particular Congress. Because she opposed Trump when the videos appeared, she is not in his inner group of politicos. That's good and bad. Plus we are only through the first 100 days and no one knows how it will play out. She is just one vote amongst 435 so what Barbara says on a particular issue is actually pretty irrelevant. You say you want her to come out and say X on an issue. Fine, but what does that accomplish? Actually nothing. On votes in the House on particular nationally-sweeping issues to look to her stance on cutting federal employees and healthcare means just about zero. The House will vote with the majority it has on Republican issues as a unit. One Congressman cannot make a difference. Trump won on draining the swamp and that means killing the bloat in agencies. Barbara can't stand against that alone. And, even if she does, she won't have much say in the matter because she is just one voice amongst 425 and to say otherwise is politically naive. Where having a congresswoman who has been in office for a few sessions is valuable is in the personal services they can do for the district and in that regard, Barbara is superb. Contrary to what the DNC wants to say about this Town Hall nonsense, Barbara IS very responsive to her constituents. She has an xlnt staff. She has great case workers. She does work for her constituents who have a myriad of problems because her district is so expansive. That's where having a responsive Congresswoman who is active on committees and experienced pays off, not on votes on ACA or killing agency bloat. However, if you have a particular health care issue or a particular job retention issue, then you take it to her chief of staff and they assign a caseworker to it. That's where having an experienced, responsive Congressman pays off - not in individual votes on Healthcare or other sweeping issues - she simply doesn't have the power to effect anything on those matters.

Anonymous wrote:I do believe Comstock has been quite responsive, at least in my personal experience.

For me, there is one very important thing she needs to do to continue having my support: Stand against unnecessary cuts to the federal government. I'm fine with cuts, but they need to be well thought out. It's not fair to scapegoat all federal employees, and its hard to deny federal employment fuels the economy of the district she represents. Nobody can represent Virginia's 10th seriously while also supporting major cuts to the federal workforce.

To me, health care would be the next priority. I don't want Congress to rush through healthcare reform just because the President needs an accomplishment. The ACA needs fixing, but there is no need to rush things. I was not happy with the way she handled the first replacement attempt, but then again it never got to a vote, so I don't know for sure what she would have done.

Resurrecting threads like this just looks like sour grapes to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only suggestion I have for Democrats is to NOT run a woman against her. Running a woman looks forced. Don't be afraid to run a man. I seriously think that would take her down. Run another woman and she will probably survive.

+1. Exactly. She mowed down Luann Bennett. Notwithstanding the DNC's attempt here to libel Comstock (and its repeated attempts to resurrect this old thread), Barbara is extremely popular in the 10th district. She works hard for her constituents. I doubt any contender the DNC sends in will be able to upset her seat. The townhall argument has been used across the U.S. and is tiresome. Of course the Republican candidates won't show up because an appearance gives the left an opportunity to protest which leads to bad photo-ops. Smart republicans have turned to more savvy tech. ways to reach the constituents . . . but the Dems keep yelling that all Repub. candidates are not doing their duty by failing to show up at town halls. The Dems can put up microphones and pretend that Barbara and others are a "no-show" but smart constituents know she either wasn't invited to begin with or has something better to do with her time to represent the district. I think everyone knows this now. Resurrecting threads like this just looks like sour grapes to me.

What makes you think she is "extremely popular"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only suggestion I have for Democrats is to NOT run a woman against her. Running a woman looks forced. Don't be afraid to run a man. I seriously think that would take her down. Run another woman and she will probably survive.

+1. Exactly. She mowed down Luann Bennett. Notwithstanding the DNC's attempt here to libel Comstock (and its repeated attempts to resurrect this old thread), Barbara is extremely popular in the 10th district. She works hard for her constituents. I doubt any contender the DNC sends in will be able to upset her seat. The townhall argument has been used across the U.S. and is tiresome. Of course the Republican candidates won't show up because an appearance gives the left an opportunity to protest which leads to bad photo-ops. Smart republicans have turned to more savvy tech. ways to reach the constituents . . . but the Dems keep yelling that all Repub. candidates are not doing their duty by failing to show up at town halls. The Dems can put up microphones and pretend that Barbara and others are a "no-show" but smart constituents know she either wasn't invited to begin with or has something better to do with her time to represent the district. I think everyone knows this now. Resurrecting threads like this just looks like sour grapes to me.

Anonymous wrote:I read on Twitter that she said her opinion hadnt changed.