Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read an interesting interview with two of the top campaign people for Youngkin where they were asked about the respective campaigns of McAuliffe and Youngkin.

Their response was that McAuliffe offered very few affirmative reasons to vote for him, and ran against Youngkin as if Youngkin was running for national office (i.e., to be elected to the Senate), whereas Youngkin ran a disciplined campaign that remained focused on the types of local issues like education, crime, and attracting business that people expect a governor (but not necessarily a House or Senate member in Congress) to address.

That seemed to make sense, and I think we see the same thing with the FCPS School Board. These folks were elected to focus on the most local of issues - the administration of a county's public school system - and yet from day one they've acted as if they hold or aspire to hold national political office. Cohen and Frisch weren't in office for more than a few weeks before they were holding fundraisers for Democratic candidates, and the "all equity, all the time" rhetoric of most of them sounded as if they thought they were personally responsible for some type of great national reckoning. And then even the ones whose rhetoric wasn't as overblown demonstrated that they had a tin ear and next to no sensitivity to local concerns.

So while the Ds still got most of the votes in NoVa, the Ds on the current school boards in NoVa have all the flaws of a Terry McAuliffe, and would be very stupid if they don't think they are going to be extremely vulnerable in an election that focuses primarily on their own performance (or lack thereof). They have two years left to clean up their act, but it seems unlikely that they have the smarts to do so. McLaughlin has been the only one who has demonstrated any sensitivity to what her constituents want from a School Board member; the rest seem too ideological, too dense, or too lazy to right the ship.

I don't know if anyone else is interested in this - but I would really like to get back to the school board being non partisan. No endorsement of any candidates on the sample ballots.

Yes, I was totally confused by those posts insisting that Ds should have voted for Sears just because she’s black. WTF?

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know if anyone else is interested in this - but I would really like to get back to the school board being non partisan. No endorsement of any candidates on the sample ballots.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why do Republicans think Dems should be just happy if candidates are black or Latino? Like oh look, they are a POC, so be happy! See...diversity, now be quiet.

Does it bother you when minorities don’t agree with 100% of what you believe?

I am a minority so no it doesn’t. That’s my point…Rs in this thread are saying there is no racism bc look we elected a Latino and a Black chick. Why are the Dems not happy? Not taking into account that someone who is, say, pro gun or anti-abortion is still not someone we would pick bc of the color of his/her skin. Why would we be happy?

Yes, I was totally confused by those posts insisting that Ds should have voted for Sears just because she’s black. WTF?

Anonymous wrote:And the Rs focused on micro-local issues instead of actual state-level issues.

Because they were voting out of anger, not out of reason.

I don't know if anyone else is interested in this - but I would really like to get back to the school board being non partisan. No endorsement of any candidates on the sample ballots.

Anonymous wrote:And the Rs focused on micro-local issues instead of actual state-level issues.

Because they were voting out of anger, not out of reason.

Anonymous wrote:I read an interesting interview with two of the top campaign people for Youngkin where they were asked about the respective campaigns of McAuliffe and Youngkin.

Their response was that McAuliffe offered very few affirmative reasons to vote for him, and ran against Youngkin as if Youngkin was running for national office (i.e., to be elected to the Senate), whereas Youngkin ran a disciplined campaign that remained focused on the types of local issues like education, crime, and attracting business that people expect a governor (but not necessarily a House or Senate member in Congress) to address.

That seemed to make sense, and I think we see the same thing with the FCPS School Board. These folks were elected to focus on the most local of issues - the administration of a county's public school system - and yet from day one they've acted as if they hold or aspire to hold national political office. Cohen and Frisch weren't in office for more than a few weeks before they were holding fundraisers for Democratic candidates, and the "all equity, all the time" rhetoric of most of them sounded as if they thought they were personally responsible for some type of great national reckoning. And then even the ones whose rhetoric wasn't as overblown demonstrated that they had a tin ear and next to no sensitivity to local concerns.

So while the Ds still got most of the votes in NoVa, the Ds on the current school boards in NoVa have all the flaws of a Terry McAuliffe, and would be very stupid if they don't think they are going to be extremely vulnerable in an election that focuses primarily on their own performance (or lack thereof). They have two years left to clean up their act, but it seems unlikely that they have the smarts to do so. McLaughlin has been the only one who has demonstrated any sensitivity to what her constituents want from a School Board member; the rest seem too ideological, too dense, or too lazy to right the ship.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of all these voters claiming schools don’t take into account parent views, how many have availed themselves of one of the many ways FCPS tries to involve parents (other than giving a 2 minute rant at public comment in the hopes of going viral)? Right now, they’ve been asking for parents to review curriculum resources. They’ve had similar reviews of materials within the year. I bet very few of you have done that. Have you served on a school board advisory committee? Played an active role in the PTA or countywide PTAs like the special education one? There’s so many ways to be involved but it takes some effort and might not make you famous.

I vote for people who can do it for me - so I don't have to do it all myself. That's how I try to outsource.

Okay, so you don’t want “parent’s rights.” You just want to elect the people who oversee the schools. Which you already have and the election is in 2023.
So your vote for Youngkin was based on nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why do Republicans think Dems should be just happy if candidates are black or Latino? Like oh look, they are a POC, so be happy! See...diversity, now be quiet.

Does it bother you when minorities don’t agree with 100% of what you believe?

I am a minority so no it doesn’t. That’s my point…Rs in this thread are saying there is no racism bc look we elected a Latino and a Black chick. Why are the Dems not happy? Not taking into account that someone who is, say, pro gun or anti-abortion is still not someone we would pick bc of the color of his/her skin. Why would we be happy?

Yes, I was totally confused by those posts insisting that Ds should have voted for Sears just because she’s black. WTF?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why do Republicans think Dems should be just happy if candidates are black or Latino? Like oh look, they are a POC, so be happy! See...diversity, now be quiet.

Does it bother you when minorities don’t agree with 100% of what you believe?

I am a minority so no it doesn’t. That’s my point…Rs in this thread are saying there is no racism bc look we elected a Latino and a Black chick. Why are the Dems not happy? Not taking into account that someone who is, say, pro gun or anti-abortion is still not someone we would pick bc of the color of his/her skin. Why would we be happy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why do Republicans think Dems should be just happy if candidates are black or Latino? Like oh look, they are a POC, so be happy! See...diversity, now be quiet.

Does it bother you when minorities don’t agree with 100% of what you believe?

Anonymous wrote:why do Republicans think Dems should be just happy if candidates are black or Latino? Like oh look, they are a POC, so be happy! See...diversity, now be quiet.