Anonymous wrote:Or maybe, just maybe, Alexandria Democrats support the policy direction the current Council is taking the city, as indicated by the primaries in 2024, 2021, 2018 and 2015, where NIMBY Allison only won the mayoral primary because two pro-development candidates split 62% of the vote.

Except it’s more complicated and nuanced than that. Like in this election, Jesse O’Connell was arguably the most pro-ZFH, pro-arena candidate. Yet he didn’t do that well, and in fact did worse than Charlotte Scherer who was the conservative Old Town pick. Meanwhile, Chapman got the most votes despite being clear that he doesn’t think the second stage of ZFH should happen now (this was an explicit position). For most people these elections are not pro vs anti development.

Or maybe, just maybe, Alexandria Democrats support the policy direction the current Council is taking the city, as indicated by the primaries in 2024, 2021, 2018 and 2015, where NIMBY Allison only won the mayoral primary because two pro-development candidates split 62% of the vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole reason the NIMBY clique focuses on the Dem primary instead of putting together a Republican slate for the general election is that the much lower turnout of the primary is favorable to them. And they still can't win.

No, the problem is that a contingent of AlexDems use the term NIMBY to deride everyone who disagrees with them. Most of the people I know who are not happy with the ultra progressive local policies are Dems (mostly because I don’t really hang out with any republicans).

Yes, and they voted in the Dem primary. And lost. Stop pretending you're the great silent majority. That line has been tried and found wanting. Brown people in the West End (the bulk of non-voters) want development.

So right! I forget that 9.5-11.6% of 16% is a majority.

Turn out was crazy low. Why? Why did so many of our fellow Dems fail to vote? Or is that a good thing as long as it doesn’t happen this November?

Because they didn't care and/or weren't interested. If they had been super upset, they would have cared/been interested and voted. Ergo, they are not super upset.

Whatever fits your narrative.

Indeed. It’s also the case that most people aren’t clued in enough for everyone to be voting “pro-development” or “anti-development.” As someone else pointed out, this election was all name recognition, with six seats going to four incumbents and two sitting school board members.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole reason the NIMBY clique focuses on the Dem primary instead of putting together a Republican slate for the general election is that the much lower turnout of the primary is favorable to them. And they still can't win.

No, the problem is that a contingent of AlexDems use the term NIMBY to deride everyone who disagrees with them. Most of the people I know who are not happy with the ultra progressive local policies are Dems (mostly because I don’t really hang out with any republicans).

Yes, and they voted in the Dem primary. And lost. Stop pretending you're the great silent majority. That line has been tried and found wanting. Brown people in the West End (the bulk of non-voters) want development.

So right! I forget that 9.5-11.6% of 16% is a majority.

Turn out was crazy low. Why? Why did so many of our fellow Dems fail to vote? Or is that a good thing as long as it doesn’t happen this November?

Because they didn't care and/or weren't interested. If they had been super upset, they would have cared/been interested and voted. Ergo, they are not super upset.

Whatever fits your narrative.

1. We should have higher turnout. If you hand me a petition to sync up the state primary with the presidential one, or something like that, I will sign it.
2. The voting patterns for Hometown Girl Any Jackson and Steve "Hospitalized in CO" Peterson (concentrated on a handful of already high-turnout precincts) make it very clear that whatever an expanded electorate might or might not favor, it would not be their brand of low growth policies.

AlexDems moved the primary to suppress the vote. There is no interest in cultivating higher turnout.

As rest of your language isn’t worthy of a response, but good to know misogyny is alive and well with AlxDems. And yes, you can vote for a woman and still be a misogynist.

I don't get it. They moved the primary, to the day of the general Virginia primary, to suppress the vote? There would be higher turnout at a just-for-Alexandria election?

I don’t recall what the older dates aligned with; I don’t think it was Alexandria only.

About 16 years ago they moved the City elections from May to November to get rid of Frank Fannon. Despite his overwhelming popularity, once they synced the local election with national elections they were able to implement single-party rule.

This was done in an effort to increase voter participation, not stifle it. However councilors like Justin Wilson knew it would help Dems because citizens were more likely to vote in November and vote in lock-step with the up-ballot Democratic nominees.

Alexandria doesn’t set the date for its elections. This primary, which was for offices that will be on the ballot in November, was held on the same day as all other Virginia primaries (except the presidency). The reason the presidential primary was on a different day is because the General Assembly voted to move only that primary to March.