The 2025 Political Beat Primary Candidate Guide
Channel 9 sent key questions to all candidates. Their responses are posted unedited.
ALSO READ: Where you can vote early in Charlotte for the primary election
Whoever wins the primaries in Districts 1, 4, and 5 will serve on the next Charlotte City Council. There is no opposition for these seats in November.
Democrats and unaffiliated voters can vote in all districts. Republicans can only vote in the District 6 primary. This is the only contested Republican race in September. Unaffiliated voters can choose the Republican ballot in District 6.
See the candidates' responses in each race below:
The Political Beat Candidate Guide: City of Charlotte Mayor
The Political Beat Candidate Guide: Charlotte City Council At-Large
The Political Beat Candidate Guide: Charlotte City Council- District 1
The Political Beat Candidate Guide: Charlotte City Council—District 3
The Political Beat Candidate Guide: Charlotte City Council—District 4
The Political Beat Candidate Guide: Charlotte City Council—District 5
The Political Beat Candidate Guide: Charlotte City Council—District 6
Use the map below to easily find your city council district and a link to our guide for the district.
(WATCH BELOW: Charlotte City Council approves conversion of motel to studio apartments)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
17 minutes ago
- Axios
The era of the public apology is ending
The age of the public apology is over, as more brands, public figures and companies dig in their heels amid backlash or dodge accountability amid operational snafus. Why it matters: This is a major shift in communication style and reflects the current zeitgeist. State of play: American Eagle doubled down on its controversial ad featuring Sydney Sweeney, women's dating advice app Tea didn't apologize after user data was hacked and leaked, and Crowdstrike left out the "sorry" initially when its global outage took out airlines and more last year. While phony statements from Astronomer executives littered the internet, the executives have yet to issue public apologies following the recent kiss cam scandal. Replit CEO Amjad Masad had choice words for X users who were offended by his stance on the Gaza conflict, writing, "I've been reflecting and going back and forth on how to handle this. I finally realized that I must, from the bottom of my heart, apologize to — absolutely nobody." Zoom out: This isn't happening in a vacuum, according to communication experts — the no-apology, hardline stance is a response to desensitized audiences, political polarization and cancel culture fatigue. "People are simply tired of the outrage cycles and cancellation campaigns," crisis communications expert Molly McPherson says. "And the public is splitting because they don't want to jump on someone else's grievance bandwagon." Plus, there's no guarantee the apology will placate people, as it may be seen as a weakness to some or insufficient to others. The rapid pace of the news cycle is another major consideration. Controversy could quickly blow over without the need for a public apology, which could threaten to drive more coverage and conversation. What they're saying: Instead of making sweeping public apologies, some are opting for more targeted outreach, says Paul Argenti, professor of corporate communications at Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business. "Leaders are reconsidering whether it's the right tool, and we're watching companies experiment here, defending their decision, ignoring the noise or addressing constituencies privately instead of making a public spectacle," he adds. Context: An apology signals a reset. It is an acknowledgement that something went wrong and will be corrected. However, if a change in strategy or action isn't taken, then apologizing looks inauthentic and can worsen the backlash. "Not every crisis demands a loud response ... but it's almost as if the more personal the crisis, the more personal the response needs to be," McPherson says. Yes, but: American consumers are still boycotting brands that don't align with their values. 1 in 4 Americans report boycotting a brand, with Democrats twice as likely to boycott as Republicans, a recent Ipsos survey found. The bottom line: Taking accountability and being transparent can build trust in place of an apology.
Gizmodo
17 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Elon Musk Slapped With Major New Complication
The reigning king of controversy has just found himself saddled with one more expensive problem. A U.S. District Court judge in Texas has ordered Elon Musk to continue a lawsuit filed by voters who gave up personal information in exchange for winning a $1 million daily cash prize from Musk's PAC, Reuters reports. The case says the contest constitutes a form of illegal lottery or sweepstakes, which is prohibited under federal and state law, and misled people into sharing personal information through a fraudulent campaign. Arizona resident Jacqueline McAferty is a defendant in the case and alleges that Musk and the PAC promised voters across seven key swing states a $1 million prize, and that those voters were then required to share their phone numbers, email addresses, physical addresses and names. Musk's legal defense says that petition signers did not suffer tangible harm from providing personal details. Musk created America PAC during the 2024 election cycle, saying he wanted it to help support the U.S. Constitution, Reuters reports. He says those $1 million payments were incentives for voters to 'earn' money and become spokespeople for the PAC. Judge Robert Pitman in Austin disagreed with that position and ruled this week that the allegations by McAferty are plausible enough to take the case to trial. Pittman pointed to conflicting statements about whether any money was 'awarded' and that voters could 'win' the money through a sweepstakes-like plan. In October 2024, a Philadelphia judge refused to end Musk's giveaway, saying that city's top prosecutor failed to show it was an illegal lottery. At the time, defendant Larry Krasner's attorney John Summers brought up a Musk tweet on X that dubbed Judge Angelo Foglietta a 'leftist judge,' shamed Musk for not attending the hearing, and called him 'cowardly and irresponsible.' Musk's broader controversial engagement in political campaigns and his high-ranking role in the second Trump administration has made him a lightning rod for criticism. The case also highlights how the use of social media and digital platforms in political fundraising and public outreach actually work and whether or not they are safe for consumers, the Washington Post reports. That opaque approach could mean little accountability and the use of potentially deceptive tactics to influence public opinion during key electoral moments. Lawyers for America PAC and Musk did respond to a request for comment. The lawsuit was filed on Election Day, Nov. 5, 2024.
Fast Company
17 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Democrats are teaching candidates how to use AI to win elections
Welcome to AI Decoded, Fast Company 's weekly newsletter that breaks down the most important news in the world of AI. You can sign up to receive this newsletter every week via email here. Artificial intelligence is moving from a buzzword to a working tool in politics. The National Democratic Training Committee (NDTC), which has trained more than 120,000 Democrats since its founding in 2016, has launched its first playbook on how campaigns can use AI responsibly. The three-part training explains how AI works and offers guidance on using it to draft speeches, phone-banking scripts, and social media posts. It also highlights clear boundaries, warning campaigns not to create deepfakes, impersonate people, or generate misleading images and videos. Candidates are encouraged to disclose when AI has been used in content creation, particularly in personal messaging or policy development, as a way to build transparency and trust. The project was created in partnership with the Higher Ground Institute. For NDTC founder and CEO Kelly Dietrich, the goal is to make sure Democratic campaigns have the knowledge and confidence to use AI effectively. Fast Company spoke with Dietrich about the new training, the opportunities it opens, and the standards he believes campaigns must uphold. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Why did you feel campaigns needed something like this training? AI is increasingly becoming a part of everyday life. Politics are traditionally lagging in adoption of new technology. Candidates especially are a little tenuous about adopting new tech and strategies that aren't proven. That's because running for office is sometimes the biggest decision of someone's life, and candidates are sometimes scared to try something new and fail. That way, if they don't win, they can say, 'Well, I did everything right.' We're constantly trying to get people to stay on the cutting edge and understand how new tools can make their campaigns more effective. The training that we've put together shows people how to understand AI. And this isn't like a college course; you don't need to understand how AI is built. But you should understand what it can and cannot do, and how you can use it ethically and most effectively on your campaign. When most of us think about campaigns, we think about big presidential [ones] or maybe a really fancy congressional race. That's not reality for 99% of the campaigns run in our country. There's more than 518,000 elected officials. Only 537 of them are at the federal level, only 15,000 and change are at the state level. The other half million-plus are local offices: city council, school board, library board, county boards, all of these elected offices that very few people think of but have a very important and direct effect on our lives. And for 90-plus percent of those, they usually have budgets of less than $2,500. Usually, it's just the candidate and maybe one or two dedicated volunteers. In those campaigns—in addition to the big congressionals—everybody has limited time, money, and people. AI allows you to accomplish more with those three limited resources. The training seems pretty practical, from what I've seen. Can you break down the program's approach? Every training that we built is designed for a candidate or a staff person to be able to use immediately. So if you're going to give us a half hour of your time, you don't need just theoretical background information on AI. So, the course breaks down what AI is, but then we can show you examples of use cases and specific AI tools within the Democratic ecosphere that you can use—say, helping you to write a door-to-door script. And honestly, Republicans are already using this, and they're using it in ways that I don't think are necessarily ethical or even moral. But Democrats need to be using this or risk being left behind. NDTC trains in three different ways. First, we have on-demand courses like the AI course, which are available 24/7. If you're running for local office, that's usually not a full-time job. So whether you're a teacher, lawyer, nurse, or anything else, you can go to work, come home, have dinner with your family, put your kids to bed, and then pull out your iPad or laptop. In 30 minutes, you can understand what AI is, how to use it, and what it can do for your campaign immediately. Second, we do virtual live trainings. We hold a couple hundred of these each year. We don't call them webinars—webinars put everyone to sleep—but instead interactive online trainings, usually held at noon Central [time]. We've already seen interest in developing an AI live training to complement the on-demand course. Third, we train through cohorts—multiweek live sessions. We'll be incorporating AI into those as well, making it one of the core lessons candidates and staff need to be more effective. Can you tell me a bit more about which AI tools can be especially effective in campaigning? You have your general-purpose AI tools, whether that's Claude, ChatGPT, or Gemini. And then there are specific political AI tools, like Chorus AI, which optimizes political content for impact and engagement across platforms and audiences. And you've got Change Agent, which is more of a general language model but aligns with organizers and activism values. Have campaigns jumped on board with the training? We've already had more than 250 people take the course online, and it's only been up for a few days. How do you make sure these tools aren't abused or opening up a floodgate? Since the dawn of time, technology has been used for good and for bad, and the best we can do is educate and show people the difference. At the end of the day, everyone makes their own moral choice, and I think the values Democrats represent preclude those types of abuse. What we need to do is create education, because most candidates know of AI but don't know how to use it. They don't understand what a powerful tool it can be. Can we make it more approachable, easier to understand, and walk people through exactly how it can help them accomplish their campaign goals? It can help them talk to more voters, win more votes—all the things that matter. Once you've laid out your campaign message and core talking points, AI can take those and help you create scripts, press releases, and a whole range of materials. More AI coverage from Fast Company:
