SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " respondent " 396 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
The Blogs: When Politics Becomes Existential, Violence Follows
From the blog of Stephen M. Flatow at Jewish Standard
Political violence is 'unacceptable,' should 'never be tolerated' in US, Rep. Jason Smith says
Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., sounds off against political violence following the White House Correspondents' Dinner shooting and highlights the need for DHS funding on 'Sunday Morning Futures.'
Visualizing the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting incident in maps
A suspected gunman was apprehended Saturday after blowing past a security checkpoint at the Washington Hilton just as events were getting underway for the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
For Oz Pearlman, a Correspondents’ Dinner Not Even He Could Have Predicted
The mentalist was the featured entertainer at the White House Correspondents’ dinner. He was in the middle of a trick when gunshots rang out.
Trump Praises WHCA President Weijia Jiang After Shooting at Dinner
Weijia Jiang, a CBS correspondent, had been sitting next to the president at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner when shots rang out. Soon afterward, she was reporting on the attack.
Details emerge of alleged shooter at White House correspondents' dinner
The alleged gunman has been identified as Cole Allen, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
White House Correspondents' Dinner attack suspect is tutor and computer programmer from California
Social media posts that appear to match the California man arrested Saturday in the shooting at the White House correspondents’ dinner show he is a highly educated tutor and amateur video game developer.
Trump speaks on political violence following Correspondents' Dinner shooting
Senior White House correspondent Peter Doocy reports live from the White House on the Correspondents' Dinner shooting, detailing his conversation with President Donald Trump about the incident and past threats against political figures.
What We Know About the Shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner
A gunman carrying multiple weapons attempted to break into the dinner that President Trump was attending. Police have taken a suspect into custody.
DW correspondent describes scenes at Trump dinner shooting
DW Washington Bureau Chief Ines Pohl was at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner. She reports the scenes inside the Hilton Hotel ballroom.
Shots fired as gunman charges toward ballroom at White House correspondents\' dinner. Trump unharmed
A man armed with guns and knives stormed the lobby outside the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner attended by President Donald Trump on Saturday night. The man charged toward the
Trump Describes His Mind-Set After Shooting at White House Correspondents’ Dinner
Very little was clear about what had happened at the Washington Hilton on Saturday night. But the president wanted to talk about it.
Gunpowder in the air: A fancy press dinner with Trump, then shots fired
The intrigue before the White House Correspondents' Dinner had been about Trump-press tensions. Gunshots cut the evening short.
Business leaders react to DC press dinner shooting
Here's what big names in the business world are saying about the shooting at the annual White House Correspondents' Dinner in Washington, DC.
Again, a Gunman Got Perilously Close to Trump
After two previous assassination attempts, the effort by an armed man to storm the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner is sure to raise questions about security and political violence.
Attendee describes low level of security at White House Correspondents' Dinner
Attendee describes low security at White House Correspondents' Dinner.
Video shows Secret Service’s response to the suspected gunman at White House Correspondents’ Dinner
Correspondents’ dinner chaos hits high-profile guests already marked by political violence
Trump spoke about repeated assassination attempts after chaos broke out Saturday, with RFK Jr. and Steve Scalise among those escorted from the room.
In pictures: Shots fired at White House Correspondents’ Dinner
President Donald Trump was swiftly escorted off the stage by Secret Service after shots were fired at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday.
Trump asked about political violence in the U.S. after being evacuated from event
NBC News' Garrett Haake asked President Trump about the trend of political violence in the United States after the president had to be evacuated from the White House Correspondents' Association dinner.
Gunman Was Tackled by Law Enforcement Near Correspondents’ Dinner Security Checkpoint
The gunman did not make it inside the hotel ballroom where President Trump, top officials and hundreds of journalists had gathered for dinner.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer witnesses ‘terrifying’ ordeal as gunman opens fire a few feet away at White House Correspondents’ Dinner
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer was just a few feet away from a gunman when shots were fired outside the main ballroom at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner.
Trump Unharmed After Shots Fired at White House Correspondents’ Dinner
'Quite an evening in D.C. Secret Service and Law Enforcement did a fantastic job. They acted quickly and bravely.'
Watch: President Trump speaks about shooting incident at correspondents' dinner
President Trump and several cabinet members were safely rushed from the event in Washington, D.C. after several loud sounds were heard. The Secret Service said one person was in custody.
A Shooting at the White House Correspondents' Dinner
A dispatch from the chaotic scene at the Washington Hilton
President Trump evacuated after security incident at White House correspondents dinner
President Trump evacuated after security incident at White House correspondents dinner.
Live updates: Trump evacuated from White House Correspondents Dinner
President Donald Trump was attending the dinner, which was being held at the Washington Hilton Hotel, for the first time as commander-in-chief.
Trump evacuated after security incident at White House correspondents dinner; no sign of injuries
President Donald Trump and other top leaders of the United States were evacuated from an annual dinner of White House correspondents on Saturday night after an unspecified threat. There did not immediately appear to be any injuries.
Trump rushed off stage at White House Correspondents’ Dinner
President Donald Trump was swiftly escorted off the stage by Secret Service at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington, DC, on Saturday.
Trump evacuated from White House Correspondents' Dinner
President Donald Trump was evacuated from the White House Correspondents' Dinner.
Shooter opened fire inside hotel where Trump was attending dinner, law enforcement official says
President Trump evacuated after security incident at White House correspondents dinner.
Trump to attend dinner celebrating White House press
President Donald Trump is attending the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner for the first time in more than a decade – and his first time ever as president – on Saturday, April 25.
White House Correspondents' Dinner protesters decry media, Trump, Iran War
Protesters stood outside the 2026 White House Correspondents' Dinner in Washington, DC, chanting “shame” and holding anti-war signs.
Trump to attend dinner celebrating White House press. Live updates
Donald Trump is attending the White House Correspondents’ dinner for the first time in more than a decade, and his first time ever as president.
Trump to Dine With Reporters He’s Been Roasting All Week
President Trump has boycotted the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in previous years.
Close watch on how Trump and journalists will get along at White House correspondents' dinner
Donald Trump is expected to make his first appearance as president at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner in Washington. The annual event is designed to celebrate press freedoms. But...
Close watch on how Trump and journalists will get along at White House correspondents' dinner
Donald Trump is expected to make his first appearance as president at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner in Washington.
White House Correspondents' Dinner is here. How to livestream
USA TODAY will livestream the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner on Saturday evening, April 25. Here's how to watch.
WATCH LIVE: Trump attends White House Correspondents' Dinner for 1st time as president
4 things to watch at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner
Donald Trump is attending the annual event for the first time as president.
6 times the White House Correspondents' Dinner served up memorable moments
Here’s a look at some of that history as Donald Trump prepares for the first time to attend as president.
Correspondents' Dinner's biggest moments involve laughs, cringing and high-stakes politics
The White House Correspondents’ Dinner has had multiple iterations since it began a few years after World War I. Washington’s premier soiree...
Correspondents' Dinner's biggest moments involve laughs, cringing and high-stakes politics
The White House Correspondents’ Dinner began a few years after World War I.
Nobody is laughing at Donald Trump anymore
The media-obsessed president’s first White House Correspondents’ Dinner is going to flop. It’s not because of the crowd.
Trump\'s planned appearance bringing renewed scrutiny to annual correspondents\' dinner
For the first time as president, Donald Trump is planning to attend the annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner in Washington this weekend. Some critics can't believe that the reporters
Live Nation's legal woes are masking the opportunity in this entertainment stock
Justin Zacks, senior equity analyst and correspondent at CNBC, explains why Live Nation is in a position to pop as legal overhangs could be overshadowing a large growth opportunity for the live entertainment company.
The intersection of music in sports: behind the curtain
Music and sports are great separately, but when placed together, they create an atmosphere like no other. Correspondent Molly McCleary examines how music in sports, like gymnastics and softball, is essential for both the players and fans.
David Jackson, longtime White House correspondent for USA TODAY, dies
Jackson covered every president from Bill Clinton to Donald Trump, and was a fixture on the campaign trail.
Journalists urge protest of Trump at correspondents' dinner
A coalition of 200-plus journalists and press freedom groups urged the White House Correspondents' dinner organizers to call out Trump at the event.
Shaky political science: using "simulated" elections over real-world elections
[Dear DSOS readers – this article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in early December, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting. We found that many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data, and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first three articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report, the second one analyzing a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report, and a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research]. In this fourth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we shine a spotlight on seven studies that were web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group (the ERRG is an ad hoc committee headed by New America’s Political Reform Program and joined by the American Enterprise Institute, the Unite America Institute and Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law). This research consortium has been led by Lee Drutman, senior fellow with New America’s Political Reform Program. These seven studies are simply not credible from any objective standard about how political “science” is supposed to illuminate our understanding of either ranked choice voting or politics in general. The feature that six of these seven studies have in common is that they all used surveys – artificial, simulated elections -- to attempt to say something cogent or interesting about ranked choice voting (RCV) elections. None of them used real world data from actual RCV elections – either the 1000+ elections in the US or the many thousands of elections from places like Australia, Ireland and elsewhere where RCV has been used for 100 years. While a few of these studies conclude with some mixed positives about RCV, our analysis here is content neutral. The idea that, with a political reform like RCV, you can ask respondents in a mock, artificial election to vote with that method, with only the barest of explanation about how RCV works or its likely impacts (i.e. no spoiler candidates, majority winners, voters liberated to pick their favorite candidates, coalition-building), and then ask them their thoughts/reactions about voting in that system, with fake candidates and no real campaigning, no real exposure to an actual election or actual candidates, rests on some very puzzling assumptions. The findings of these seven studies actually are contradicted by the findings from many other studies based on real-world RCV elections. These New America studies also failed to list the real-world RCV studies in their own citations, instead including those studies that reinforced their conclusions. The seven studies featured in this article were chosen because they form a cohesive cohort which precisely illustrates one of the main points of our research paper, namely that using surveys, i.e. artificial elections, or mathematical/theoretical models, instead of real-world data, is in fact “shaky political science.” Below are summaries of our analysis of five of the seven New America studies. You can read our complete analysis of all seven studies at our paper, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting.” Choosing to “Vote As Usual” by Andre Blais, Carolina Plescia, and Semra Sevi. New America. (Blais et al., 2021). This study, web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group, used two surveys in which respondents completed ballots for simulated elections using plurality, approval, RCV and point (Score) voting. In both cases the authors provided the respondents with only minimal explanation of each method. For example, the entire explanation for RCV was “For this vote, rank the candidates from your first to your last choice (you do not need to rank them all). This is called the ranked vote.” That’s it. The study did not provide any context or explanation to survey respondents about why she/he might want to rank multiple candidates. Participants were not even told that ballots would be tabulated using an “instant” runoff, not to mention any description of RCVs ability to eliminate the spoiler effect or liberate voters to rank their favorite candidates without fear of helping the “greater evil” candidate to win. That’s like taking an iPhone back in time to 1970 and asking someone if they like it better than their rotary phone without explaining how it works. Their first survey targeted states that held 2020 Super Tuesday Democratic primaries and used the real candidates’ names in the survey; the second survey used fictitious candidates. In other words, they surveyed respondents who had only ever participated in plurality elections, had no history or background with using RCV or any of the other methods, had no clue about its likely impacts, and did not communicate how the alternative methods would be counted, and then asked them: “How satisfied are you with using each system?” Predictably, the winner was plurality elections, the system used for president, Congress, gubernatorial and state legislative elections – in other words, the method they have been using, year after year, all their voting lives. With so little explanation of RCV and its impacts, this study is simply not credible in discovering anything useful about real-world RCV elections. It merely shows that a basic voter education campaign is needed when adopting a new election system. Additionally, the result contradicts many other post-election surveys following real RCV elections, asking opinions from voters who had just participated in a RCV election, that showed a great deal of satisfaction with RCV (see details on that in Studies 22-25 in our paper, as well as the four studies cited in the review for Study 28). Share Other studies on “satisfaction” and “understanding” make similar mistakes, in terms of basing their surveys on inadequate explanation to respondents and lack of education about context. How could any survey ever hope to measure accurately, in essence simulate a real-world election, without actual campaigning candidates, the media writing about those candidates, organizations endorsing candidates and voters being inundated with crucial information? More than anything, what these “studies” based on surveys show is that if you ask voters about something they don’t know very much about, and fail to adequately educate them, their responses will unsurprisingly reflect their confusion. Equally puzzling is that New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group, headed by political scientist Lee Drutman, found this to be a credible enough study that they not only published it but highlighted it in Drutman’s own discussion of research related to ranked choice voting. This pattern was repeated in study after study featured by New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group. For example in Ranked-Choice Voting and Political Expression: Voter Guides Narrow the Gap between Informed and Uninformed Citizens by Cheryl Boudreau, Jonathan Colner, and Scott MacKenzie, the researchers based their analysis on a survey which found that respondents who were asked to vote in a simulated RCV election, with minimal explanation of RCV or how it works, displayed less evidence of being informed about how to use RCV effectively, with the least informed voters ranking fewer candidates. As pointed out under the study above, in a real election voters are informed by a wide variety of methods, including public education by the election administration, by interested political groups, the media, and the candidates themselves who benefit from voters being aware of how to vote in the new system. In Support for Ranked-Choice Voting across Race and Partisanship by Joseph Anthony, David C. Kimball, Jack Santucci and Jamil Scott, the researchers used respondents from different parties and races voting in simulated plurality and RCV elections, who indicated their satisfaction with each voting method. Instead of using real world election results, the authors fell back on the easy, armchair and less reliable academic research methodology of making up mock elections. As with the other studies, little explanation was given of how RCV works or what its implications might be (electing majority winners or eliminating spoilers, for example). Unsurprisingly, this study found that respondents were not very satisfied with RCV. However, when the authors added an explanation that RCV has a tendency to elect more women and people of color, they found that this greater explanation increased the preference for RCV. The more voters were familiar with it, and the more they understood potential positive impacts – surprise! -- the more they were open to switching away from the status quo. Of note, the results from this study are thoroughly contradicted by a number of other studies whose data was obtained from real RCV elections with real voters. Those studies show a great deal of satisfaction with RCV. More “fake election” research An interesting wrinkle on this “research by fake elections” approach, which only served to illustrate how unreliable such “research” can become, was taken in Ranked-Choice Voting, Runoff, and Democracy: Insights from Maine and Other U.S. States by Joseph Cerrone and Cynthia McClintock_,_ also web-hosted and funded by New America’s ERRG. It gets high marks for creativity, but an eye-roll for thinking this could possibly add anything meaningful to our understanding of real world RCV elections. This study tried to determine whether RCV, plurality or two-round runoff elections provided greater voter satisfaction and acceptance of election results. To determine that, the authors conducted a survey asking if voters were satisfied with a fictional newspaper report of an election, with three different versions given to respondents – plurality, runoff and RCV, with variations of Republican/Democrat winners and variations of “come-from-behind” winners,” i.e. candidates not initially in first place but who win the “runoff.” Again, a minimal explanation of RCV or how it works was given, and the survey showed that respondents had the greatest unfamiliarity with RCV than the other methods. The unsurprising result? Respondents were much more satisfied with “come-from-behind” victories in a traditional two-round runoff election than in RCV, even though RCV is also a runoff system but with a single round of counting. Interestingly, the dissatisfaction with RCV disappeared for those who were more familiar with RCV. In fact, among those respondents who were “very familiar” with RCV, they were equally satisfied with RCV, runoff and plurality. Surprise, surprise. Again, what this study revealed, more than anything, is not only the inadequacy of the explanation for RCV given by the authors of this study, but the failure of the research format itself, thinking that such an artificial mock election could somehow simulate what actually happens in the real world in a real RCV election. Those four studies reviewed above are fitting examples of inadequate and shaky political “science.” Other studies reviewed in our paper from the New America/Electoral Reform Research Group cohort which also used mock elections included: Ranked-Choice Voting is an Acquired Taste by Joseph Anthony and David C. Kimball. New America. (Anthony et al., 2021). Ranked-Choice Voting is No Refuge for Extreme Candidates by Melissa Baker. New America. (Baker, 2021). Also included in this New America cohort is Does Ranked-Choice Voting Reduce Racial Polarization? by Yuki Atsusaka and Theodore Landsman, which actually did use real-world election results data but applied an odd and unconventional methodology to the data which relied on shaky assumptions and non-real-world scenarios that were too divorced from reality. To determine levels of “racially polarized voting,” the researchers imagined “ethnic parties,” by which they mean political parties for each ethnic group, which was especially odd since the election data they were using came from nonpartisan RCV races. But then they made an even odder assumption, namely that since race and ethnic characteristics of studied voters were not available, the authors tried to infer that information based on who voters selected and the racial make-up of voters in each district. This amounted to little more than vague and ambiguous guesswork dressed up with a bunch of mathematical equations used to give it a veneer of scientific appearance. Indeed, it seemed to assume racial polarization in order to prove racial polarization. Based on this questionable methodology, the authors concluded that RCV doesn’t reduce racial polarization. But the premise of this study missed an obvious reality: since RCV incentivizes more candidates to run and can result in more diverse fields of candidates, one would expect more racially-polarized voting in voters’ top rankings, not less, because more voters would have someone on that ballot who represents their racial or ethnic identity and more freedom to vote for their real first choice. By encouraging more diverse candidates and eliminating the spoiler effect, RCV facilitates voting for a favorite candidate of your own race and then selecting a second choice with the best likelihood of winning. The real measure is what voters do with their additional rankings – do they consider other candidates and vote “for the best of the rest”? This study didn’t tell us anything useful about that. But readily available data shows this is common in real RCV elections, and candidates act on this knowledge by engaging with voters outside their racial group. So the authors of this study failed to consider or account for what actually happens in real-world elections, and their conclusions are tainted by this failure. New America has contributed a great deal over the past 2.5 decades to our understanding of many policy areas, including politics and political reform (full disclosure: Steven Hill, one of the authors of this article and of the “Shaky Political Science” research paper and series, is a former senior fellow and former director of New America’s political reform program, 2005-2010). So it was especially disappointing that New America funded and published such a large batch of dubious studies about ranked choice voting. The stated praiseworthy goal of its Electoral Reform Research Group was to inspire new academic research about ranked choice voting that would shed light and help the public better understand the impacts of RCV. Instead, the ERRG research did just the opposite. It produced dubious research that created more confusion and misinformation. In so doing, New America’s political reform program contributed to “shaky political science.” Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS, a reader-supported digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe
When the CEO Becomes the Brand
Research suggests that Elon Musk’s political stance appears to have reshaped how different groups perceive Tesla. Overall sales trends hint at trouble. The company’s growth stalled in 2024, and deliveries fell 8.5% in 2025. But those headline numbers hide what is happening beneath the surface. When the data is broken down by political orientation and by changes in views of Musk, a more complicated pattern emerges. Among right-leaning respondents and those whose opinion of Musk has improved, Tesla’s brand appeal is significantly higher and willingness to pay exceeds that for many competing brands, including Ford, Chevrolet, and Rivian. Among left-leaning consumers and those whose view of Musk has worsened, the opposite is true: Preference and willingness to pay for Tesla drop sharply. The outcome is not a uniform decline but a polarization of demand. Some consumers appear to feel alienated, while others feel more aligned with the brand. This raises an important strategic question of whether companies can influence purchasing decisions across these divided segments by strengthening the underlying value proposition.
Stars turn out for Science Gala in Los Angeles
Fox News correspondent Max Gorden has the latest on the gala that attracted major stars on 'Fox Report.'
Trump tells PBS News that ‘lots of bombs start going off’ if Iran ceasefire expires
The statement came during a phone call with White House correspondent Liz Landers focused on the Iran war, as a U.S. delegation is preparing for more peace talks.
Video: How JD Vance Is Being Tested as Trump’s Chief Defender
Vice President JD Vance has been tasked with defending the Iran war and President Trump’s attacks on Pope Leo XIV. Our White House correspondent Zolan Kanno-Youngs describes how that’s put Vance in a particularly difficult position.
Politics correspondent examines new California governor's race poll results
Politics and government correspondent Guy Marzorati joined NBC Bay Area’s Raj Mathai to examine the first major statewide poll conducted after Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race.
“AI polls” are fake polls
A few weeks after Donald Trump’s second presidential win, I took the train up from London (where I was living at the time) to Oxford to attend a conference on polls and forecasts of the 2024 election. Most of the attendees were pollsters or academics, but I also watched presentations from Aaru and Electric Twin, two companies that do what is interchangeably called synthetic sampling, silicon sampling, or synthetic audiences. Stripped of startup jargon, that means they use large language models (LLMs) to simulate responses to public opinion polls by having AI agents take on the role of survey respondents. I had already heard of Aaru thanks to some articles with eye-catching headlines like “No people, no problem: AI chatbots predict elections better than humans” in the months leading up to Election Day. The founders were making some big, some might even say far-fetched claims, such as: “within two years, we will simulate the entire globe — from the way crops are grown in Ukraine to how that impacts production of oil in Iraq, trade through the strait of Malacca, and elections for the mayor of Baltimore.” When Semafor asked Aaru’s cofounders — Cameron Fink and Ned Koh — about my boss, they said “we respect all those who came before us.” Nate (as he so often does) shared his thoughts on Twitter: Fink and Koh were relatively good-natured about this back-and-forth when we spoke at Oxford. They even offered to mail me one of the t-shirts featuring Nate’s quote they apparently had made. I never took them up on the offer, which I now somewhat regret. These synthetic sampling companies fell off my radar for a while, but they do still exist. In fact, Aaru recently received a $1 billion valuation. Is what they’re doing anywhere close to the most important frontier in AI development? Not by a longshot, especially when Anthropic just developed a model so adept at exploiting software vulnerabilities that it’s only being released to 40 companies. Still, silicon sampling is increasingly finding its way into public polling. Axios reported in March that “a majority of people trust their own doctors and nurses” based on findings from Aaru — without mentioning that the “people” in that sentence were actually LLMs. Around the same time, the Public Sentiment Institute “boosted” their online sample of 373 real survey respondents with 114 AI agents.1 (Spoiler alert: even the co-founder of Electric Twin doesn’t think that’s a particularly defensible approach.) Polling companies like Qualtrics and Ipsos are also developing synthetic data panels. So, what should we make of these … “polls”? Let’s get one thing out of the way: whatever they are, they’re not polls in the way that term is usually defined. Subscribe You can’t replace polls with AI On one hand, using LLMs to essentially make up fake survey respondents sort of sounds like the dumbest idea ever, one that will at best imperfectly replicate real polls while introducing all sorts of biases. On the other hand, with LLMs improving at a remarkable, perhaps even alarming rate, maybe that means I’m a dinosaur at the ripe old age of 24 because I still want to rely on polls that talk to actual people. I’m not going to argue that synthetic samples are completely useless. In fact, as I’ll return to later, there is evidence that some techniques can replicate topline survey results quickly and cheaply. But the marketing from certain companies can be slightly optimistic. “No traditional poll will exist by the time the next general election occurs,” said Fink in 2024. We’re just 206 days away from the midterms, and based on the fact that I still have to collect a bunch of polls every day, I’d say he should have run that prediction by a sample of AI agents before the interview.2 To see why synthetic samples can’t replace polls, here’s a quick primer on how they work. The simplest version of these models involves taking a LLM (like ChatGPT or Claude), giving it a demographic profile (e.g., a white, college-educated woman who lives in Utah and makes $70k a year), and then asking it to respond to a survey question. You repeat that process a few thousand times using different demographic profiles and end up with a sample of synthetic survey responses. The actual models used by private companies are more sophisticated than this, usually because they incorporate more hypothesized demographic characteristics for each agent and provide them with extra information. Aaru, for example, feeds agents a diet of news and information they’d be likely to consume, while Electric Twin incorporates their customers’ proprietary data about the audience they’re trying to replicate. The way Ben Warner, the co-founder of Electric Twin, explained it to me was “we have a large amount of data on […] for instance, 5,000 people. Can we make an accurate prediction of how they would respond to another question?” Still, it should be obvious why synthetic samples can’t replace polls. Polling is fundamentally a data collection process. We might use surveys to make predictions by feeding them into election forecasts, but the main purpose of a poll isn’t prediction, it’s gathering new data about what people think and how they feel. Silicon sampling, on the other hand, produces no new data. It’s simply a model: you input LLM training data, demographic prompts, and a bunch of other information, and it spits out a prediction for what a poll would say. We love models here, but models aren’t polls. That difference is an important philosophical sticking point for most pollsters I talk to. “I think politics should stay away from [synthetic sampling], because we’re trying to […] represent the voice of the people,” said Natalie Jackson, a vice president at GQR Insights. Democratic pollster John Hagner told me: “I think I’m just incredibly skeptical of this idea. I don’t think it’s research. At that point, you’re asking the machine to tell you what you already believe.” Hagner has seen some presentations of early synthetic sampling experiments, but so far, “if it’s being used in a campaign, people are keeping it incredibly quiet.”3 But Eli, I hear you saying, aren’t polls themselves increasingly governed by modeling decisions? Indeed they are: pollsters’ choices on which sampling method to use, how to define their likely voter models, and how to weight their samples can and do lead to dramatic differences in the results they publish. Aaru even referenced these limitations in the methodology statement included with that maternal mortality “poll” — although I’m using the term “methodology statement” loosely here, because it doesn’t really explain how the model works at all. We can ignore the (frankly preposterous) implication that synthetic sampling isn’t subject to a separate set of biases. The important point is that there’s still a meaningful difference between using weighting and other statistical techniques on actual polling data and using a model to predict what a poll would say. The latter is far closer to election forecasts or techniques like MRP — potentially useful models, but not a replacement for polls.4 To be fair, other synthetic sampling companies are perfectly happy with the distinction between polls and models. Warner compared polling and synthetic sampling to different tools in a toolbox. “The mistake I think we make is we think that these new tools should either work in exactly the same way or somehow replace these old tools,” he said. “Rather than thinking of it as, okay, so we’ve always had the hammer, we’ve always had the screwdriver, now we’ve got a saw. But don’t use a saw to try [to] do the job of a hammer.” A quick comment from Nate Eli didn’t ask me for a comment — rather rude of him, don’t you think? But since I’m editing this story, I figured I’d add a few quick thoughts rather than putting words in his mouth. Beyond the frequently misleading marketing, what bothers me about the AI “poll” hype is that as AI tools make statistical inference cheaper and/or better (note that these are not synonyms) that actually increases the comparative value of collecting original data. You might be able to train a model to make a reasonable estimate of what some hard-to-reach poll respondent would say — say, a young Black man who voted for Trump. (Such a person checks a number of boxes for a voter who is usually hard to reach in surveys.) Indeed, this is closely related to what models like the Silver Bulletin forecast already do. They essentially smooth out the kinks in noisy survey data by making inferences based on past voting patterns or national polls or surveys of other states. But you don’t actually know what these voters think unless you’re reaching them directly. If there’s a shift in opinion among this subgroup, you’re not going to detect it. So if I were running a campaign, I’d invest more in going the extra mile to find a representative sample of those voters. And then I’d hire some smart quants — or Claude? — to figure out the implications for campaign strategy based on proprietary data that my competitors didn’t have access to. -Nate Silver Are these models any good? If synthetic surveys are just a new type of model, the next obvious question is whether the models are at least accurate. The answer very much depends on who you ask. On one end of the spectrum, you have the maximalist argument that synthetic sampling is more accurate than actual polls. “It’s an incredibly challenging problem to go to someone and say ‘hey, we’re going to be more accurate at predicting human behavior than you, even when you talk to your customers directly’,” Koh recently told CNBC. In his view, synthetic sampling isn’t a saw to polling’s hammer, it’s “magic.” There’s certainly evidence that synthetic samples can replicate certain survey toplines. But if Aaru does have any examples of their approach outperforming the polls, they’re keeping those to themselves.5 Aaru’s 2024 election model, for example, had Kamala Harris leading in Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on November 4th. And although they’ve since taken down their forecast page, they gave Harris a 50.5 percent chance of winning the race on November 2nd.6 After the election, Fink told Semafor he was happy enough with those results because they were “within margin of error,” a term that is completely meaningless when applied to a “sample” of AI agents. And of course, Aaru says their models have improved since 2024, so supposedly now they’d be more accurate than the polls? Still, their stronger argument is on cost: “We are significantly faster and cheaper than traditional polling, and still more accurate,” said Fink. The first two claims are undeniably true, but the third brings us to the opposite end of the spectrum. Both Jackson and Hagner are skeptical that these models are reliable for anything beyond replicating common survey toplines. “I just […] don’t think the machines are what we want when we’re looking for nuanced views. My example on this is people in Arizona and Nevada in 2024 who voted for Trump and voted for expanding abortion in their states on ballot initiatives,” said Jackson. Hagner identified another issue. Maybe the synthetic respondents, like sycophantic LLMs, are inhuman in one important way: they’re too nice. “The reports that have come through at the meetings that I’ve been at are that the early experiments on this, they cannot get respondents to be as racist or sexist or, frankly, as negative as human respondents,” he said. Academic research mostly agrees on this point. While there are some papers that show promising results when using LLMs to replicate polling data, most show that LLMs suffer from various quirks like producing too few “don’t know” responses and can seriously overpredict the favorability of politicians like Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. They also seem to struggle with too little variation between demographic subgroups, so the difference in predicted opinion between Democrats and Republicans, for example, is too small. When I asked Warner about these studies, his response to these papers was that just because academics can’t get synthetic sampling to work doesn’t mean that the technique doesn’t work in general. “Actually, the argument is, okay, yours does not [work]. That does not mean […] for this complex set of machinery, which uses a lot of investment, a lot of time, a lot of money, you can’t get it to work.” Cards on the table, I’m somewhat sympathetic to this argument because academics aren’t exactly great at making election forecasts. Usually, the people with skin in the game are the most accurate. Warner’s argument is that the approach Electric Twin takes — which includes, for example, making multiple predictions for each synthetic respondent using different models and prompts and subsequently averaging those to get a final prediction in a sort of ensemble forecast — produces better results than the simpler academic models. Warner shared a comparison between his method and the method from a recent academic paper with me, and Electric Twin was indeed able to get more accurate replication. But even still, he acknowledged that synthetic sampling “is not a crystal ball.” “If you asked me, do I think using other data sources will be more accurate than asking somebody who they will vote for, I would probably say no. But if you asked me ‘would your system be useful for our turnout modeling today?’ I would say yes.” For better or worse, it looks like the method is already getting more popular in the market research world. Most of the clients Aaru touts these days are businesses like EY and McDonald’s. And AI will probably begin to pop up in other parts of the political polling process. Pollsters are already using it to code open-ended survey responses, and some firms, like YouGov, are testing using LLMs to ask survey respondents questions. More worryingly, one danger to actual polls is that AI agents can be used to infiltrate online surveys. Most online polls use various checks to prevent that from happening, but there’s conflicting evidence on how effective those filters are and how prevalent AI agents currently are in online panels. If those agents ever become impossible to detect, it might spell the end of online polling, but the solution isn’t to replace all of your respondents with ChatGPT. Silver Bulletin is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber. Subscribe 1 That particular poll obviously doesn’t meet Silver Bulletin standards for aggregation. But we exclude all Public Sentiment Institute polls from our averages because we classify them as an amateur polling firm. 2 You could argue that Fink meant the next presidential election, but (a) I’m also confident we’ll still have real polls in 2028 and (b) in that case he should have asked an LLM to define “general election.” 3 Quick caveat: that’s reporting from a Democratic pollster. It’s possible that Republicans are more willing to use AI in political campaigns. 4 Indeed, Silver Bulletin does not include “polls” produced by MRP in our forecasts or averages, and we think it’s extremely misleading when their practitioners describe them in a way that suggests original data had been collected among a large number of states or Congressional districts. 5 A recent report from Aaru and EY did show two examples of a synthetic estimate being closer than a survey to a real-world benchmark — but I’d take those findings with a grain of salt because the report reads more like an ad and didn’t involve any sort of prediction being made ahead of time. 6 For comparison, our odds for Harris on the same day were 48.2 percent.
Federal judge releases man after 2 immigration judges disobey order
A federal judge released a man from immigration detention on Thursday after two different immigration judges disobeyed his order in the same case. “At this point, the Court has granted Respondents two bites at the apple to prove detention of Petitioner was warranted,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Gordon P. Gallagher. “It will not allow […]
Poll: Colorado Gov. Jared Polis loses support among Democrats
Gov. Jared Polis is losing steam among members of his party, particularly progressive Democrats, according to a recent poll. Other statewide Democrats also saw their favorability ratings drop, though relatively stable compared to the governor’s numbers, the poll conducted by the Colorado Polling Institute in late March said. Forty-four percent of respondents said they view […]
Revealed – Insurance Business America’s 5-Star Wholesale Brokers and MGAs 2026
Respondents evaluated each partner against 10 criteria
Protein is personal. Here's how to calculate your optimal intake
Protein is having a moment. Coffee chains are adding it into lattes. Many snack companies are labeling their products as high-protein. But how much protein do you really need? Host Marielle Segarra talks with NPR health correspondent Allison Aubrey about the different factors to consider when planning your protein intake.Follow us on Instagram: @nprlifekitSign up for our newsletter here.Have an episode idea or feedback you want to share? Email us at lifekit@npr.orgSupport the show and listen to it sponsor-free by signing up for Life Kit+ at plus.npr.org/lifekit
Close Up: Highlighting women in history and Iowa politics
The contributions of female pioneers in Iowa's political history and their ongoing impact, and a candid conversation with CBS News Correspondent Norah O'Donnell
Most say Trump administration has not done enough to ‘Make America Healthy Again’: Survey
Most Americans say the Trump administration has not done enough to “Make America Healthy Again, (MAHA),” according to a Monday poll. In the Politico poll, 52 percent of respondents said the a…
Democrats’ long-shot bid to flip Alaska’s Senate seat
Democrats are hoping for an upset in Alaska’s Senate race. U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola, a Democrat, is trying to unseat Republican incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan. We discuss the major issues at play, plus why Republicans are backing an effort to repeal Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system.This episode: voting correspondent Miles Parks, senior political editor and correspondent Domenico Montanaro, and Alaska Public Media Washington correspondent Liz Ruskin.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye.Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.
Watch: Affordability Plagues Health Care in Its Shift From Nonprofit to Profit Machine
On “What the Health? From KFF Health News,” distributed by WAMU, chief Washington correspondent and host Julie Rovner sat down with Drew Altman, president and CEO of KFF, to talk about the likelihood of a national health care debate.
Researchers surveyed by STAT detail the scientific and personal toll of grant cuts: ‘This can't be how it ends’
STAT interviews with 30 respondents brought the unmistakably human impacts of federal science policy into sharp focus. Here are three of those stories.
Issues & Ale: It's Just Politics
Join Michigan Public's Political Director Zoe Clark, Senior Capitol Correspondent Rick Pluta, and their FAQ Squad panelists as they give you the facts of the upcoming election cycle!
The race for a safe Democratic House seat offers clues about the party’s future
It’s Primary Day in Illinois, where 15 Democrats, spanning three generations, are vying to succeed longtime Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky in the state's 9th Congressional District. We discuss what the race tells us about the future of the Democratic Party.This episode: senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith, political reporter Elena Moore, and senior political editor and correspondent Domenico Montanaro.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.
POLITICO Correspondent reports the WH wants countries to ‘participate performatively’ in Strait of Hormuz
These swing voters don’t like or understand the reason for the war in Iran
NPR reporters observed focus groups of 12 swing voters from Michigan. We discuss their thoughts on the war in Iran and what they wish President Trump would focus on.This episode: voting correspondent Miles Parks, political correspondent Ashley Lopez, and senior national political correspondent Mara Liasson.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye.Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.
Millions of Americans are skipping meals or cutting back on utilities to afford health care
Roughly one-third of respondents – equivalent to more than 82 million Americans – said they have had to cut back on at least one daily living expense to cover their health care bills, according to a new survey.
National People's Congress: China's biggest political meeting is ending - what have we learned?
BBC correspondents give us their biggest takeaways from China's National People's Congress.
The toll the war in Iran has on the U.S. economy
The United States’ war in Iran is roiling global oil markets. We discuss how that affects the American economy — not just at the gas pump — and how those economic challenges are playing in this year’s elections.This episode: voting correspondent Miles Parks, chief economics correspondent Scott Horsley, and senior political editor and correspondent Domenico Montanaro.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye.Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.
ICE is keeping tabs on American citizens
Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been using a variety of tools to keep tabs on not just immigrants the agency intends to deport but also U.S. citizens who publicly oppose the agency’s tactics. We discuss what that surveillance looks like and what the impact is for people whose activity the agency has tracked. This episode: voting correspondent Miles Parks, reporter Kat Lonsdorf, and power and influence reporter Jude Joffe-Block.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye.Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.
New NAACP, Sanofi Report Unveils Roadmap for Advancing Health Equity Across the Country
The NAACP, in collaboration with Sanofi, released the findings of the ACE Your Health Community Wellness Survey, one of the largest contemporary grassroots assessments of community health resources in the United States. The report, with nearly 23,000 respondents across 47 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, provides insights into the real-world conditions that drive health outcomes, from the quality of housing and access to transportation to the pervasive impact of chronic stress.
'Entertainment Tonight' Names Emily Curl As NY-Based Correspondent
'Entertainment Tonight' has brought on Emily Curl as a New York–based correspondent. She begins her new role today, March 9.
Poll: Most Americans oppose war in Iran, but most Republicans support it
A majority of Americans oppose the United States' military action in Iran, according to a new NPR/PBS News/Marist poll. However, that opposition breaks down along party lines, with a majority of Republicans saying they support the war. We discuss whether the lack of public support could alter President Trump's next steps and how the war could affect this year's midterm elections.This episode: voting correspondent Miles Parks, senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith, and senior political editor and correspondent Domenico Montanaro.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.
Mentalist Oz Pearlman reads Dana Bash’s mind ahead of his performance at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner
Tim Cook Says Two Things Matter Most at Apple Ahead of Company's 50th Anniversary
CBS Sunday Morning correspondent David Pogue interviewed Apple's CEO Tim Cook ahead of the company's 50th anniversary on April 1, 2026. In the interview, Cook revealed the two things that are "essential" to Apple: people and culture. "Yes, we have a lot of intellectual property and so forth, and that is important, but it's people that create that intellectual property," said Cook.
Poll: Primary voters prize ideology over electability, as their parties get low marks
A higher share of Democratic voters than Republican voters prioritize backing primary candidates who can win, but poll respondents say it's complicated.
Justice Department releases missing Epstein files related to Trump
It was another busy week in Washington. We discuss Kristi Noem getting fired from her position as Secretary of Homeland Security and the new release of missing Epstein files related to President Trump. Note: This episode contains descriptions of sexual assault. This episode: senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith, immigration policy correspondent Ximena Bustillo, political reporter Stephen Fowler and senior political editor and correspondent Domenico Montanaro.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and edited by Rachel Baye. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.
Why is the U.S. at war with Iran?
In less than a week, the Trump administration’s justifications for the war in Iran have already changed several times, as have the administration’s goals for what it wants to accomplish. We discuss both, plus what could come next.This episode: senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith, national security correspondent Greg Myre, and senior national political correspondent Mara Liasson.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and edited by Rachel Baye. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.
Breaking down the top 10 upcoming promotions for NC State sports
Every year, NC State’s athletics program brings out promotions that range from raising awareness on important issues to fun opportunities for kids. Correspondent Molly McCleary previews the most exciting among them.
Runoffs, voting mishaps and Trump endorsements in TX and NC primaries
The results are in from the first primaries of the midterm election cycle, and Senate races are starting to take shape. We discuss key takeaways from primary contests in North Carolina and Texas.This episode: senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith, political correspondent Ashley Lopez, and senior political editor and correspondent Domenico Montanaro.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye.Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.
The global fallout of RFK Jr's vaccine policies
In his role as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is changing how the United States approaches vaccines. But those changes aren’t limited to the United States. NPR global health correspondent Gabrielle Emanuel joins Short Wave to talk about two examples of how the global public health landscape may be shifting. First, the United States’ ultimatum to an international vaccine group. Second, the uncertain fate of a vaccine trial. Some researchers are calling the trial a “unique” opportunity, and others are calling it “unethical.” Read more of global health correspondent Gabrielle Emanuel’s work here.Interested in more global health? Email us your question at shortwave@npr.org.Listen to every episode of Short Wave sponsor-free and support our work at NPR by signing up for Short Wave+ at plus.npr.org/shortwave.
CalMatters named a finalist in Toner Prize for Excellence in Local Political Reporting
The Toner Prizes, awarded by the Newhouse School, recognize the best political reporting and are named after Robin Toner ’76, the first woman to hold the position of national political correspondent for The New York Times.
Newcastle are 'underwhelming' but is Woltemade a problem?
Newcastle striker Nick Woltemade has struggled to find form in recent months, scoring just once in his past 19 appearances, and it has led to a lot of criticism of the summer signing by fans and media pundits. BBC Radio 5 Live's Monday Night Club's panel of former Premier League defender Nedum Onuoha and Observer football correspondent Rory Smith discussed how how proportionate the blame is on Woltemade in a disappointing league campaign for the Magpies so far. "When I saw him in Germany, everyone was talking about how he's not a traditional number nine because he's massive but not great in the air," said Onuoha.
Trump says he'll attend White House correspondents' dinner for his first time as president
President Donald Trump says he'll attend this year's White House Correspondent Association dinner on April 25, marking the first time he's done so as commander-in-chief.
U.S. and Israel strike Iran. Here's what we know
From the NPR podcast Sources and Methods:Overnight, the United States and Israel launched military strikes against Iran.The strikes targeted Iran’s top leaders, Supreme Leader Khamanei and President Masoud Pezeshkian — trying to kill them, according to a person briefed on Israel’s operation who spoke to NPR. Iran has responded by lobbing missiles at Israel and other countries in the region that host U.S. troops.Host Mary Louise Kelly speaks with Greg Myre, NPR national security correspondent, and Daniel Estrin, NPR international correspondent based in Tel Aviv, about what they know and what could come next.
FCC probes sports streaming deals amid rising consumer costs
FOX Business correspondent Darren Botelho reports on the FCC’s probe into sports streaming deals and whether they are driving up costs and limiting access for consumers on 'The Bottom Line.'
Why bipartisanship is disappearing from Congress
The nationwide push to redraw congressional districts mid-decade has not led to a big advantage for either political party, but it has created less competitive districts. We discuss how that reduces bipartisanship on Capitol Hill, and we discuss one lawmaker who seems to buck that trend.This episode: voting correspondent Miles Parks, congressional reporter Sam Gringlas, and political correspondent Ashley Lopez.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye.Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.
Is the FCC 'equal time' rule leading to media censorship
The Federal Communications Commission is investigating ABC over its show The View's airing of an interview with a Texas politician. Stephen Colbert moved his interview with the same candidate off broadcast, all because of the FCC’s "equal time" rule. We discuss the rule, possible changes to it, and how it could all affect the way Americans get their information.This episode: voting correspondent Miles Parks, media correspondent David Folkenflik, and senior political editor and correspondent Domenico Montanaro.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye.Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.
Key takeaways from President Trump's State of the Union address
President Trump delivered his first State of the Union address of his second term Tuesday night. We break down what he said, what his political messaging was, and how it previews the administration's goals through the midterm elections. We also analyze how the Democrats responded.This episode: senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith, congressional reporter Sam Gringlas, senior political editor & correspondent Domenico Montanaro, and senior national political correspondent Mara Liasson.This podcast was produced and edited by Casey Morell & Bria Suggs.Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Special thanks to Kelsey Snell, Natalie Winston and Neil Tevault.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.
What to watch in the race for North Carolina's open Senate seat
North Carolina’s primary election is next week, and early voting is already underway. We discuss what to watch in the race for the state's open Senate seat and a competitive Democratic primary in the state's 4th congressional district.This episode: voting correspondent Miles Parks, political correspondent Ashley Lopez, and WUNC Capitol Bureau Chief Colin Campbell.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye.Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.
PHOTOS: South Meck vs. Hough in Greater Charlotte finals
South Mecklenburg played Hough in the Greater Charlotte 7A/8A conference tournament championship game Friday at Hopewell High School. Photos by Bill Kiser, correspondent