A big ‘un. A humdinger, game changer, end of the world, etc., etc.
Yeah, from a Democrat’s perspective, it was bad. Kamala Harris lost decisively to Donald Trump, a man barren of morals who encouraged a deadly insurrection on our capital, flouted the law repeatedly, and made bullying the hallmark of his campaign.
We have learned many lessons from this election, and from Mr. Trump, but I’m not going to dwell on those today. All I’ll say is that the American people will tolerate a level of dishonesty, crass behavior and immorality previously thought disqualifying for any presidential candidate.
With Republicans heading toward control of all three branches of government, we will see a transformation of our country over the next two years that could devastate the environment, public health and yes, even consumer prices.
Shall we forever more remember that it is, indeed, the economy, stupid. And well, immigration.
But let’s move on. It’s not all doom and gloom for Democrats, at least on the state and local levels, partly because North Carolina has a delightful habit of going for yin and yang when it comes to elections. This time we went solidly for Trump as president but overwhelmingly for Democrat Josh Stein as governor.
And on the Council of State, Democrats won a bunch of offices: lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state and superintendent of public instruction. Republicans won these: state auditor, agriculture commissioner, insurance commissioner, labor commissioner and treasurer.
“(Democrats) won half, so they gained a seat on the Council of State,” Western Carolina University political scientist Chris Cooper said last week. (I’m required by law to shoot the bull with Cooper after every major election.) “They kept the First Congressional District, which was the only competitive district in the state. They clawed back the super majority.”
“It was not a bad night for Democrats in North Carolina,” Cooper said.
Hey, we’re not blue, but we’re kind of purplish. OK, maybe mauve. Ish.
Hey, we still have two very conservative U.S. senators. But the Dems’ success on the state level remains notable.
“The song remains the same, as Led Zeppelin said,” Cooper said, referring to our dual personality and purple streak. “It’s the same story. What’s interesting or different is that some other states joined us.”
In 2020, only five Democrats won election when they were on the same statewide ballot as Trump, and four of those were in the state of North Carolina, Cooper said.
“This time, there were some Democrats who still were elected in Trump states, and it’s because he won all the battlegrounds,” Cooper said.
But let’s get back to the super-majority issue, and the governor’s veto, probably the election’s most important development.
For the past several years, Gov. Roy Cooper’s vetoes have been mostly meaningless, as the Republicans could override them at will, thanks to a super majority provided by Mecklenburg Rep. Tricia Cotham, who switched from Democrat to Republican in 2023.
Having a Democratic governor with real veto power is huge for progressives and the future of state legislation, Cooper said.
“I think the Stein victory is, of course, important, and we saw it coming,” Western Carolina University political scientist Chris Cooper said. “But it means so much more for the Democrats because it comes in conjunction with breaking the super majority.” // Photo credit: Western Carolina University
“I think the Stein victory is, of course, important, and we saw it coming,” Cooper said. “But it means so much more for the Democrats because it comes in conjunction with breaking the super majority.”
The veto is the “one legislative tool that the governor has in his toolbox, and if the Republicans had maintained the super majority, they could have overridden his veto without a single Democrat on their side,” Cooper said.
“So in practice, that means they could pass any legislation they wanted without a single Democrat agreeing,” Cooper continued. “It would have been a one-party state in terms of the legislation coming out of Raleigh.”
So, that’s pretty huge.
Another takeaway from this election is that Buncombe County is more Democratic than ever, even in the one territory Republicans made an effort to claim through favorable redistricting, House District 115, where Rep. Lindsey Prather, D-Buncombe, was the incumbent. She ran against Republican Ruth Smith, pulling out a victory with 51.4 percent of the vote.
Incumbent Democratic Rep. Lindsay Prather, shown on the House Floor in June 2023, prevailed in House District 11 against Republican Ruth Smith. // Credit: North Carolina General Assembly
As Cooper said, “It was close, but it wasn’t,” as Prather’s victory is safely out of recount territory.
“In that district, based on the 2020 vote, it favored the Republican Party by a few percent, so really, she outperformed her district by probably five percentage points,” Cooper said. “I think the reality is that probably means the district’s changed since 2020 — more people moving in. It’s liberalizing.”
Cooper is skeptical that another Republican will make it to the North Carolina House in Buncombe County in the foreseeable future.
On the flip side, I don’t see a Democrat going to Congress from the 11th District in my lifetime. (And yes, let’s hope that’s longer than, say, five or 10 years.) Democrat Caleb Rudow challenged incumbent Chuck Edwards, who delivered a beatdown, winning just less than 57 percent of the vote — and I thought Rudow ran a good campaign and was a very likable candidate.
Incumbent Chuck Edwards, right, easily beat Democratic challenger Caleb Rudow, winning 61 percent of the vote. // Photo credits: Watchdog photo by Starr Sariego, official congressional portrait 2023
Football hero Heath Shuler, a former NFL quarterback and Swain County native, was the last Democrat to hold that office, and he was essentially a Republican in many regards. Unless Shuler wants to run again, look for Edwards to stay in as long as he wants.
Speaking of beatdowns, Amanda Edwards put one on former Buncombe County Sheriff Van Duncan, who ran as an unaffiliated candidate in their race for the chair of the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners, taking 60.7 percent of the vote to Duncan’s 39.3. Duncan, a former Democrat, left the party after he said it essentially left him by drifting too far left.
Edwards hammered Duncan on his acceptance of a $125,000 retirement payout or retention bonus (depending on your point of view). But I don’t think that’s what did in Duncan, who was a highly popular sheriff.
Democrat Amanda Edwards crushed Van Duncan, who ran as an unaffiliated candidate, in their race for the chair of the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners. // Photo Credits: Buncombe County and John Boyle
I think what got him is he ran as an unaffiliated candidate in a very Democratic County and didn’t have any party backing.
Cooper has written a lot about unaffiliated candidates and how they have a steep uphill battle in North Carolina, first to even get on the ballot and then to actually win.
“It just shows unaffiliated candidates can’t win,” Cooper said. “Four years, maybe two years from now, we’ll have another person read ‘Don Quixote’ and start tilting at windmills.”
“He was the best possible unaffiliated candidate and he didn’t come close,” Cooper said.
Which brings me to the end of today’s column.
Let’s start talking about that 2028 race! I can’t wait for the text messages to start!
[Correction: An earlier version of this column misidentified the House district in which Rep. Lindsey Prather, D-Buncombe, was the incumbent and the victor. It is District 115. The column also misstated Chuck Edwards’s percentage of the vote total in his race against Caleb Rudow. He won just less than 57 percent.]
Asheville Watchdog is a nonprofit news team producing stories that matter to Asheville and Buncombe County. John Boyle has been covering Asheville and surrounding communities since the 20th century. You can reach him at (828) 337-0941, or via email at jboyle@avlwatchdog.org. The Watchdog’s local reporting during this crisis is made possible by donations from the community. To show your support for this vital public service go to avlwatchdog.org/support-our-publication/.
www.thecentersquare.com – By David Beasley | The Center Square contributor – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 21:25:00
(The Center Square) – Authorization of sports agents to sign North Carolina’s collegiate athletes for “name, image, and likeness” contracts used in product endorsements is in legislation approved Wednesday by a committee of the state Senate.
Authorize NIL Agency Contracts, known also as Senate Bill 229, is headed to the Rules Committee after gaining favor in the Judiciary Committee. It would likely next get a full floor vote.
Last year the NCAA approved NIL contracts for players.
Sen. Amy S. Galey, R-Alamance
NCLeg.gov
“Athletes can benefit from NIL by endorsing products, signing sponsorship deals, engaging in commercial opportunities and monetizing their social media presence, among other avenues,” the NCAA says on its website. “The NCAA fully supports these opportunities for student-athletes across all three divisions.”
SB229 spells out the information that the agent’s contract with the athlete must include, and requires a warning to the athlete that they could lose their eligibility if they do not notify the school’s athletic director within 72 hours of signing the contract.
“Consult with your institution of higher education prior to entering into any NIL contract,” the says the warning that would be required by the legislation. “Entering into an NIL contract that conflicts with state law or your institution’s policies may have negative consequences such as loss of athletic eligibility. You may cancel this NIL agency contract with 14 days after signing it.”
The legislation also exempts the NIL contracts from being disclosed under the state’s Open Records Act when public universities review them. The state’s two ACC members from the UNC System, Carolina and N.C. State, requested the exemption.
“They are concerned about disclosure of the student-athlete contracts when private universities don’t have to disclose the student-athlete contracts,” Sen. Amy Galey, R-Alamance, told the committee. “I feel very strongly that a state university should not be put at a disadvantage at recruitment or in program management because they have disclosure requirements through state law.”
Duke and Wake Forest are the other ACC members, each a private institution.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article primarily reports on the legislative development regarding NIL (name, image, and likeness) contracts for collegiate athletes in North Carolina. It presents facts about the bill, committee actions, and includes statements from a state senator without using loaded or emotionally charged language. The piece neutrally covers the issue by explaining both the bill’s purpose and the concerns it addresses, such as eligibility warnings and disclosure exemptions. Overall, the article maintains a factual and informative tone without advocating for or against the legislation, reflecting a centrist, unbiased approach.
SUMMARY: Donald van der Vaart, a former North Carolina environmental secretary and climate skeptic, has been appointed to the North Carolina Utilities Commission by Republican Treasurer Brad Briner. Van der Vaart, who previously supported offshore drilling and fracking, would oversee the state’s transition to renewable energy while regulating utility services. His appointment, which requires approval from the state House and Senate, has drawn opposition from environmental groups. Critics argue that his views contradict clean energy progress. The appointment follows a controversial bill passed by the legislature, granting the treasurer appointment power to the commission.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 14:47:00
(The Center Square) – Called “crypto-friendly legislation” by the leader of the chamber, a proposal on digital assets on Wednesday afternoon passed the North Carolina House of Representatives.
Passage was 71-44 mostly along party lines.
The NC Digital Assets Investments Act, known also as House Bill 92, has investment requirements, caps and management, and clear definitions and standards aimed at making sure only qualified digital assets are included. House Speaker Destin Hall, R-Caldwell, said the state would potentially join more than a dozen others with “crypto-friendly legislation.”
With him in sponsorship are Reps. Stephen Ross, R-Alamance, Mark Brody, R-Union, and Mike Schietzelt, R-Wake.
Nationally last year, the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act – known as FIT21 – passed through the U.S. House in May and in September was parked in the Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.
Dan Spuller, cochairman of the North Carolina Blockchain Initiative, said the state has proven a leader on digital asset policy. That includes the Money Transmitters Act of 2016, the North Carolina Regulatory Sandbox Act of 2021, and last year’s No Centrl Bank Digital Currency Pmts to State. The latter was strongly opposed by Gov. Roy Cooper, so much so that passage votes of 109-4 in the House and 39-5 in the Senate slipped back to override votes, respectively, of 73-41 and 27-17.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article presents a factual report on the passage of the NC Digital Assets Investments Act, highlighting the legislative process, party-line votes, and related legislative measures. It does not adopt a clear ideological stance or frame the legislation in a way that suggests bias. Instead, it provides neutral information on the bill, its sponsors, and relevant background on state legislative activity in digital asset policy. The tone and language remain objective, focusing on legislative facts rather than promoting a particular viewpoint.
