If being pro-business growth makes one not progressive, and Carter was the progressive candidate, then one is suggesting that Carter therefore has to be against business growth. Let's talk about actual policies, accomplishments and implementable ideas, not just labels and buzzwords.

And next time someone says she's not as progressive, please define what this means? Cause all I am seeing is that because she talks about the importance of business growth in our city that she is somehow center left. Being pro business growth is not antithetical to progressivism.

Will someone please tell me what exactly makes Melvin Carter more progressive than Kaohly Her? It's just not true. For anything that he did that anyone might call "more progressive" - did she oppose it? What is not progressive on her record? I believe this is just a labeling rationalization.

And when you look at the numbers, roughly 30,000 votes each, with a margin of about 1,800, it’s not “barely winning.” It’s 30,000-plus people choosing not to vote for Melvin Carter, even as an incumbent. That’s a decisive outcome and a clear mandate for change. (5/5)

Her campaign built a coalition that expanded the electorate and tapped into long-standing frustrations with Melvin Carter's leadership. That’s not a fluke or a “close call”; it’s effective organizing and a signal of shifting priorities across St. Paul. (4/5)

This wasn’t about one special interest or one demographic group. Reducing it to that is dismissive and I believe it undermines voters’ agency and implies they’re low-information or that she got lucky. (3/5)

Kaohly Her entered the race in August and went from zero votes to unseating a two-term incumbent with deep networks and name recognition. That’s not a small feat; it reflects real organizing strength and a clear appetite for change. (2/5)

I think framing it as “she won by relatively little”, or trying to explain it away by pointing to certain interest or demographic groups, completely misses the point. (1/5)