Sergio Gor’s expected departure from a key role in the White House, where he has vetted thousands of candidates for political jobs as the influential leader of the Presidential Personnel Office, is raising some questions about how his litmus tests and isolationist views will compare to his newly announced replacement, particularly with regard to national security hires.

Gor, 38, was nominated by President Donald Trump last week to be U.S. ambassador to India. If confirmed by the Senate, Gor, who was also tapped as special envoy for South and Central Asian affairs, will leave behind a powerful post at which he built a reputation as an ideological gatekeeper. 

Throughout his time in the White House, Gor has drawn attention for his unyielding focus on loyalty to Trump and — more singularly — a fierce commitment to elevating national security and foreign policy hires who share his skepticism of American engagement abroad.

His successor, Dan Scavino, as the White House confirmed this week, is likewise a longtime Trump confidant who now serves as White House deputy chief of staff. But unlike Gor — whose background suggests an interest in imposing ideological litmus tests on job applicants  — Scavino, 49, “has no ideology other than Trump,” according to a former top administration official.

Even as Gor has won plaudits from a range of high-ranking officials in the administration, the former official, who spoke anonymously to address a sensitive subject, suggested his approach to the White House role has been driven by his foreign policy worldview as well as his allegiance to the president, a tension that is unlikely to be replicated by Scavino.

“Sergio brought his own world with him to the job, not just Trump’s,” the former official told Jewish Insider on Wednesday. “Loyal to Trump, yes — loyal to a Paul-Tucker-Koch world ideology, I think yes as well,” he added, referring to Gor’s former boss Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), podcast host Tucker Carlson and the activist network linked with Charles Koch, a leading conservative donor who has opposed Trump.

By contrast, Scavino, a former Trump golf club manager who has previously run the president’s prolific and unfiltered social media, seems to have few, if any, competing interests at stake. “There’s a reason Dan has a seat in the Situation Room when the toughest decisions are made,” the former Trump official elaborated. “Sergio never did. This should be a positive development for vetting and placement.”

It remains to be seen which positions Scavino will still need to help staff when he fully assumes Gor’s duties — especially with “over 95%” of departments and agencies now “filled,” according to a statement from Trump last week, which could not be verified.

“There is much still to be done, and Dan’s leadership will ensure the highest quality, most dedicated workforce ever,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said in a statement, calling Scavino “one of Trump’s most trusted and longest serving advisors.”

In his tenure, Gor, a former top aide to Paul, the libertarian Republican from Kentucky, has helped weaken the National Security Council and worked to install Pentagon officials who have pressed for a reduced U.S. military presence in the Middle East — fueling concerns among pro-Israel leaders who have questioned if such views were aligned with Trump’s approach.

The personnel chief, whose efforts highlighted an intra-party battle between warring traditional and MAGA Republican factions that has recently grown less fractious as the administration has taken shape, also promoted officials affiliated with the libertarian Koch network, in spite of a directive from Trump upon his reelection to avoid “people who worked with, or are endorsed by” the Charles Koch or his political advocacy group.

More recently, Gor has prominently clashed with some top Trump allies, including Elon Musk and Michael Anton, the State Department’s director of policy planning who served as a technical lead amid failed nuclear negotiations with Iran. Anton, who is now expected to leave the administration soon, has reportedly grown frustrated with Gor’s rejections of his proposed hires, among other sources of tension first detailed by Politico on Wednesday. 

“He has the power to can people and for them not to get through,” one Trump official who has interacted with Gor and was not authorized to comment on the record said of his current role.

Meanwhile, Gor has advanced some officials widely criticized for espousing racist and antisemitic views, including Darren Beattie, who was fired in Trump’s first term for speaking at a white nationalist event and is now a top official in the State Department.

Beattie’s promotion, along with others who have drawn scrutiny for extreme views, underscores how Gor has been “clearing people who are unclearable,” said a former senior Republican Hill aide, who was granted anonymity in order to speak freely. “Sergio is obviously fine with that,” he said of Beattie’s past comments.

Trump, who in a social media post announcing his nomination last week called Gor’s time in the White House “essential” to upholding the administration’s agenda, said the personnel director would remain in his current role until his confirmation in the Senate, which has not yet scheduled a hearing.

A White House spokesperson confirmed to JI on Wednesday that Gor will stay in his post pending Senate approval for the ambassadorial role, which comes amid growing tensions between the United States and India, a major ally, over Trump’s tariff threats.

As Gor now prepares to leave the White House for a more public role, Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, suggested his approach to hiring ultimately demonstrated how he struggled to evolve with the administration on key issues.

“I think that the Trump administration has settled into a routine, and I think that people who are very ideologically rigid are finding less and less space for themselves,” Pletka told JI. “The president is not an isolationist, and those who are are discovering quickly that he does not appreciate being told how his staff have a stronger America first agenda than he does.”

It’s notable that Democrats are still relying on experienced, brand-name candidates a bit past their political prime as top recruits for key Senate races. 

Former Sen. Sherrod Brown, now 72, is seeking a political comeback after losing his reelection bid last year in Ohio. Former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper is pursuing a career change to the Senate at 68 years old. Maine Gov. Janet Mills is being recruited into the Senate race against Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) even though she’s 77.

To be sure, these are the strongest challengers Democrats could muster in these three must-win battleground states. All are popular statewide officials with a history of winning support from outside the party base. It’s hard to name any other Democratic candidate more capable of flipping these GOP-held seats than the aforementioned recruits. 

But there’s another more uncomfortable reality that is drawing the Democrats towards their stars of yesteryear. In today’s fractured media environment, it’s incredibly hard for a new face to emerge and get the type of publicity rising stars would generate from “earned media” on television and in the press, as was common in the recent past.  

And given the declining influence of such mainstream platforms, the best way to get attention is by playing to the party’s activist base on social media. It’s how Zohran Mamdani broke through a comparatively dull field of challengers in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary. Going viral is becoming a prerequisite in today’s politics, and the best way to go viral is to play to the extremes — or to, like California Gov. Gavin Newsom, emulate President Donald Trump’s online bullying and trolling.

If you don’t have name identification built up from a career in politics, it’s hard to register any other way these days. And it’s exceptionally hard to break through the noise if you’re a thoughtful moderate.

It’s why we’re seeing a slew of Democratic candidates popping up who are looking to capture the anti-establishment mood within the party amid the desire for a younger generation of leadership. At the same time, most of these change-focused candidates also hold political views that are well out of the mainstream. 

Take Democrat Graham Platner, the 40-year-old Maine oyster farmer and former bartender who is disrupting the party efforts to recruit Mills into the Senate race. He exudes authenticity, and is a political outsider who has never run for elective office before. But his support for government-run health care and apparent hostility towards Israel, to name a few issues, would certainly make it harder for him to win over the moderate-minded voters that Collins has easily secured in past elections.

That would be the case in any battleground state or district: Nominate a candidate who captures the imagination of the progressive base, and odds are they’ll be less electable in a general election. 

The 2020 Democratic presidential primary was a case study in this dynamic. There were a handful of talented center-left candidates running, like Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar or then-South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg. But given the party’s alarm about Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) electability, only the universally known Joe Biden had the profile to become the mainstream standard-bearer, even though he was 77 at the time. 

At a certain point, the party’s bench of baby boomers will run out and the more progressive-minded Gen Zers will be stepping into political office. Whether this new generation can capture the public’s attention without being beholden to the ideological extremes will be one of the most consequential tests for the party’s future.

With the entry this week of Derek Dooley, a friend of Gov. Brian Kemp who hails from college football royalty in Georgia, the Republican field in the Georgia Senate race is taking shape.

Dooley, whose father coached the Georgia Bulldogs and who spent several years leading the rival Tennessee Volunteers, announced Monday that he’d be running against Reps. Buddy Carter (R-GA) and Mike Collins (R-GA) in the Republican primary to take on Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Republicans’ top-targeted incumbent.

Kemp, a popular Republican governor, was seen as Republicans’ best chance of ousting Ossoff. Some prominent Jewish former Ossoff donors in the state reached out to Kemp late last year urging him to run against Ossoff, frustrated by the senator’s votes last year to block some weapons transfers to Israel. But Kemp ultimately passed on the race. Ossoff has worked to rebuild trust with disaffected Jewish voters, but those efforts were hampered by his vote last week to block a shipment of assault weapons to Israel.

Kemp has family ties to Dooley, who has brought on top Kemp advisors, is likely to receive the governor’s backing and pursue a center-right lane in the race, while portraying himself as a political outsider. All the candidates have been making the pivotal pitch for President Donald Trump’s backing in the race and tying themselves closely to him, hoping that key endorsement will help them clear the field.

With Kemp’s help, Dooley could potentially peel off support from moderate Jewish Democrats still frustrated by Ossoff, though Jewish leaders in the state told Jewish Insider last week that they’re not yet making any commitments in the race. They say they’re waiting to see who emerges from the Republican primary and how Ossoff’s record shapes up over the coming months before they decide whether to support the incumbent next November.

Dooley, for his part, is wasting little time in courting their votes.

“I stand with our ally Israel and firmly believe they should have the necessary resources to defend themselves against terrorists,” Dooley said in a statement to JI. “While Jon Ossoff continues to vote against Israel and American national security interests, I will be a leading voice for a strong America and a strong Israel in the Senate.”

Emanuel Fialkow, a prominent conservative member of Georgia’s Jewish community, said that Kemp’s team connected him to Dooley and the two spoke at length on a variety of issues, including antisemitism and Israel. Fialkow said he was previously part of a group of Jewish donors who urged Kemp to run against Ossoff.

Fialkow said that Dooley had asked him about a range of issues including Israel policy, the war in Gaza and antisemitism, and that he subsequently agreed to help Dooley develop an Israel position paper, which Fialkow described as very strongly pro-Israel. He said that Dooley “will have a backbone” in support of Israel.

He subsequently organized a lunch meeting at his home to introduce Dooley to a small group of others in the state, many of them Jewish, including both traditional Republicans and Democrats. Fialkow said that the group discussed a range of issues and came away seeing Dooley as honest, humble, inspiring, engaging and curious to learn more. He praised Dooley as a proven leader and a “really good guy” who can speak to people from a range of backgrounds, and is interested in listening to and learning from people.

He said other Jewish leaders in the Atlanta area are also in discussions with and about supporting Dooley. Others said they haven’t been in touch with Dooley or his surrogates yet.

Fialkow said that he and some other Jewish leaders in the state see Ossoff’s relationship with them as broken beyond repair, and said they can’t trust him going forward to be a reliable supporter of Israel. He argued that Dooley is the “only chance” for Zionist voters who put support for Israel first. 

Ossoff, for his part, maintains some vocal supporters in the Jewish community.

Cary Levow, a supporter of pro-Israel causes and candidates, told JI last week, “I support Senator Ossoff and know of other Jewish Georgians who understand that Jon’s approach to the Gaza humanitarian issue is genuine.” 

“Senator Ossoff has voted for over $20 billion in aid to Israel, has family living in Israel and has spent a significant amount of time in the country,” Levow continued. “I think Jon has represented the Jewish community well and I have zero concern about a senator who is critical of how [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] Bibi is waging this war.”

Fialkow argued that the only way for a Republican to win is for both Kemp and Trump to be aligned behind the same candidate, and that a hard-right Republican can’t win statewide in Georgia, meaning that Dooley gives Republicans their best chance to beat Ossoff.

Fialkow said he’s spoken to Collins and is confident that he would never vote against U.S. support for Israel, due to his own religious convictions. Collins has voiced the same view in confrontations with anti-Israel activists.

Speaking at an Oct. 7 memorial ceremony in 2024, Collins called the U.S. Israel’s “greatest friend” and said that the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks had only strengthened the relationship between the two partners. He said he would work to make sure Israel receives all the support it needs to defend itself.

“Hamas not only attacked the peaceful people of Israel that day, but they launched an assault against the idea of free and fair democracies in the Middle East,” Collins said.

But some elements of Collins’ record on antisemitism could raise red flags for others in the Jewish community. Last year, he refused to apologize for and doubled down on engaging with an antisemitic, racist Twitter account that was attacking a reporter for being Jewish. And he voted against the Antisemitism Awareness Act, and has a record of engaging in otherwise extremist rhetoric online. 

“Mike Collins has condemned the hate speech seen on college campuses and around the globe, and has been an ardent supporter of Israel in Congress. While Jon Ossoff capitulated to woke activists and voted to cut aid to Israel, Mike Collins has stood strong and protected its right to exist,” a Collins campaign spokesperson told JI, when asked about his online history and vote on the antisemitism bill.

Carter, who is close with some Atlanta-area Jewish leaders, has been a vocal supporter of pro-Israel and Jewish causes in the House, including leading pushes for funding and support for Holocaust education programs, calling on colleagues to address antisemitism in health care, leading legislation to support U.S.-Israel cooperative programs, urging support for the snapback of U.N. sanctions on Iran and calling for Qatar and Turkey to expel Hamas leaders. He also supported the Antisemitism Awareness Act, unlike Collins.

Carter’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Other than Collins’ vote against the Antisemitism Awareness Act, both Carter and Collins have records of supporting legislation backing Israel and combating antisemitism, including voting for supplemental aid to Israel and a resolution describing anti-Zionism as antisemitic.

Donning their foreign policy hats, candidates in New York City’s hotly contested mayoral race were quick to weigh in as violence erupted between Israel and Hamas this week. “I stand proudly with Israel,” former Citigroup executive Ray McGuire pronounced Monday evening in a statement later echoed by Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president. Andrew Yang, the apparent frontrunner who has earned key endorsements from several Orthodox Jewish leaders, also made sure to signal his unwavering support for the Jewish state. “I’m standing with the people of Israel,” he said, condemning “the Hamas terrorists.”

The lone dissenting voice was Dianne Morales, the outspoken former nonprofit executive who, by varying degrees, has positioned herself to the left of every leading candidate in the crowded Democratic primary field. “Our world needs leaders who recognize humanity and the dignity of all lives,” Morales wrote on Twitter early Tuesday morning. “Whether in NYC, Colombia, Brazil or Israel-Palestine, state violence is wrong. Targeting civilians is wrong. Killing children is wrong. Full stop.”

With her statement, rhetorically limp by pro-Israel standards, Morales demonstrated that she is willing to stray from the pack on an issue where most mainstream Democratic candidates in New York, home to the largest Jewish population in the United States, are usually aligned. While the majority of her opponents identify as solidly pro-Israel, Morales has veered in the opposite direction.

During a private virtual event with Jewish high school students last December, for instance, Morales accused Israel of “apartheid” while describing a 2015 mission sponsored by the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York as “propaganda,” according to leaked audio obtained by The Forward. 

“I’ve been to Israel, and I participated in what would be considered a propaganda trip,” Morales said bluntly in the recording. “The country is beautiful, so I understand why everybody wants a piece of it. That being said, I believe that Israel is an apartheid state. I think that is highly problematic. I cannot advocate for equity and justice in New York City and turn a blind eye to the challenges around those issues in Israel and with the folks living in Gaza and in Palestine.”

Dianne Morales at a march for transgender rights. (Courtesy)

In a recent interview with Jewish Insider, however, Morales seemed hesitant to invoke the same feisty rhetoric. “The first thing that’s really important to say is that I really appreciate the opportunity to have taken that trip,” Morales said of her week-long excursion with the JCRC, which has been leading missions to Israel for more than two decades. “JCRC does really incredibly important work for the community of New Yorkers around leadership development and advocacy for the Jewish community, and I certainly look forward to continuing to support that work as mayor.”

But Morales admitted to harboring “really complicated feelings” about her visit. “I see myself as a champion for equal rights and protections under the law,” she said, without making mention of  “apartheid.” “I don’t think any child should be denied the right to a home or to their full potential and that everyone deserves to be free of state violence.” 

Even having softened her views somewhat, Morales’s public and private comments would almost certainly have come at a cost in previous mayoral races. Instead, it is Yang who has drawn intense feedback for his pro-Israel views. After his Monday night tweet, Yang found himself uninvited from a Ramadan event as pro-Palestinian activists disrupted a campaign stop in Queens. “Utterly shameful,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said of Yang’s comments.

By Wednesday morning, Yang had clarified his initial statement, sending out a white flag of contrition to his 1.9 million Twitter followers. “I mourn for every Palestinian life taken before its time as I do for every Israeli,” he said in a lengthy statement. 

Adams, too, has faced some criticism for defending Israel in the conflict with Gaza. Earlier this week, the Muslim Action Network announced that it was pulling its endorsement of Adams, claiming he had “failed to take a principled stance.”

For her part, Morales appears to be gaining a modicum of momentum as she slipstreams behind New York’s ascendant far-left, which has carved out prominent footholds at the state and federal levels in recent years. “We’ve been defying all kinds of expectations and also bucking the traditions as to what criteria you need to have in order to be considered viable or a contender,” she told JI. “This campaign is, in fact, resonating with New Yorkers.”

That boast comes with some supporting evidence. Having lagged behind her opponents in most polls, Morales suddenly found herself in third place with 12% of the vote, just four points behind Adams, who topped the list, according to a survey commissioned by the Hotel Trade Council’s political arm and released earlier this week. Those numbers suggest that the June 22 Democratic primary remains in flux as underdog candidates like Morales and Kathryn Garcia, the city’s former sanitation chief who received a surprise endorsement from the The New York Times on Monday, show signs of life. 

Further scrambling the dynamics, Scott Stringer, the city comptroller and until recently the leading progressive candidate in the race, was rocked by allegations of sexual assault that have hobbled his once formidable campaign. Morales, who has called for Stringer to withdraw his name from the ballot, believes his embattled position has likely pushed some voters to her side as she notches new endorsements that would otherwise have gone his way. 

“I think it’s freed people up who might have felt indebted to him to feel like they can back me or support me or be louder about supporting me,” Morales said, while making sure to add that her grassroots campaign would be cresting with or without the scandal. “We’re just starting to surge,” she said. “The groundwork for that has been laid over the course of the last year.”

***

Morales, a resident of Bedford-Stuyvesant, announced her campaign last November with the hope of becoming New York’s first Afro-Latina mayor. A former employee in the city’s Department of Education, she served for a decade as the executive director and CEO of Phipps Neighborhoods, an affordable housing nonprofit in the Bronx, before seeking office as a first-time candidate. “I spent my entire career actually working on the ground,” said Morales, casting herself as a candidate of the people, “helping communities that have just been historically disenfranchised, underserved, marginalized.”

“She was the most believable, transparent candidate that I met,” said Harvey Epstein, a state assemblyman in Manhattan who endorsed Morales in March. “She had a plan that was achievable and she had a track record that proved she could get things done.”

The platform Morales puts forth is unapologetically progressive, including a municipal Green New Deal, a public bank for underserved New Yorkers and a plan to provide free college education through the city’s public university system.

“She is predictably consistent on the left side of the spectrum,” said David Bloomfield, a professor of education at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, “opposing screens in school admissions, looking toward a highly collaborative form of school governance that gives greater weight to community education councils and parents than most other candidates have indicated.”

Perhaps most notably, Morales is the only candidate in the race who wholeheartedly supports defunding the police. “I understand that the language of defunding is scary to some,” she acknowledged. “But what it really means is that we need to be investing in alternative services and supports for our community members.”

After a shooting in Times Square last weekend, most candidates struck a balance in their messaging on public safety, calling for robust policing while emphasizing a need for reform. But Morales rejects such rhetoric, notwithstanding a violent crime surge that has put many New Yorkers on edge as the city emerges from a destabilizing pandemic. “We’ve seen the escalation in violence despite the fact that there actually has been no real decrease in policing, despite the fact that Times Square is one of the most heavily surveilled communities in the city,” she argued. “I think that we have to debunk the idea that the police are actually creating safer communities.”

Morales advocates for a “multi-pronged” response amid an uptick in hate crimes against Jews and Asian-Americans. “I think antisemitism, anti-Asian violence, anti-Black violence, all of these things are rooted in white supremacy,” she said, while advocating for a humanistic approach to public education that embraces differences. “From a social perspective, I think we need to meet the needs of communities,” Morales continued. “I think the systems right now pit communities against each other and fosters this sort of us-them dynamic, and we need to actually counter that and really sort of lift up this perspective of solidarity and combating these things together.”

Dianne Morales at a rally for Breonna Taylor. (Courtesy)

“I truly believe that all communities that have been historically marginalized or oppressed or harmed deserve to be centered and prioritized moving forward, and to me, that includes the Jewish community,” Morales said, adding: “I understand the history of oppression and discrimination and exclusion and the fear that so often can instill in people. I’m committed to actually creating a safe city for all of us to coexist peacefully and with dignity.”

Morales’s message appears to be falling on receptive ears. Her coalition, she says, represents a diverse patchwork of New York City’s voting populace, including teachers, LGBTQ voters and Hispanic women. Unemployed workers, according to Morales, make up 30% of her donor base. Morales has also been buoyed by a passionate young fan base of volunteers as well as digitally savvy supporters who are enthusiastically promoting her campaign on social media.

Last month, Morales notched an endorsement from the Jewish Vote, the political arm of Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, whose 6,000 members live mostly in New York. “We want to make sure that the next New York City mayor is fighting to really transform New York City and fighting for people who are working-class and fighting for racial justice,” Sasha Kesler, who sits on the Jewish Vote’s steering committee, told JI in an interview. “Dianne fit the bill.”

“We want a mayor who takes a firm, principled stance against forms of state violence, militarism and abuse,” Kesler added, expressing her appreciation for Morales’s recent comment on the conflict between Israel and Gaza. “That’s what she said in her message.”

JFREJ says it remains neutral on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, only opposing efforts to criminalize BDS on free speech grounds — and Morales echoed that view in conversation with JI.  “We should not create an environment that penalizes people’s right to organize and protest,” she said, adding: “That being said, that doesn’t mean I support hate or fear mongering or antisemitism. I don’t think that those two things are one and the same.”

Asked for her personal stance on the BDS movement — which is rejected by almost every mayoral candidate in the race as well as by a number of the most progressive candidates now running for public office across the country — Morales was noncommittal. “As a candidate and the mayor of New York City, it’s less important what I believe than what I’m going to uphold for New Yorkers,” she said. “I am going to uphold that it not be criminalized.”

Morales was equally hesitant to weigh in on a controversial questionnaire, distributed last summer by the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, asking that City Council candidates pledge not to visit Israel. “I never actually saw the questionnaire,” she said. “But what I understood was that it was just poorly worded.”

Morales said she was open to visiting Israel again if she is elected —  something of a rite of passage for New York City mayors. Bill de Blasio, the outgoing two-term mayor, toured the Jewish state on a 48-hour trip in his second year in office. But Morales made clear that any future visit would likely be on her own terms. “I’m not opposed to visiting Israel,” she said. “I would want to do that independently rather than through any kind of sponsored trip because I think it’s important to being able to maintain my own sort of independence, judgment and decision-making.”

Ultimately, Morales was reluctant to discuss such issues in much depth, despite her apparent readiness to speak out on social media and in at least one private forum. “I don’t want to distract from the race that I am in,” she said. “If I had wanted to get mired in the international stuff, I’d probably run for a different thing.”

But while New York City mayors wield no direct influence over foreign policy, Morales may discover that the scope of the job is broader than she expects. 

“There was a time in New York City politics, years back, that if you ran for mayor you had to go immediately and visit the three ‘I’s: Italy, Ireland and Israel,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democratic consultant in New York. “Now the ethnic population has shifted, so what’s left? Just one ‘I,’ and that’s Israel.”

On Tuesday, 16 candidates will battle to appear on the November ballot to fill an open seat in California’s 53rd congressional district. Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA), who has represented the San Diego-area district since 2001, announced in September that she would not seek reelection.

The candidates: Frontrunners include San Diego City Council President Georgette Gomez and Sara Jacobs — a former Hillary Clinton campaign aide and State Department contractor. Jacobs, who ran in the nearby 49th district in 2018, is the granddaughter of billionaire Qualcomm founder Irwin Jacobs. California’s “jungle primary” means that only the top two candidates — regardless of party — will advance to the general election.

What to expect on Tuesday: It’s “really a two-way race” between Jacobs and Gomez, Thad Kousser, a political science professor at the University of California San Diego, told Jewish Insider. “But right now [Gomez] looks like the underdog” to Jacobs, who has benefited from a large budget and name recognition from her previous run. A strong Republican challenger could capitalize on a split Democratic field to snag a general election spot, but the party has not united around one candidate, Kousser said, adding that Tuesday’s results will likely be a strong predictor of the general election.

Fundraising: Jacobs has raised more than $2 million — over $500,000 of it self-funded. Gomez comes in second, with over $660,000, followed by Marine veteran, activist and public policy consultant Janessa Goldbeck, who has raised approximately $248,500 — more than double what the next competitor has pulled in.

Jacobs’ Foggy Bottom experience: “I felt like it was important we had someone who’d had the experience that I’ve had making and implementing public policy at the federal level representing us,” Jacobs said in an interview with Jewish Insider. In Congress, Jacobs, a supporter of Medicare for All, said she would prioritize gun violence and lowering the high cost of living in San Diego.

Learning tikkun olam: “I was taught from a young age that it was my personal responsibility to do everything that I could to repair the world, and that’s really something that has informed and guided my career decisions,” Jacobs said.

When it comes to Israel: “I understand from a very personal level, the need for a safe and secure Israel and, personally, I think that the biggest threat to Israel’s security long term is the lack of a negotiated settlement,” Jacobs, who has family in the country and has visited on multiple occasions, told JI.

Gomez’s priorities: Gomez hopes to “go to D.C. to bring more money to our region so we can address some of the inequalities we’re facing,” she said at a recent candidate forum, listing housing and the climate crisis among her core issues.

Working toward peace: “Achieving a two-state solution, something I strongly support, means the U.S. playing a central role in working towards peace, safety, and self-determination for both peoples,” Gomez wrote in an op-ed for the San Diego Jewish World, which also addressed conditioning aid to the Jewish state. “Threatening to withold aid from Israel, or the Palestinian Authority… jeopardizes Israel’s ability to defend its security, promotes instability and extremism, and undermines U.S. credibility,” she said, adding that she opposes the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

Goldbeck’s candidacy: “I believe that San Diego deserves a representative in Washington who has a proven track record of getting things done on Capitol Hill, and has the courage to stand up to corruption and special interests in Washington,” Goldbeck told Jewish Insider. She’s prioritizing the climate, gun violence and healthcare — she prefers a “Medicare for All Who Want It” public option.

Shared values: In a statement to JI, Goldbeck praised Israel’s standing as a U.S. ally. “Israel is a beacon of shared interests and values in a critically strategic region,” Goldbeck said. “She embodies the American values of democracy, pluralism, and the rule of law.”