Bidenflation? Trumpflation? Try unipartyflation



Republicans spent the 2024 campaign blaming “Bidenflation” on runaway spending and debt-driven inflation. A year into Trump’s second term, the top-line numbers look uncomfortably familiar. Even the New York Times has noticed: “For Mr. Trump, the result is a set of annual government expenses that do not appear radically different on paper compared with what he inherited in January 2025.” Sadly, yes.

The rallying cry against “Bidenflation” was probably the most prolific indictment of the last Democrat president, at least next to the canard of the “Biden border invasion.” Implicit in that allegation was a recognition that the record-high debt payments fueling a size of government that dwarfed the Obama-era leviathan (which spawned the Tea Party) were responsible for the great unaffordability crisis.

Our policies try to help consumers afford unaffordable prices by fueling more debt — which makes life more unaffordable.

The opening weeks of this administration, roughly this time last year, were dominated by Republican officials heralding Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency. Red states began forming their own DOGE committees, and every Republican clamored to have his name attached to the spending-cutting club. Someone even launched a meme coin named after DOGE.

A year later, nearly the entire debt and spending level of Biden’s final year has been codified by all but the most conservative members of Congress. The body politic barely noticed until the New York Times mentioned it this week. Trump and GOP leaders no longer talk about debt service as a driver of inflation. Worse, some deny inflation even exists.

More disconcerting: No real movement on the right even recognizes the severity of the unaffordability crisis or the record deficits still fueling it. The same way many forget Trump’s COVID spending helped catalyze the worst affordability crisis in modern American life, they have conveniently forgotten their own campaign rallies against Biden and Harris.

Like his first term, the president proposed a budget for FY 2026 that aimed to downsize bureaucracies and agencies Reagan conservatives never believed should exist. Congress writes the budget, but the president still has a veto pen. He also commands the party that controls both houses, however narrow those majorities.

Yet rather than fight for even modest spending cuts, the president worked the phones to pressure conservatives into breaking campaign promises and codifying a budget that enshrined roughly $1.6 trillion in discretionary spending, on top of mandatory spending on interest and entitlements that rises every year.

RELATED: The debt bomb is ticking, and DC spent the blast shield

Artoleshko / Getty Images

Whereas the president’s budget promised to cut the Department of Housing and Urban Development nearly in half, the appropriations bill he ultimately supported increased HUD’s budget by 9%. He also supports a new housing bill that would expand HUD’s “affordable housing” programs further. He promised to trim the departments of Agriculture and Commerce by 23% and 16%, yet wound up increasing their budgets by 2% and 7% respectively. Labor, HHS, and the Small Business Administration were slated for 28%-38% cuts under his proposed budget, yet the FY 2026 bill he lobbied for and signed kept their record budgets roughly the same.

Ironically, every agency his base hates is now flush with cash and fully funded for the remainder of the fiscal year — except the Department of Homeland Security, which faces an indefinite lapse in appropriations.

Gross debt has increased by $2.6 trillion since Trump took office on Jan. 20, 2025. What happened to the concern about debt-driven inflation that the right raised relentlessly when Biden spent at these levels? Does elephant dung taste better than donkey manure? What gives?

On this trajectory, by 2030 at the latest, the public share of our debt will surpass its all-time high of 106%. That level came at the height of World War II, when debt at least aimed at victory and production. Today’s debt is unproductive. The government goes into debt to juice up private debt to produce fake things like data centers — or worse, self-perpetuating dependency. Today’s spending programs, and even the Trump tax cuts (as opposed to his first-term tax bill), do not produce more goods. They induce more demand for the same goods. In the long run, that’s inflationary.

RELATED: Washington printed promises. Gold called the bluff.

Alfexe / Getty Images

Our policies try to help consumers afford unaffordable prices by fueling more debt — which makes life more unaffordable.

Remember: We’re at the peak of the debt mountain while still sitting in the valley of an impending unemployment crisis. As the economy worsens, spending on food stamps, Medicaid, and unemployment will compound the cycle of debt, inflation, unaffordability, and dependency.

It gets worse. By reinstating earmarks, Republicans countermanded the one major spending success of the past decade forged by the Tea Party. The full-funding bill for FY 2026 that Trump signed contained $15.5 billion in earmarks.

Earmarks themselves don’t drive inflation, but they create a legislative dynamic where members get bought off to vote for the leviathan spending that does. The omnibus contained 8,471 earmarks for just 535 members. It becomes nearly impossible to muster opposition when personal favors designed to ingratiate lawmakers to local interests ride along in the same bills.

No surprise, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) wound up with nearly $500 million in earmarks, the most of any member. As ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, she helped spearhead this uniparty budget that kept the status quo.

Some GOP apologists will scoff at the idea of dealing with inflation and demand we focus on other issues. They might pretend fiscal conservatism was never real.

Fine. But the next time Democrats take office, shut your mouths about spending and inflation. And don’t campaign on bringing it down.

Forget a third-party president. Win Congress first.



Nearly half of Americans now refuse to identify as either Democrat or Republican. According to a recent Gallup poll, independents make up a record 45% of the electorate, yet our political system continues to operate as though this plurality doesn’t exist — until now.

Both major political parties are facing widespread public dissatisfaction, with 58% of Americans viewing the Republican Party unfavorably and 61% expressing unfavorable views of the Democratic Party. As confidence in the parties erodes, 2026 is shaping up to be the year that we see a handful of independents elected to Congress, disrupting the balance of power in Washington.

Independents need only three to five seats to fundamentally transform American politics.

For politically homeless voters, this moment calls for supporting credible independent candidates where they can actually win, especially in congressional districts where neither party is delivering for its constituents.

While the Gallup poll shows the increase in independent self-identification metrics, which have been sitting at around 40% since 2011, there is a convergence of two major trends that make this moment in politics ripe for independents.

The first major trend is the rise of Millennials and Gen Z as a central voting bloc. 2026 will be an election in which younger Americans make up a sizeable portion of the electorate, with projections currently holding that Millennials and Gen Z will account for over half of voters by 2028.

Millennials are now well into their 30s, many serving in executive and senior leadership roles in politics and business, including prominent voices such as Vice President JD Vance and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D). Together, Millennials and Gen Z are becoming one of the most influential forces in the electorate.

Unlike their predecessors, these two generations are far more likely to identify as independent. Many have never belonged to a political party in the first place. Younger independents are focused on issues like affordability, which both parties are failing to address. They gravitate toward candidates from either party who appear to be invested in their issues.

The second trend is the broader integration of AI systems into everyday life — including politics. AI is the great leveler, much like the printing press fundamentally altered information systems and power structures centuries ago. It will be a game-changer in a similar way, and it’s a major reason why an independent movement in 2026 can make more progress than past efforts.

RELATED: Republicans and Democrats are in revolt — for very different reasons

Douglas Rissing/Getty Images

The two-party system, like the taxi industry before Uber disrupted it, represents an entrenched but flawed model that has resisted reform. AI provides the tools to completely bypass the old system, rather than slowly reforming it from the inside. Technology now democratizes campaign infrastructure, voter outreach, and message distribution pathways for alternatives that were previously impossible without massive institutional backing.

Americans are hungry for more options at the ballot box. We can customize what we watch, what we drive, even which type of peanut butter sits on our shelves. Yet when it comes to politics, those options narrow dramatically. As the two major parties continue to struggle to meet the moment, voters’ appetite for credible alternatives is only growing stronger.

In the private sector, we would call it a clear product-market fit. If there were two brands that people clearly rejected, competition would naturally emerge in the market. The same logic applies to politics. Recent polling from the Independent Center Voice discovered that 76% of voters would likely vote for “strong, well-funded independent candidate.”

For far too long, the conversation among independents has fixated on electing a third-party candidate to the White House. They’ll find more luck channeling their dissatisfaction, frustration, and growing disillusionment toward Congress, where institutional change is more enduring. It’s in congressional races — not presidential ones — that the independent movement will be felt first.

Independents need only three to five seats to fundamentally transform American politics. With growing concentrations of independent and “no party preference” voters across key districts, the foundation for change is already in place.

The real question is no longer whether the independent movement will arrive, but whether the political system is prepared to respond.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Republicans and Democrats are in revolt — for very different reasons



America’s 250th anniversary is defined by one undeniable fact: Both sides of the aisle are in open revolt against elites. Nothing would make the founders more proud. They created this country through their own act of rebellion against an out-of-touch ruling class. But it’s far from clear whether today’s elites will be fully defeated — or if the country is doomed to suffer under another self-serving class.

Only one of these revolts will ultimately be good for the American people — and the wrong one has the momentum.

On the right, at least, the revolt has been under way for a decade. Before 2016, Republican voters had repeatedly backed go-along-to-get-along politicians — the Romneys, McCains, and Bushes of the world. In return, they got mountains of debt and deficit spending, multiple unwinnable wars, and massive expansions in the size and power of government. Rather than clean up the country’s messes, the GOP elite made them worse.

Out of sheer frustration, Republicans turned against their ruling class, throwing their support behind Donald Trump. He has since demolished the GOP establishment. While the Trump revolution is still under way in policy, on the political front, it’s over. The old Republican elite is never coming back.

Then there’s the open revolt on the left. Like the frustrated Republicans of a decade ago, today’s Democrats are furious at their elected officials for the lack of change. But whereas the right is fighting to return quintessential American values to the fore, these leftists want to ditch those values altogether. Their vision can be summed up in one word: socialism.

Hence the stunning victory of Zohran Mamdani in New York City, the rising star of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in Congress, and socialist candidates in congressional primaries. And hence the deluge of socialist activists coming out of college campuses. They’re sick and tired of Democrat elites who don’t do anything with their power. They’re determined to seize that power for themselves.

Say this for the current anti-elite moment: It’s beautifully American. Both the right and left are breathing new life into our national ideal of sovereignty, which holds that the people are ultimately in control. It’s good to remind ourselves — and our would-be rulers — that we the people are still in charge.

But not all revolts are created equal. Despite their superficial similarity, the Republican and Democrat visions are diametrically opposed and fundamentally incompatible. At the end of the day, the right is trying to permanently give power back to the people. The left, on the other hand, is setting the stage to create a permanent — and much worse — ruling class.

The difference between these two revolts is clear in the kinds of policies they back. On the right, Republicans from Donald Trump down are fighting to gut unelected bureaucracies, give families the funding to choose their children’s education, and slash red tape to unleash small businesses and job creation. Their immigration crackdown is also rooted in sovereignty, rolling back the blatant attempts to prop up ruling class power by bringing in foreign voters. On issue after issue, Republicans are taking power from elites and giving it to the people.

RELATED: We escaped King George. Why do we bow to King Judge?

Photo by Pierce Archive LLC/Buyenlarge via Getty Images

The socialist wave is rushing in the opposite direction. Today’s leftists want government control over every facet of the economy, vast expansions of the welfare state, and unprecedented power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. As history attests, socialism creates a ruling class that runs roughshod over everyone else, since absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Only one of these revolts will ultimately be good for the American people — and the wrong one has the momentum. Democratic socialists are surging in local, state, and national elections, while Republicans are doubting themselves instead of doubling down on their agenda.

Republicans are also wondering if their revolt can survive once Trump leaves office. But they should be working to ensure that it does, rallying around leaders who will keep taking the fight to our would-be overlords. In this time of revolt, there’s no guarantee of who will win. But the same was true 250 years ago, at America’s birth. The battle then was very much between the revolutionaries who stood for the people and those who stood for the elites. The founders led their fellow Americans to cast off the shackles of that ruling class. Now Republicans must rally the people once again to ensure another 250 years of sovereignty and national success.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Trump’s economic numbers look good so far, but you wouldn’t know from reading the news



The latest statistics show the U.S. economy is improving steadily, particularly in the shift from government employment to private-sector jobs and toward new hires going to native-born Americans instead of immigrants. Opinion polls, however, show Americans are displeased with the current state of the economy, and young people are turning toward socialism.

The smart course for the Republicans would be to pass major reforms to shrink the welfare state and cut federal spending and regulation instead of mildly reducing scheduled increases.

The concerns about the economy reflect three major factors: one, stubborn economic distortions caused by longtime government policies; two, the lingering effects of acute Biden-presidency price inflation; and, three, dishonest media reporting.

The average inflation rate during the Biden administration was 5%, nearly double the current rate. Real, inflation-adjusted average weekly earnings in private-sector jobs decreased by 4% while Biden was in office. Home prices rose by 37.4%, sparking a housing affordability crisis. Publicly held federal debt increased by one-third, igniting the price inflation.

That has changed dramatically in just one year. “Since President Trump took office, headline inflation has been running at 2.4% (much lower than 3% inherited from Biden) and core inflation has been running at 2.4% (much lower than 3.3% inherited from Biden),” the White House stated correctly last month.

Slowing inflation does not lower prices however. It only reduces the increases. The Biden-era price rises were worst in basic necessities, and the only way to moderate that is for wages to rise. Fortunately, that is starting to happen.

Employment numbers confirm a positive movement from part-time work to full-time work and away from the government into the productive private sector. “Initial jobless claims in the U.S. fell by 9,000 from the previous week to 198,000 on the week ending January 10,” the second-lowest number of job losses in two years, and initial unemployment claims by federal employees rose by more than one-third, Trading Economics reports.

The movement from part-time work to full-time employment in better jobs that pay more and include benefits is of course a highly positive trend. “In December, the number of part-time jobs declined by 740,000, while full-time employment shot up by 890,000,” Unleash Prosperity notes.

Labor productivity in the nonfarm business sector increased by 4.9% in the third quarter of last year, with output rising by 5.4% and hours worked increasing by 0.5%. Manufacturing-sector labor productivity and output are rising markedly after declining during the Biden administration. Overall U.S. industrial production has increased, rising 0.4% month-over-month in both November and December, and manufacturing output rose by 0.2% in December.

Continued improvements in employment and private-sector productivity are the real solution to the affordability crisis. In light of those trends, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta raised its estimate of fourth-quarter annualized real Gross Domestic Product growth to an impressive 5.3%. In addition, mortgage interest rates are down to their lowest level since 2022.

Naturally, the regime media are desperately trying to spin all this good news into a mythical calamity, to cast doubt on the conclusively proven value of market-empowering reforms. “CNN, true to form, immediately tried to make a relatively good report out to be a bad one in a January 13 X post: ‘U.S. inflation remained at 2.7% in December, underscoring persistent cost of living challenges,'” Newsbusters reports.

When inflation was an awful 6% in February 2023, CNN characterized it as good news, saying, “U.S. inflation is still high, but it’s falling. Last month’s Consumer Price Index measured 6%, down from January’s 6.4%,” as Daily Wire reporter Cabot Phillips noted in an X post. Coverage by all the regime media has reflected this bias.

While just under a year’s worth of economic reforms and (disappointingly mild) efforts to hold the line on inflation are showing real progress, the previous four years did major damage to the private, productive sectors of the U.S. economy. It will take some time for the public to feel the full benefit of the policy changes they voted for in 2024.

RELATED: The debt bomb is ticking, and DC spent the blast shield

Artoleshko / Getty Images

Although people should hardly be surprised that Trump and the Congress have not yet fully reversed the economic destruction of the prior four years, poll numbers indicate an impatience that reflects the media’s spin: “Most, 64%, say [Trump] hasn’t gone far enough in trying to reduce the price of everyday goods,” CNN reports.

Trump and the congressional Republicans understandably feel a strong urge to be seen as doing everything possible to fix the economy, though the only thing that will really unleash American prosperity is a full retrenchment of the enormous federal welfare state that Obama and Biden did so much to expand.

Democrats understandably view the economic stagnation that they themselves caused as a terrific political opportunity that could restore them to majority rule in Congress, with a chance to impeach Trump multiple times and block desperately needed reforms to shrink the government.

The smart course for Republicans would be to pass major reforms to shrink the welfare state and cut federal spending and regulation instead of mildly reducing scheduled increases. That would accelerate the economic improvements we are already seeing. It would also make the recent reforms permanent, given that a Democratic congressional majority would not be able to reverse them, given Trump’s veto power.

Those moves would benefit the American people greatly.

The wise course for the Democrats would be to sit back, go quiet, and let the public reject an ineffectual GOP in this November’s elections.

Many decades of American politics have taught us what is most likely to happen: Neither party will do the smart thing, much less the right thing.

Republicans Will Keep Losing Until They Realize Power Isn’t Evil

We can exercise power, or we can allow our enemies to exercise it. Choose wisely.

Republican Governor Spending Millions Of Taxpayer Dollars To Defend Democrat Election Takeover

'In Texas, Republicans, and only Republicans, should select Republican nominees.'

Stopping the steal: Sen. Lee, Republicans demand Election Day integrity ahead of SCOTUS fight over 'rolling' ballot counts



The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on March 23 regarding whether federal Election Day law pre-empts a state law allowing election workers to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day.

A band of conservatives including Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) urge the high court in an amicus brief to be filed on Thursday to consider the inevitable harms that would follow permitting states to flout the Constitution and render Election Day little more than an "abstraction," Blaze News has exclusively learned.

'Congress chose one day for federal elections, and one day only.'

The case in question, Watson v. Republican National Committee, is the result of a years-long battle over a COVID-era Mississippi law passed by the Magnolia State's Republican trifecta that permits the counting of mail-in absentee ballots postmarked by the date of the election but received up to five business days after Election Day.

The RNC and the Mississippi GOP stressed at the outset that mail-in voting is "starkly polarized by party" and "the late-arriving mail-in ballots that are counted for five additional days disproportionately break for Democrats."

While it has narrowed since 2020, the partisan divide in mail-in voting remained substantial in the 2024 election — which helps explain why so many Democrat-aligned groups have defended the practice and the Mississippi law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against Mississippi in October 2024, stating that its late-ballot counting statute was pre-empted by federal law. Last year, however, the state asked SCOTUS to get involved and reinstate its post-Election Day grace period.

RELATED: Lone Republican defies Trump, votes to tank the SAVE Act

Photo by Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Image

Mississippi maintains that late counts are acceptable as "federal election-day statutes require only that the voters cast their ballots by election day" — that "an election requires ballot casting — not ballot receipt."

Sen. Lee, eight other GOP senators, and 15 congressional Republicans joined the American Center for Law and Justice in filing an amicus brief on Thursday in support of the legal challenge, underscoring that Mississippi's absentee ballot scheme threatens the electoral reliability and uniformity "foundational to democratic government."

Lee said in a statement to Blaze News, "Congress, exercising its constitutional authority to set the times, places, and manner of federal elections, designated one federal Election Day."

"States counting ballots received after Election Day clearly violate the certainty, finality, and trust Congress intended to establish by having nationwide elections take place on one set date," continued the senator.

The brief:

  • emphasizes that the purpose of the relevant federal Election Day statutes "was and is to prevent voter fraud and state manipulation of federal elections and to promote uniformity in the selection of federal officers";
  • rejects "the notion that strict construction of this arrangement violates principles of federalism"; and
  • seeks to show "how, absent strict construction of the Election Day Statutes, there is no limiting principle and thus the Constitution's Election Clause would be meaningless or unenforceable."

"A Constitution that so jealously rationed federal power chose, in this specific domain, to speak unequivocally: Congress would have the last word in the 'Times' of Elections for federal officers," says the brief. "Congress exercised that power here. It picked a day. One day."

The brief intimated that should the state law and the corresponding legal interpretation stand, the "very evils Congress enacted the Election Day statutes to prevent — rolling elections, strategic voting, and prolonged uncertainty" — would be likely become inevitable.

The brief suggests further that to treat Election Day as a "philosophical concept untethered to actual deadlines" would liberate states from much-needed guardrails and render them "free to continue the election well beyond the Congressional mandated election day."

"Congress chose one day for federal elections, and one day only," the brief says in closing. "The counting of late-arrived ballots [flouts] this choice by altering the pool of received votes after Election Day, in other words, by changing the results of an election that has already taken place."

Sen. Lee noted that he looks forward "to the Supreme Court recognizing that states are not permitted to conduct interminable rolling elections with late-arriving ballot surprises that invite fraud and undermine trust in American elections."

Should the high court affirm that federal law pre-empts the state law, 18 other states would likely be impacted.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Kentucky Newspaper Publishes Op-Ed Calling Senate Candidate Daniel Cameron ‘Black Servant’

'Sneering anti-Black racial venom and self-hate'

Texas just got a preview of how Democrats take over



Last week, Democrats flipped a formerly red county blue in a special election in Texas Senate District 9, which covers part of Fort Worth and the neighboring suburbs of Keller and North Richland Hills. Taylor Rehmet, a young machinist with no political experience, beat Republican Leigh Wambsganss by more than 14 points.

Political commentator Bill King flagged the scale of the shift. He noted that Republican Kelly Hancock won the seat by 20 points in 2022 and that Donald Trump beat Kamala Harris in the district by 17 points in 2024. A loss like this should worry Republicans heading into the midterms later this year.

In Texas and other red states, Republicans need to meet voters where they live.

So, what happened?

Some Republicans blame turnout. They argue the county hasn’t turned left; Democrats simply showed up and Republicans stayed home. On that theory, the result reflects motivation, not the district’s real preferences.

That explanation doesn’t hold.

A Republican candidate has the same opportunity to motivate voters as a Democrat. In a district with a large conservative majority, the Republican should enjoy a built-in advantage. She needs only a fraction of her base to turn out. The Democrat needs near-perfect performance from his side.

King also argues the result fits a broader trend. He says the numbers match polling over the last year and signal growing negativity toward Texas’ Republican leadership. Low turnout didn’t create the result so much as reveal it.

Rehmet’s win still doesn’t guarantee Democrats will take over Texas. But it does show a tactic that keeps working: Democrats run as generic moderates, keep the party label in the background, and dare Republicans to make the race about cultural signaling instead of daily life.

As writer Bill Scher noted in Washington Monthly, Rehmet didn’t “wrap himself in a Democratic flag.” Much like his counterparts in Virginia and New Jersey, he leaned on military service and blue-collar credibility. That presentation persuaded enough voters.

RELATED: This is what happens when a state elects a ‘moderate’ Democrat

Kendall Warner/The Virginian-Pilot/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

That strategy works in the short term. It doesn’t last.

If and when he’s seated, Rehmet will vote as a Democrat. He will support open borders, softer law enforcement, higher spending, expanded abortion access, and the full suite of progressive social priorities. At best, he will block conservative reforms. At worst, he will push the same policies that Texans have seen wreck other places.

Voters in Tarrant County will learn the hard way what “affordability” talk usually delivers under Democratic rule: higher taxes, fewer opportunities, rising crime, and sanctimonious lectures about “reproductive rights,” all while public services strain under the load.

So, what does this election signal?

More Democrats will copy the Rehmet template. They will present themselves as normal, moderate, and practical. They will try to bait Republicans into fighting on secondary culture-war terrain instead of hammering a concrete agenda on costs, housing, and public safety. Wambsganss fell into that trap.

RELATED: Democrats are running as Bush-era Republicans — and winning

Photo by Reginald Mathalone/NurPhoto via Getty Images

In Texas and other red states, Republicans need to meet voters where they live. Prices keep climbing, and housing tops the list. I live in this part of the state and see the pressure every day.

Massive in-migration from other states (particularly California and Illinois), along with continued inflows from abroad (especially from South Asia), has driven up prices and changed the character of communities fast. Many newcomers are decent people. The economic effect still hits hard: higher rents, higher home prices, heavier traffic, and more strain on schools, roads, and emergency services. Property taxes keep rising to cover it.

Republicans should say that plainly, then offer an agenda that meets the moment. They should outline feasible steps to lower costs, expand housing supply where it makes sense, reduce regulatory friction, and protect public safety.

They should also draw the contrast without flailing: Democratic governance has turned too many prosperous places into expensive, dysfunctional messes. Texans don’t need to import that model.

Voters in red states also need to stop falling for the same performance. Democrats haven’t changed. They’ve changed the packaging.

They will do to the Lone Star State what they did to the Golden State. They will do to Dallas-Forth Worth what their allies have done to New York City. Texans should treat this moment as a warning, not a fluke: Stay alert, see through the ruse, and vote like it matters — because it does.

A Texas political shock Republicans can’t ignore



Until Saturday night, Texas Senate District 9 had been represented by a Republican for over 30 years. In 2022, Kelly Hancock won the seat by 20 points. Last November, Donald Trump beat Kamala Harris in the district by 17 points. So when Hancock stepped down to accept the appointment as controller, Republicans had little reason to think the seat would be in jeopardy.

But on Saturday, Democrat Taylor Rehmet trounced his Republican opponent by over 14 points — a 31-point swing since the 2024 election. The results have sent shock waves through the Texas Republican establishment.

For the last two decades, Republican leaders have governed the state to satisfy their base — pandering to the issues important to those voters and ignoring what most Texans wanted.

Some Republican pundits have discounted the results because it was a special election with a very low turnout. It is certainly true that the turnout in Saturday’s election was much lower than last November (15% versus 64%). But the results are consistent with polling over the last year, signaling that Texans have been turning increasingly negative on the Republican leadership of the state.

Over the last year, the University of Texas Polling Project has conducted seven polls asking voters whether they approved or disapproved of the job various state leaders were doing. Trump and all statewide Republican leaders began the year with positive approval ratings. By the end of the year, all were in negative territory. The average move downward was 24 points.

The crosstabs in the polls show that the groups who have turned most negative are independents, Latinos, and young people. Of course, there is considerable overlap between these because Latinos and young people eschew both parties at higher rates than other groups. Nonetheless, the moves within these groups in 2025 were breathtaking.

Even more startling is that Trump’s approval rating with Republicans dropped by 17 points (from 88% to 71%) — and this was before the debacle that has played out in Minnesota or his threat to invade Greenland. One political operative I spoke with, who closely followed the Tarrant County race, estimated that 15%-20% of Republicans voted for the Democrat candidate.

RELATED: Conservatives can’t barbecue their way through national collapse

Blaze Media Illustration

I think the poll’s questions on what issues Texas voters are most concerned about are telling. The issues garnering the most response were “political corruption/leadership” (18%), inflation (16%), and the economy (14%). Another 67% said they were very concerned about the cost of health care. Two-thirds of Texans believe that Trump’s tariffs are leading to higher prices. Texans also disapprove of state leaders’ handling of abortion (-17), regulation of marijuana/THC (-20), and public education (-23).

Let me tell you what was not on the list at all: the danger that Sharia law would take over the state.

For the last two decades, Republican leaders have governed the state to satisfy their base — pandering to the issues important to those voters and ignoring what most Texans wanted. That was largely because independents, even though they frequently disagreed with the positions state leaders were taking, found Democrat candidates even farther outside their comfort zone.

But the Tarrant County results and the polling trends over the last year suggest Republican leaders may have gone so far that independents now view Democrats as the lesser of the two evils.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.