'Pure bigotry': CNN fearmongers about 'Christian nationalism' in election-narrative tease



Democrats, the liberal media, and activist outfits have concern-mongered for years about the imagined threat posed by "Christian nationalism," a catchall term used to describe their ideological foes who also happen to be Christian in a nation almost entirely founded by Christians and where today over six in 10 adults are Christian.

CNN appears keen to revive the left's moral panic on-theme ahead of the midterm elections with an hour-long documentary titled "The Rise of Christian Nationalism."

'If you’re worried about Christians radicalizing then maybe you should stop shooting up our schools, churches and now hockey rinks.'

Newly released teaser videos and a corresponding press release hint at the documentary's apparent political purpose: to instill fear in viewers over a supposed movement that host Pamela Brown claims is "working to redefine America as a Christian nation in the home, in a marriage, in schools, and in government" — a movement that Brown reckons is supercharged and unified in the wake of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk's assassination.

The network noted in its overview for the documentary, which airs Sunday, that:

Brown examines the growing influence of Christian nationalism, an ideology rooted in the belief that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that its laws and institutions should reflect Christian values. Through immersive reporting and on-the-ground access, the episode explores how a movement once largely confined to the margins of white evangelical culture has gained new visibility and political power.

Brown apparently believes she gleaned generalizable insights into "Christian nationalism" by chatting with critics and kicking around Christian communities linked to Pastor Doug Wilson, a theologian credited by the Wall Street Journal months ago with leading the rise of "Christian nationalism" under President Donald Trump.

"We embedded with a community under Pastor Wilson’s umbrella and spoke to women who have left the church and are now sounding the alarm," said Brown. "No matter where you live or what you believe, what we learned is especially consequential at this moment."

RELATED: Blue-state city leans into battle against ACLU over archangel Michael statue honoring police

Photo by Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images

In one preview, Matthew Taylor — a specialist in "Muslim-Christian dialogue" who wrote a book sounding the alarm about imagined Christian threats to democracy — tells Brown that Kirk's memorial service "was one of the most potent examples of this shift in our culture that we're experiencing right now, where a large segment of American Christians are being activated by these ideas, radicalized by these ideas that say that they are the persecuted ones and that they need to stand up for Christians' rights."

Despite his intimation to the contrary, the ideas Taylor figures for radicalizing are based in fact. Christians, persecuted around the globe, are frequently targeted in the U.S., where radicals have not only sought to legislatively curb religious liberties but attacked churches and the faithful.

Brown, referencing a clip in which Taylor suggests that Christians take Trump for an "anointed figure" because he survived the assassination attempt in Pennsylvania, said that "this is just one example of why Christian nationalists are having such a moment right now."

While some viewers might suspect that these alleged "Christian nationalists" are simply followers of Christ who also vigorously support their nation, definitions and criteria vary.

Brown defines "Christian nationalism" as "an ideology rooted in the belief that our country was founded as a Christian nation and that our laws and institutions should reflect Christian values."

The CNN host appears to be casting a big net granted a 2022 Pew Research Center survey found that six in 10 American adults said the founders intended America to be a Christian nation.

The Public Religion Research Institute, a group that has in recent years characterized Christian nationalism as "a major threat to the health of our democracy," has a slightly less vague understanding and can supposedly deduce if someone is a Christian nationalist on their responses to the following five statements:

  • "The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation."
  • "U.S. laws should be based on Christian values."
  • "If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore."
  • "Being Christian is an important part of being truly American."
  • "God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society."

In the wild, "Christian nationalist" appears in many cases to be a term externally applied, not chosen.

Vice President JD Vance, for instance, doesn't check all of the PPRI's boxes, having indicated that Americans don't have to be Christian but that "Christianity is America's creed." Nevertheless, he is frequently branded as a "Christian nationalist."

Despite stating in 2024 that "Christian Nationalism" is "a boogeyman they've invested to silence you," and having made a point of noting months before his murder that he had never described himself as a Christian nationalist, Kirk is branded as such in Brown's CNN documentary.

Patriotic Christians were quick to lambaste Brown and CNN over the documentary and the timing of its release.

Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts noted that "it's no accident that Pamela chose the first week of Lent to release this. The world saw one of the most prominent voices on the Right martyred by a radical leftist, with his death celebrated by the Left at large — but it’s conservative Christians you need to worry about."

"This is pure bigotry from an increasingly anti-Christian, anti-American Left that tolerates all kinds of dogmas influencing people’s politics — except those of conservative Christians," added Roberts.

Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, stated, "If you’re worried about Christians radicalizing then maybe you should stop shooting up our schools, churches and now hockey rinks. Killing Charlie and the 'this is what you get' messaging from the media was pretty radicalizing too."

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

'Record' cash advantage gives GOP upper hand in state AG races



The country presently has 27 GOP state attorneys general and 23 Democrat state AGs — counting the Democrat-appointed lesbian activist in Hawaii. Republicans are fighting to maintain their dominance in the top legal offices across the country, the majority of which they have controlled since 2015.

There are 30 state attorney general seats on the ballot this November — 16 of which are presently occupied by Democrats and 14 of which are occupied by Republicans.

The Republican Attorneys General Association, whose support wasn't enough to spare former Virginia AG Jason Miyares from losing his re-election bid last year, announced on Friday that it raised "a record $29.3 million across all entities last year" — the most that any AG organization has reportedly ever raised in a calendar year.

'Four of the Toss-up AG races are in states that were considered presidential battlegrounds in 2024.'

"In 11 months, RAGA raised nearly $30 million for the first time ever," RAGA Executive Director Adam Piper said in a statement. "However, we must shatter previous fundraising records to ensure we protect battleground incumbent seats and pick up winnable seats."

"2026 is the largest election year for AG races, and RAGA is well positioned for another banner year," added Piper.

Among the incumbent Republican attorneys general now running or poised to run for re-election are:

Whereas Ohio's Dave Yost is ineligible to run again due to term limits, several other GOP incumbents are creating openings because they have their eyes set on different prizes.

RELATED: 'Going to get someone killed': Democratic AG shocks with talk about shooting ICE agents in 'stand your ground' Arizona

Georgia AG Chris Carr. Photo by Nathan Posner/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Alabama AG Steve Marshall and Texas AG Ken Paxton are running for the Senate — Marshall for the seat of Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), who is running for governor, and Paxton to deny Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) a fifth term.

South Dakota AG Marty Jackley is running for Congress. Oklahoma AG Gentner Drummond is running for governor of his state.

Louis Jacobson at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics suggested in an analysis late last year that "of the 2025-26 AG races, seven states have competitive AG races: five Toss-ups, plus a Leans Republican and a Leans Democratic seat each."

"Democrats will largely be playing defense: All five Toss-up races are currently held by Democrats, with at least two of them open-seat races, and potentially more to come open if additional incumbents run for a different office," continued Jacobson. "Mirroring the national partisan split, four of the Toss-up AG races are in states that were considered presidential battlegrounds in 2024."

Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, and Wisconsin were identified as toss-up AG races. Jacobson suggested further that Carr (R) was well-positioned in Georgia.

"The remaining states with AG races this cycle include 10 Safe Republican seats, 3 Likely Republican seats, and 11 Safe Democratic seats," added Jacobson.

While the races in Maryland, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin are attracting significant national and donor attention, the contests in Iowa and Kansas — where Kobach is once again battling Democrat challenger Chris Mann — are fast becoming two of the most closely watched, reported MultiState.

Mann reportedly out-raised Kobach last year. Nevertheless, the incumbent had more cash on hand to kick off this election year.

Bird has managed to raise over $2 million for her re-election campaign — more than double what her Democrat challenger, Nate Willems, has netted. The Des Moines Register reported, however, that Willems has fared far better in terms of fundraising than his state's former Democrat AG, Tom Miller, who lost to Bird in 2022.

The race in Texas is similarly garnering national attention, though much of the present heat surrounds the Republican primary on March 3.

The candidates who will face off Tuesday in a debate moderated by BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey are:

  • Aaron Reitz, the Paxton-endorsed former assistant attorney general who has promised to "destroy the left" if elected;
  • Rep. Chip Roy, an antagonist of Paxton who has Texas Sen. Ted Cruz's endorsement;
  • Mayes Middleton, a Texas state senator who has characterized himself as proud supporter of President Trump and the America First agenda and has been endorsed by Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas); and
  • Joan Huffman, a Texas state senator who enjoys the support of various police unions and has been endorsed by National Fraternal Order of Police Vice President Joe Gamaldi.

The debate airs at 8 p.m. ET on Tuesday.

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

Virginia Democrats just hit their first setback — and it could make a difference in the midterm elections



The Democrat-controlled Virginia General Assembly gave final legislative approval earlier this month to a proposed constitutional amendment that would give lawmakers emergency powers outside the 10-year redistricting process to gerrymander the Old Dominion's congressional maps.

"Virginia's proposed redistricting amendment is a response to what we're seeing in other states that have taken extreme measures to undermine democratic norms. This approach is short-term, highly targeted, and completely dependent on what other states decide to do themselves," Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) said last week.

"Virginia will be responsive and targeted, but only with the will of the people. I trust the voters to get this right," she continued.

However, Tazewell County Circuit Judge Jack Hurley Jr. ruled on Tuesday that the approval of the proposed amendment — which former Gov. Glenn Youngkin characterized as a "shameless, reprehensible political power grab by Democrat lawmakers" — was illegal.

'Take a look in a mirror.'

Hurley noted in his ruling that Democratic lawmakers failed to follow the right procedure concerning the passage of a constitutional amendment. Democrats failed in part by flouting the requirement that a two-thirds supermajority approve of the introduction of the unrelated subject of redistricting at last October's special legislative session, he said.

"This blatant abuse of power by a majority IGNORES their own rules and resolutions thereby trampling ANY and ALL procedural rights of the minority," Hurley wrote.

Hurley noted further that using the special session to pass the measure in October was impermissible because early voting in the Virginia's 2025 elections had already begun and "the Constitution REQUIRES an intervening election FOLLOWING the first passage of a proposed Constitutional Amendment."

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

Billy Schuerman/The Virginian-Pilot/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

The judge also indicated that Section 30-13 of the Code of Virginia — which requires the posting of such a constitutional amendment at the front of every courthouse and its publication by clerk of the House of Delegates no "later than three months prior to the next ensuing general election of members of the House of Delegates" — was not followed.

"Defendants woefully argued that the posting could occur three (3) months prior to the 2027 election and still comply with the statute even if the proposed Constitutional Amendment was voted on in the Spring of 2026," Hurley wrote.

Hurley, evidently concerned about state Democrats' recent efforts to change related rules on the fly, noted, "Even if the General Assembly is NOT required to follow its own Rules and Resolutions, and even if 'election' is narrowly defined as 'Election Day,' the Court FINDS the General Assembly FAILED to comply with Section 30-13 of the Code of Virginia, which therefore PROHIBITS the proposed amendment from being submitted to the voters for their consideration."

Julie Merz, executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the ruling was a "rogue decision" and expressed confidence it would be overturned on appeal.

The Democratic leaders in the Virginia House and Senate said in a joint statement, "Republicans who can't win at the ballot box are abusing the legal process in an attempt to sow confusion and block Virginians from voting. We will be appealing this ruling immediately."

The Virginia GOP noted in response that those Democrats now accusing Republicans of "abusing the legal process" were just found to have "violated the VA Constitution by trying to force a vote on a constitutional amendment to give themselves more political power without following the rules."

"Maybe take a look in a mirror," the state GOP added.

Failure on appeal could spell trouble for Democrats in the midterm elections. CNN indicated, after all, that Virginia "represents the largest potential number of seats Democrats still could pick up through redistricting."

While bad news for Democrats if the ruling stands, those congressional Republicans whose districts were targeted — Reps. Rob Wittman, Jen Kiggans, John McGuire, and Ben Cline — will likely be able to breathe easier.

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

Illinois Senate Hopefuls Decline To Back Schumer

Not one of the three leading Democratic candidates to replace Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois would commit to backing Chuck Schumer as the Democratic leader in the Senate—but all of them said they’d get rid of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

The post Illinois Senate Hopefuls Decline To Back Schumer appeared first on .

'Absurd fraud': Former Hochul minion declares NYC's only GOP-held congressional seat unconstitutional



Democrats, ever desperate for one-party control, filed a lawsuit in October claiming that New York City's only Republican-held congressional district was unconstitutionally drawn because it allegedly "dilutes black and Latino voting strength."

The Staten Island plaintiffs, represented by the Washington, D.C.-based Elias Law Group, demanded that the map — which was approved by the Democrat-controlled state legislature and Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) in 2024 — be redrawn such that it'd be virtually impossible for Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis to defend her district.

'This entire exercise is a cynical attempt to enact an illegal partisan gerrymander under the guise of a voting rights case.'

Jeffrey Pearlman, a justice on the New York Supreme Court who was not only appointed by Hochul but previously served as her lawyer and chief of staff, delivered the plaintiffs a win on Wednesday, claiming that the configuration of New York State's 11th congressional district is unconstitutional.

"It is clear to the Court that the current district lines of CD-11 are a contributing factor in the lack of representation for minority voters," wrote Hochul's former chief of staff.

While the Democratic plaintiffs proposed new gerrymandered district lines for the Hochul judge to adopt, he noted that the New York state Constitution leaves it to the legislature to correct the law's legal infirmities in the event that a congressional map is invalidated by a court.

RELATED: Christians win BIG: New York caves on forcing nuns and churches to fund abortion after knockout SCOTUS ruling

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.). Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images.

Accordingly he ordered the New York Independent Redistricting Commission to draw a new map by Feb. 6.

Days ahead of the ruling, Malliotakis told "The Point with Marcia Kramer" that the Democratic campaign to redraw the map was "ludicrous" and "an insult to the people of Staten Island and Southern Brooklyn, who had a Democrat, by the way, Max Rose, who represented them, and they fired this individual."

"So they had a choice here between a Republican and a Democrat, and they decided they didn't want the Democrat representing them anymore," continued Malliotakis. "And here comes this Washington firm saying they don't care about the will of the voter. They're going to set it up so a Republican can never win and it'll always be one-party rule."

Aria Branch, a partner at the D.C.-based Elias Law Group, claimed that the decision was "a victory for every voter in New York’s 11th Congressional District who has been denied an equal voice."

Hochul also lauded her former underling's decision.

"The New York State Constitution guarantees the principles of fair representation, and New Yorkers in every community deserve these protections," stated Hochul. "The court's decision underscores the importance of these constitutional principles and directs the congressional map be redrawn by the New York Independent Redistricting Commission so impacted communities are fully represented and have a voice in our democracy."

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) characterized the apparent effort to disenfranchise Republican voters in New York City as "the first step towards ensuring communities of interest remain intact from Staten Island to Lower Manhattan."

Rep. Mike Lawler (R) rejected Jeffries' framing, suggesting the Hochul judge's order amounted to an "absurd fraud" perpetrated against those "New Yorkers who demanded independent redistricting and overwhelmingly rejected partisan gerrymandering."

Ed Cox, chairman of the New York Republican Party, similarly condemned the ruling.

"This was a partisan ruling made by a partisan judge in a case brought by a notoriously partisan attorney," stated Cox. "Kathy Hochul and Albany Democrats did not alter this district when they had a chance in 2024. This entire exercise is a cynical attempt to enact an illegal partisan gerrymander under the guise of a voting rights case."

The district Hochul's former underling deemed unconstitutional has been represented by Malliotakis since 2021, when she beat her Democratic opponent in a landslide, 63.8% to 35.8%.

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

Redistricting bill passes Indiana House but will face opposition in Senate — from some Republicans



The Indiana House of Representatives passed a controversial bill that would redistrict the state and possibly flip two seats to the Republican column in the midterm elections.

Fifty-seven members voted for the bill, while 41 voted against it. The bill will go to the Indiana Senate, where some Republicans have said they oppose the redistricting effort.

'Fair maps are essential to protecting Hoosiers' voices in Washington, and today the House voted to do just that.'

Republican Indiana Gov. Mike Braun urged the Senate to pass the bill.

"Fair maps are essential to protecting Hoosiers' voices in Washington, and today the House voted to do just that, delivering a strong congressional map," Braun said. "I commend Speaker Huston and his caucus for having the courage to protect Hoosier voters. I urge the Senate to move quickly next week and adopt this map so Indiana can move forward with confidence."

However, efforts to persuade state Senate President Pro Tempore Rodric Bray, a Republican, to support the bill have failed so far.

Another Republican said that she received a threat over her opposition to the redistricting bill.

"Unfortunately, my house was the target of a pipe bomb threat on Saturday evening. This is a result of the D.C. political pundits for redistricting," state Sen. Jean Leising wrote on social media.

Trump has blasted those Republicans as "RINOs," an epithet meaning "Republican in name only."

RELATED: Supreme Court allows Texas redistricting map for midterm elections; liberals dissent

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita cited the Supreme Court's temporary approval of the Texas redistricting map for the midterms to justify his support of the bill.

"This specific map is legally solid. If any group or individual is silly enough to sue, we will defeat their attack in court," Rokita said. "As the United States Supreme Court emphasized once again last night, redistricting for political reasons is constitutional. In fact, the Court has said that redistricting belongs in the legislature — in the hands of the people's elected representatives, not judges."

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

Gov. Abbott talks redistricting victory, action against CAIR with Glenn Beck



Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) joined Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck to share his reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Republicans' proposed redistricting map. He also talked about his recent actions against the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

On Thursday, SCOTUS temporarily approved the GOP's redistricting efforts in Texas for use in the upcoming midterm election. As a result, Republicans are likely to gain five additional seats in the U.S. House.

'The Supreme Court beat down the lower court for violating that precedent.'

The Supreme Court's latest decision overturned a lower court's order, which would have required Texas to return to 2021 district lines.

Abbott joined "The Glenn Beck Program" on Friday morning to share his thoughts on the recent Supreme Court decision, calling it "huge news" for Republicans across the U.S.

"This is total vindication for the state of Texas, for the legislature," Abbott told Beck.

The Texas governor explained that the map was redrawn to "fully" comply with the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent as well as "truly represent the values of people of our state."

Abbott accused the lower court of abandoning precedent previously established by SCOTUS.

"The Supreme Court beat down the lower court for violating that precedent," he told Beck.

RELATED: Supreme Court allows Texas redistricting map for midterm elections; liberals dissent

Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images

During Friday morning's interview, Abbott also discussed his effort to remove the Council on American-Islamic Relations' tax-exempt status, citing the organization's alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

Abbott sent a letter to Secretary Scott Bessent earlier this week requesting that the Treasury Department open an investigation into the group and suspend its tax-exempt status.

"CAIR has historic connections to terrorism," Abbott stated. "Here's the bottom line: If CAIR doesn't want to be labeled as a terrorist organization, if it wants to shed its early ties to terrorism, it needs to stop supporting those who are identified by the federal government as supporters of terrorism."

"Because they support terrorists to this day, that is exactly why they deserve, for one, to be labeled a foreign organization, and, for another, why they should not be receiving the benefits of a 501(c)(3) organization," he added.

RELATED: Islamist groups in Texas rake in $13M in taxpayer-funded grants amid Abbott’s battle against Sharia law

Greg Abbott. Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

CAIR sent its own letter to Bessent the following day, claiming to debunk the governor's accusations.

"Governor Abbott is afraid," CAIR stated. "He knows that his proclamation targeting CAIR-Texas is unconstitutional, so now he is desperately trying to find another way to target our organization."

"Unfortunately for Mr. Abbott, his lies about us are easily disprovable and the truth about him is clearly evident: He's an Israel First politician who is obsessed with CAIR because our lawsuits have defeated his attempts to silence Texans critical of Israel three times in a row. We look forward to defeating him in court for a fourth time soon, God willing," CAIR's statement read.

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

Supreme Court allows Texas redistricting map for midterm elections; liberals dissent



The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily approved the redistricting map in Texas for the midterm election over the dissent of the liberal justices.

The 5-3 partisan vote means Republicans will likely gain several seats from Texas. The decision blocks a lower court injunction just as politicians begin to qualify for elections in the state.

'Congratulations to Texas for advancing the rule of law.'

The court has not yet issued a permanent decision on the lawsuit, claiming that the redistricting effort pushed by Republicans is discriminatory and unlawful.

Republicans hope the redrawn map will lead to five additional seats in the U.S. House, but Democrats have countered with their own redistricting effort, including one in California.

The Trump administration is suing against the new district map in California.

"To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map," U.S. District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown previously wrote in the Texas case. "But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map."

U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi praised the decision on social media.

"Federal courts have no right to interfere with a State's decision to redraw legislative maps for partisan reasons," she asserted.

"A federal district court ignored that principle two weeks ago, and the Supreme Court correctly stayed that overreaching decision tonight," she added. "Congratulations to Texas for advancing the rule of law, my Solicitor General John Sauer, and our team of lawyers for their excellent brief supporting Texas in this important case."

RELATED: Gov. Hochul says New York is jumping into redistricting feud between California and Texas

The redistricting effort in California was championed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who campaigned to push the proposition by characterizing it as a chance for Californians to push back against President Donald Trump.

The president accused them of rigging the election for the redistricting proposition, which passed easily.

"The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED," Trump said at the time. "All 'Mail-In' Ballots, where the Republicans in that State are 'Shut Out,' is under very serious legal and criminal review."

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

The 2026 map tilts left if Republicans ignore what voters just told them



The Associated Press told us a partial truth after the November 4 elections: Republicans delude themselves when they brush off their losses. AP then added its usual spin, claiming GOP leaders deny that “affordability” drove their defeat. According to AP, soaring costs and economic uncertainty explain why Republican candidates collapsed across several high-profile races.

Republicans did not simply underperform. They were routed. GOP candidates lost in the marquee races in New Jersey and Virginia, and Democrats came within striking distance of a supermajority in the Virginia legislature. Democrats even clawed back ground in places like Luzerne County, Pennsylvania — a longtime working-class stronghold that had tilted red for decades.

The left treats politics as a total struggle. Republicans cannot keep treating it as a polite debate.

The GOP took a real shellacking.

AP captured only part of the story. Republican leaders keep denying the obvious, insisting the mid-cycle results followed the usual pattern for a party out of power. That excuse collapses when measured against the magnitude of the losses.

In New Jersey, a scandal-scarred, aggressively pro-LGBTQ Democrat crushed a strong Republican challenger by more than 14 points — in a state battered by high taxes, rising crime, and deep voter frustration. Jack Ciattarelli was supposedly running neck-and-neck with Mikie Sherrill. The final tally proved otherwise.

Virginia delivered an even starker picture. A hyper-progressive Democrat won the governor’s race against a conservative black Republican woman. The new attorney general prevailed despite revelations that he sent violent, disturbing text messages expressing rage toward a Democratic opponent and his children. Voters shrugged and voted for him anyway.

This election was not routine. It was a decisive, unmistakable rejection of the party in power. The results cannot be explained away by economic anxiety. Voters responded to ideology and identity — not affordability indexes.

Democratic voters turned out as a unified bloc against what they have been conditioned to believe is a dangerous, authoritarian movement. Media outlets, universities, Hollywood, and most major cultural institutions spent years drilling that narrative into the public. The left absorbed it fully and voted accordingly.

It’s hard to square AP’s affordability argument with the fact that voters rewarded Biden’s economically disastrous administration in the 2022 midterms — and continued to do so in these off-year races. By every major metric, economic conditions have improved dramatically since Trump returned to the White House. Inflation fell. Energy prices dropped. Markets hit record highs. Food and housing costs remain problems, but they remain high largely because the Federal Reserve refuses to cut rates — something Trump intends to fix when he replaces the current chair.

Meanwhile, Biden’s border catastrophe flooded the country with roughly 10 million illegal migrants, burdened taxpayers, and fueled a surge of crime. Yet he paid little political price. Voters did not punish him or his party.

To understand why, look at a recent Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll. Georgia Republicans list inflation and the economy as their top concerns. Georgia Democrats list something else entirely: a “tougher response” to Trump and MAGA Republicans. They rank economic issues and even abortion behind their desire to defeat an ideological enemy. For them, politics is a moral crusade.

RELATED: Mamdani sells socialism — and Republicans peddle the Temu version

Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

This reveals the central mismatch. Republicans speak the language of policy: inflation, taxes, energy, spending. Democrats speak the language of existential struggle. They believe they are at war with a malevolent force, and that belief animates them far more than grocery bills or mortgage rates. Trump derangement syndrome is very much alive and well with these voters.

Republicans just want to return to normal politics — debates over issues, clean contests, and sportsmanlike disagreements. Their media allies keep telling them nothing has changed since Trump beat a ditzy, verbally inept opponent in 2024.

Wrong. Everything has changed.

Republicans face a massive, highly motivated voting bloc determined to strip them of power. Democrats aim to defeat and humiliate their opposition, not negotiate with it. Their rhetoric against ICE, their nonstop attacks on Trump, and their saturation campaigns across media and education paid off. They fought harder. They fought longer. And they won nearly everywhere that mattered.

The GOP cannot afford to treat this moment as another cyclical setback. The left treats politics as a total struggle. Republicans cannot keep treating it as a polite debate. Until the GOP grasps the scale of the conflict, election nights will keep looking like this one.

CAIR Teased a 'Major' Expansion to Its Political Operations After Oct. 7. Two Years Later, Its Network Is Taking Credit for Mamdani's Win—and Pledging To Do More.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations teased a "major" expansion to its lobbying and political operations in the wake of Oct. 7 to give Muslims "a voice in the halls of Congress and on the campaign trails." Nearly two years later, the pro-Hamas group's allies and officials say their efforts helped elect New York City mayor-to-be Zohran Mamdani, with plans to "make even more history" in next year's midterm elections.

The post CAIR Teased a 'Major' Expansion to Its Political Operations After Oct. 7. Two Years Later, Its Network Is Taking Credit for Mamdani's Win—and Pledging To Do More. appeared first on .