'Bye': Seattle mayor laughs off wealth exodus from her flagging, crime-ridden city



Katie Wilson, the 43-year-old leftist blogger elected mayor of Seattle last year, apparently finds it amusing that deep-pocketed residents and businesses are fleeing her crime-ridden city.

During a recent event at Seattle University, lecturer Joni Balter raised the matter of downtown Seattle's apparent inability to "grow job these days," noting that "the city has lost 25,000 jobs over four years, and the thinking is — the data folks say — that if you extend that out five years, it could be as high as 37,000 jobs."

'We still have the very regressive tax system.'

According to a recent report from the the Downtown Seattle Association, the Emerald City's downtown has seen a 14% decrease in brick-and-mortar retail jobs since 2010 and lost an estimated 13,000 jobs just last year, amounting to the biggest decrease in jobs since the pandemic.

The report noted further that Seattle's downtown office vacancy remained at a post-pandemic high of 25%; the central business district experienced an office vacancy rate of 32% last year, nearly double the previous high point during the Great Recession in 2009; and the combined taxable value of the 20 highest-valued properties in Seattle's downtown has declined from over $10 billion in 2021 to roughly $5.1 billion this year.

When asked about her plan to "turn that around," Wilson — who appeared on stage alongside fellow radical Girmay Zahilay, the newly elected King County executive — attributed Seattle's exodus of jobs and businesses to a number of factors including potential workers' apparent inability to afford living in or near the downtown; homelessness and public safety issues; and the "tax environment."

While apparently interested in tackling the affordability, homelessness, and public safety issues, Wilson signaled that her city's crushing taxes won't soon be changed.

RELATED: Mamdani finally admits what people knew about his candidacy from the start

David Ryder/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Wilson, who co-founded the Transit Riders Union in 2011 and endeavored in years past to "Trump-proof Seattle," was later asked about the "taxing climate" and whether progressive taxes were an "easy and promising solution."

After noting that she found it "very exciting" that state Democrats passed a 9.9% tax on annual taxable income exceeding $1 million for individuals or households and recalling her efforts to push similar taxes in Seattle, Wilson said that claims that wealthy residents will flee the state are "super overblown."

But to those beleaguered residents who have chosen to leave or might do so in the near future, the mayor waved, said, "Bye," and laughed in concert with fellow travelers in the sparsely populated audience.

"In general, we still have the very regressive tax system, and my office is doing a lot of work to look at what our options are in terms of progressive taxation," continued Wilson. "We do have more flexibility at the city than the county, in terms of our taxing authority."

Despite Wilson's casual dismissal, high taxes in Seattle appear to be chasing jobs to cities like Bellevue.

Jon Scholes, president of the Downtown Seattle Association, suggested that Amazon's decision to relocate thousands of employees from Seattle to other King County locations was the direct result of Seattle's overwhelming tax burden, reported the Center Square. Starbucks, which is headquartered in Seattle, also appears to be angling for greener pastures.

Among the taxes the city has implemented is the Social Housing Tax, a 5% levy on employee compensation exceeding $1 million, and the JumpStart Payroll Expense Tax, which the city slapped on companies with employees making more than $150,000 annually.

"What we need is more businesses in Seattle paying taxes," said Scholes. "That's how we strengthen the tax base."

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

​Woke city council rips out anti-crime signs because they're 'racist'​



Neighborhood watch programs have long encouraged citizens to take pride in the welfare of their communities and to adopt a proactive approach to crime prevention. While maximizing citizen vigilance and cooperation with lawful authorities has been associated with reductions in crime, some liberals figure such efforts and the corresponding signage to be unnecessarily exclusionary.

After revolting last year against the decades-old program of communal self-defense and surveillance, woke city councilors in Ann Arbor, Michigan, have since blown taxpayer dollars on the removal of all remaining evidence of the city's Neighborhood Crime Watch program.

'Neighborhood watch signs are expressions of exclusion.'

According to the resolution passed by the city council on Dec. 15 directing the removal of over 600 Neighborhood Crime Watch signs in Ann Arbor, "Neighborhood Watch programs emerged in the 1970s during a period of national anxiety about crime and social change" and were "often rooted in assumptions about who did and did not 'belong' in a neighborhood, reinforcing race-based hyper-vigilance and suspicion particularly toward black, brown, and other marginalized residents and visitors."

The resolution claimed that this dynamic in Ann Arbor, a city whose population today is 66.5% non-Hispanic white, "encouraged informal surveillance practices that disproportionately targeted people of color and contributed to patterns of exclusion under the guise of public safety."

RELATED: Thugs ages 11 to 14 gang up on, mercilessly beat up victim on sidewalk — and adults are done: 'I'm very fearful for my life'

Ann Arbor Mayor Christopher Taylor (D). Aaron J. Thornton/Getty Images

The signs that were posted throughout the city not only denoted a supposedly defunct program but anti-crime messages that "do not reflect Ann Arbor's current public safety values or its commitment to nondiscriminatory enforcement, community trust, and safe spaces for all residents and visitors."

Councilwoman Cynthia Harrison said when the resolution passed, "Signs don’t just sit there, they speak. For many people, especially black and brown residents and visitors, those signs have never felt neutral. They signal that unfamiliarity itself is suspicious, that their presence must be justified, that belonging is conditional," reported the Michigan Daily.

Harrison joined Ann Arbor Mayor Christopher Taylor (D) and Councilwoman Jen Eyer on April 21 for the ceremonial tear-down of the final Neighborhood Crime Watch sign.

As their virtue-signaling campaign — which cost the city at least $18,000 from its general fund balance — came to a close, the leftist trio recycled the revisionist gobbledygook from their resolution.

"Neighborhood watch signs are expressions of exclusion," said Taylor, reported MLive.com

Eyer stated, "It really hearkens back to a time when public safety was more about surveillance and exclusion of people from communities and trying to look out for anyone who looked different."

After reiterating that the crime-prevention signs do "not align with our values," Harrison stressed that "this is a great day."

The Michigan Daily reported in March 1981 that "rather than quivering behind bolted doors, some Ann Arbor residents favoring stepped-up police protection are taking matters into their own hands."

The Neighborhood Watch program, formally adopted the previous year in the wake of 30-year-old Rebecca Huff's savage murder, "banded together neighbors in one-block sections of the city who look and listen for signs of criminal activity."

"It's more or less socializing and really getting to know your neighbors," an Ann Arbor police detective said at the time. "People watch each other's property, apartment-sit, and know each other's cars. If a strange car is seen in the area, the residents can obtain the license plate number and call us on a special communication hookup."

While Neighborhood Watch is officially no more in Ann Arbor, vigilant residents don't need signs or permission to look after their communities and can always share insights and tips with one another on apps like Citizen and Nextdoor.

According to Neighborhood Scout, the likelihood of becoming a victim of a property crime and a violent crime in the Democrat-run city is 1 in 47 and 1 in 296, respectively.

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

Suspect known as Muhi Mohanad Najm allegedly enters Texas elementary school with military gear, firearm



An armed man was able to walk into Zwink Elementary School in Klein, Texas, on Tuesday, according to multiple reports.

Kyle Najm Chris, also known as Muhi Mohanad Najm, 39, was charged with possession of a weapon in a prohibited place after allegedly entering the school property after another visitor reportedly failed to properly secure the door.

The suspect has no known affiliation with the school.

One school employee told investigators that Chris was wearing full green military or tactical law enforcement attire, including a load-bearing vest, a taser, and a holstered firearm.

School and district officials explained in a letter to parents why they were not immediately notified of the incident.

RELATED: Who is the naturalized US citizen from Lebanon identified as the Michigan synagogue school attacker?

Photo by Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images

"From the moment the individual left the front office, we were actively working with multiple law enforcement agencies to identify and apprehend this individual," they wrote, according to KHOU.

"Sending a public notification during that window could have jeopardized those efforts, tipped off the suspect, and delayed the arrest."

Officials were able to track the suspect through security camera footage, facial recognition, and the Texas Department of Public Safety's Flock license plate database after he left the premises. The suspect reportedly left the school property, got into a blue Dodge Charger, and was later arrested at his home about a half-mile away, KTRK reported.

The suspect has no known affiliation with the school. He was arrested on Wednesday night and booked into the Harris County Jail.

One neighbor was inclined to think that there was a misunderstanding, describing the suspect as a friend and veteran.

"He watches my kid all the time for me. When I was in California and gone for a couple of months, my son would come home, and he would go to the bus stop and walk him home, put him in the house, let him sit in there, he could go across the street and get the neighbor, you know what I mean," the man, identified only as Randy, told KTRK.

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

This 9-0 SCOTUS Decision Makes Clear Law Enforcement’s Right To Stop Threats To Public Safety

'It stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended,' wrote Justice Alito.

Trump can fix a hidden public safety failure



During President Trump’s first term, he signed the First Step Act — the most comprehensive criminal justice reform bill in decades — into law. He now has a chance to take a “second step” by rightsizing federal supervision of people on probation — an often overlooked public safety gap — with the introduction of the Safer Supervision Act.

I worked with the president and many bipartisan leaders to pass the First Step Act. I have also been on supervision and spend time with law enforcement leaders across the country. The Safe Supervision Act will empower our federal probation officers and judges to devote previous supervision resources to the people most likely to commit more crimes.

The Safer Supervision Act is the smart, responsible way to make our communities safer — and it is a great 'second step' for President Trump.

Currently the federal system for supervised release — the period of monitoring that follows incarceration — is structured in a way that actively undermines this goal. By overwhelming federal probation officers with low-risk individuals, the current system diverts attention and resources away from the true threats.

Due to the sprawling, largely automatic application of supervised release, our federal system currently monitors more than 110,000 individuals. This policy forces federal probation officers to spread their time dangerously thin.

When officers must dedicate precious time and limited resources to tracking individuals who have already demonstrated a low risk of re-offending, they are left with insufficient bandwidth to provide the oversight and intervention required by high-risk, violent offenders.

The bipartisan Safer Supervision Act is a targeted piece of legislation that corrects this dangerous imbalance. It is a genuine public safety bill that has earned the strong endorsement of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, and the NationalDistrict Attorneys Association, among others. This bill’s promise is simple: More efficient use of law enforcement resources will reduce repeat crimes.

The core mechanism of the act is the restoration of individualized assessment. Under the current system, supervision is imposed in virtually every case. The Safer Supervision Act requires courts to conduct an individualized risk assessment before imposing supervision.

By reserving supervised release for cases that genuinely warrant it, this change moves toward a gold standard of effective supervision endorsed by professional associations such as the American Probation and Parole Association.

The strongest supervision model ensures that intensive supervision and rehabilitation efforts are directed to the highest-risk areas. The bill would allow federal law enforcement to operate as true risk managers, directing resources where they can have the most effect on those who pose the greatest public threat.

RELATED: Mexico has cartel armies. Blue America has cartel politics.

Photo by HERIKA MARTINEZ/AFP via Getty Images

The bill helps break the cycle of recidivism by providing a strong incentive for successful rehabilitation. For low-risk individuals who have served their time and demonstrated good conduct, unnecessarily prolonged supervision terms become a counterproductive barrier. They inhibit successful re-entry by making it difficult to find stable employment and housing, which paradoxically increases the likelihood that the individual will re-offend.

The Safer Supervision Act establishes a process for early termination of supervision for individuals who have served half their term (or two-thirds for violent offenses) and have maintained good behavior. By giving people a clear finish line and rewarding sustained compliance, it dramatically increases the incentive for positive life changes. A successfully terminated supervision term means one less individual returning to crime, thereby enhancing the overall safety of their neighborhood.

Finally the act shows intelligence in addressing substance-use violations, treating them as opportunities for intervention rather than instant triggers for renewed incarceration. The bill creates an extremely narrow carve-out, giving judges discretion for minor offenses.

Under current law, mandatory re-imprisonment is required for these minor violations, often derailing successful rehabilitation and costing taxpayers significantly. The Safer Supervision Act empowers judges to prioritize treatment, counseling, and swift rehabilitation over immediate, expensive, and ineffective re-incarceration.

The support for the Safer Supervision Act is the most bipartisan coalition we have seen since the First Step Act. It is endorsed by police chiefs and prosecutors who understand the operational realities of crime and by fiscal conservatives demanding accountability for federal spending.

By adopting this bill, Congress can deliver a modern, evidence-based supervision system that ensures limited resources go to our highest-risk individuals, minimizes government waste, and delivers lasting public safety improvements.

The Safer Supervision Act is the smart, responsible way to make our communities safer — and it is a great “second step” for President Trump.

Trump Scores Major Court Win In Bid To Keep D.C.’s Streets Safe

In a major win for the Trump administration, a federal appellate court agreed on Wednesday that President Trump can deploy the National Guard to Washington, D.C. for the time being. In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily froze a preliminary injunction issued last month by Biden-appointed District […]

Illegal drivers, dead Americans — this is what ‘open borders’ really mean



Wherever you’re reading this, your day almost certainly began on an American road. You might have driven your kids to day care, headed to work, or grabbed a coffee. Even cyclists rely on the same system. Those routines rest on one basic assumption: The people operating massive commercial vehicles are trained, vetted, and accountable.

The assumption is disintegrating because the country is still digging out from the chaos of the Biden administration’s border collapse. President Trump is trying to put the pieces back together, but the wreckage didn’t disappear overnight — and we see the consequences on our highways.

America’s highways shouldn’t become another casualty of Washington’s failures. Neither should American workers.

A recent tragedy in Florida makes the point. A 28-year-old man from India made an illegal U-turn on the turnpike and allegedly killed three people. He reportedly entered the United States illegally and still obtained a commercial driver’s license. In California, a 21-year-old — also allegedly in the country illegally — slammed his semi into stopped traffic on Interstate 10, killing three more. Authorities say he crossed the border in 2022 during the peak of the Biden administration’s open-border surge.

These cases aren’t flukes. They reflect a system that stopped taking seriously who gets behind the wheel of an 80,000-pound vehicle.

The incentives run in one direction. The trucking industry faces a driver shortage. Instead of raising wages and restoring what used to be a proud, middle-class profession, too many companies cut corners by hiring illegal labor willing to work for less. That choice endangers families on the highway and robs American truckers of the wages they earned by playing by the rules.

Every illegal driver creates two problems. First, a safety threat to everyone sharing the road. Second, downward pressure on American workers’ earnings. Flood the labor market with illegal labor, and you weaken the people who keep the country moving.

Trucking remains a central pillar of the American economy. Nearly everything in your home arrived on a truck. These jobs once supported families. They now absorb the fallout from policies that ignore the consequences of illegal hiring.

Fixing this requires basic seriousness. That means, at the very least, strict verification, no loopholes, and no more rubber-stamped licenses issued without proof of legal status. And no more pretending that illegal immigration leaves public safety and wages untouched.

RELATED: Truckers push back on driver-shortage ‘myth’ that has led to flood of foreigners in long-haul industry

Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

The country depends on trucking. The system works only when drivers are properly trained, thoroughly vetted, and in the country legally. It fails when policymakers encourage shortcuts and lower standards to satisfy an open-border ideology.

This debate isn’t abstract. It’s about safety. It’s about economic fairness. It’s about recognizing that border policy shapes everyday life — including the safety of your morning commute.

America’s highways shouldn’t become another casualty of Washington’s failures. Neither should American workers. Both deserve leaders willing to enforce the rules that keep this country safe and prosperous.

Mao tried this first — New Yorkers will not like the ending



More than 50 years ago, I witnessed firsthand how Mao Zedong’s socialist experiment dismantled market competition, suppressed innovation, and plunged China into economic ruin. As a survivor of that experiment, I watched in horror last week as Zohran Mamdani won over 50% of the vote in New York City, promising a socialist illusion of city-owned grocery stores, free public transit, universal rent control, and a defunded police department.

Such proposals might sound compassionate, but they threaten to repeat the class warfare and state control that devastated China from the 1950s to the late 1970s, only this time they are taking place in the financial capital of the world.

The unpleasant truth is that America may have won the Cold War, but we are losing the ideological war at home.

Consider Mamdani’s push for “good cause eviction” laws and expanded rent control. He claims these measures protect tenants from exploitation, but they discourage property ownership and investment — just as Mao’s housing policies did.

In communist China, the state assigned apartments to urban families, but most people lived in poverty. My family of five was crammed into a 200-square-foot unit with no running water or a toilet. Today, rent control has already reduced housing supply by 20% in parts of New York City, driving up costs for everyone else. What Mamdani offers isn’t progress — it’s stagnation disguised as equity.

Mamdani’s support for “Medicare for All” and fare-free buses also ignores fiscal realities. Mao’s “barefoot doctors” promised class equity but delivered substandard care, contributing to millions of preventable deaths. America’s health care system leads the world in breakthroughs because of merit-driven research and competition, not government mandates. Meanwhile, New York City’s transit authority estimates free transit would cost taxpayers $1 billion annually without improving service. When socialism promises “free” services, it often delivers shortages, rationing, and inefficiency.

The proposal for city-owned grocery stores is another red flag. Under Mao, government-run stores led to chronic food shortages. Rice, cooking oil, and meat were rationed. Each urban citizen received only two pounds of meat per month. Even with ration coupons, I had to wake at 3 or 4 a.m. and wait in line for hours to buy a few ounces. Mamdani’s plan threatening private grocery competition risks repeating this nightmare.

Then there’s his support for defunding the police and replacing them with vague “community safety” alternatives. In 2020, he co-sponsored bills to slash NYPD funding by $1 billion, claiming it would combat systemic racism. This mirrors Mao’s Red Guards, who dismantled law enforcement and replaced it with ideological enforcers — leading to chaos, violence, and mass suffering.

Since 2020, crime in New York has risen by 15%, according to NYPD data. Weakening law enforcement doesn’t protect vulnerable communities — it leaves them exposed. As a father of a New Yorker, Mamdani’s reckless approach to policing is not just a political concern; it’s a personal one.

Mamdani also seeks to eliminate gifted and talented programs in public schools, calling them “inequitable.” But these programs offer high-achieving students — often from diverse backgrounds — a path to excellence.

RELATED: The right needs bigger ideas than tax cuts

Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images

During the Cultural Revolution, China crushed its intellectual class and smothered innovation. New York is making a similar mistake. Gifted programs lifted math proficiency by 25%, according to a 2022 Department of Education report, yet Mamdani wants them eliminated in the name of “equity.” As an Asian-American parent who raised a child in STEM, I’ve seen how excellence takes root: You cultivate talent; you don’t level it.

Mamdani’s agenda mirrors the same destructive ideology I fled from. Socialism thrives on utopian promises pitched to voters who have never lived through the consequences. I have. And I recognize the warning signs.

Yet according to CNNexit polls, 70% of voters ages 18-44 supported Mamdani, compared to just 40% of older voters. Even more alarming: 57% of New Yorkers with college degrees voted for him, versus only 42% without. This reflects the growing influence of pro-socialist indoctrination in American universities.

The unpleasant truth is that America may have won the Cold War, but we are losing the ideological war at home. To prevent a socialist takeover, we must fight back by reforming higher education and teaching our children the truth about socialism in K-12 classrooms.

From 911 to broadband, criminals are unplugging America



Imagine calling 911 and no one answers. A hospital loses internet access mid-surgery and your child is the patient. You can’t work, access your bank, or contact your doctor — all because a few thieves ripped copper wiring from the ground to sell for scrap.

These aren’t distant hypotheticals. They’re happening across the country right now. In recent weeks alone, copper wire thefts darkened 5,500 streetlights in Tucson, shut down Denver’s A-Line train, and caused $1.25 million in losses in Bakersfield, California, where thieves stripped wiring from electric-vehicle charging stations.

Broadband is critical infrastructure — the digital lifeline of daily American life. Protecting it is not a corporate issue but a consumer one.

The problem isn’t slowing down. Two new reports reveal a stunning rise in theft and vandalism against America’s broadband and wireless networks. Between June 2024 and June 2025, more than 15,000 incidents disrupted service for over 9.5 million customers nationwide. In just the first half of 2025, incidents nearly doubled from the previous six months.

Hospitals, schools, 911 dispatch centers, even military bases have been hit — exposing a growing national vulnerability.

Not just a local nuisance

The cost of stolen wire is trivial compared with the damage it causes. Between June and December 2024, theft-related outages cost society between $38 million and $188 million in losses. California and Texas took the biggest hits — $29.3 million and $18.1 million — while smaller states like Kentucky suffered millions too. Every cut cable ripples outward, silencing entire communities.

These aren’t weekend thieves looking for beer money. They’re organized, brazen, and increasingly strategic. Some know exactly which copper or fiber-optic lines to hit. Others destroy fiber cables by mistake, assuming they contain metal. Either way, the result is the same: chaos, cost, and danger.

Consumers pay the price. Each attack disrupts 911 access, paralyzes small businesses, and stalls health care, banking, and remote work. Broadband expansion — especially in rural and underserved areas — slows to a crawl.

When vandalism becomes sabotage

Some of these attacks are so severe that investigators now treat them as potential acts of domestic terrorism. Charter Communications reports a 200% increase in felony attacks on its Missouri fiber network this year. In Van Nuys, California, vandals cut 13 fiber lines in one night, knocking out 911 dispatch, a military base, and hospitals for 30 hours. These were no petty crimes. They were coordinated strikes that endangered lives.

Businesses, taxpayers, and consumers have invested billions to build these networks. Letting criminals dismantle them for pocket change is unacceptable.

Yet under current federal law, destroying broadband infrastructure isn’t punished like attacks on pipelines, railways, or power grids. In many states, penalties are outdated or nonexistent — effectively giving vandals a free pass to cripple critical systems.

A bipartisan fix

Congress has begun to respond. Reps. Laurel Lee (R-Fla.) and Marc Veasey (D-Texas) have introduced H.R. 2784, the bipartisan Stopping the Theft and Destruction of Broadband Act. The bill would amend federal law to explicitly criminalize the destruction of broadband infrastructure, giving law enforcement the tools needed to act.

Adding broadband systems to the list of protected critical assets under Title 18 of the U.S. Code would send a clear message: This isn’t scrap-metal scavenging — it’s sabotage, and it will be prosecuted as such.

RELATED: China rules the resources we need to build the future. Now what?

Liudmila Chernetska via iStock/Getty Images

To defend consumers and our connected economy, lawmakers must:

  • strengthen penalties for theft or destruction of communications infrastructure, matching protections for other critical sectors;
  • crack down on black-market copper sales by holding scrap dealers accountable;
  • increase funding and coordination for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute network attacks; and
  • support industry-led security upgrades without adding regulatory burdens that slow innovation.

States like Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina have already moved to deter these crimes. Congress should follow their lead.

Defend what we built

Broadband is critical infrastructure — the digital lifeline of daily American life. Protecting it is not a corporate issue but a consumer one. Americans shouldn’t have to wonder whether their connection will work when they need it most.

We built the connected economy. Now we must defend it — before the vandals win.

Democrats are running as Bush-era Republicans — and winning



Republicans have given voters no reason to support them beyond the claim that Democrats are dangerously radical.

Well, sure. But when voters look around and see rising prices, rising crime, and no clear plan from the party in power, they turn to the other side. That’s what happened in Virginia, and it will keep happening as long as life stays unaffordable and Republicans offer nothing but excuses.

Republicans can still win — but not with hollow slogans or billionaire donors. They need to fight for affordable living, strong families, and safe communities.

Democrats’ victories in Virginia and New Jersey shouldn’t shock anyone — Trump didn’t need either state to win the presidency in 2024. What should alarm Republicans are the margins. Democrats crushed their opponents by 15 points in Virginia and 13 in New Jersey, performing better than Kamala Harris did against Trump in New York.

The blue wave swept deep into Republican territory. Democrats unseated Virginia’s attorney general — a respected conservative — with Jay “Two Bullets” Jones, a radical, scandal-prone candidate, and still won by nearly seven points. They gained at least 13 legislative seats, leaving Republicans with half the representation they held just eight years ago.

In Georgia, Democrats flipped two public service commission seats — their first statewide wins since 2006 — and won them by 24 points. They broke the GOP supermajority in the Mississippi Senate, flipped a state House seat, and took local races across Pennsylvania. In New Jersey, where Republicans didn’t even see the blowout coming, Democrats regained a supermajority in the General Assembly.

Taken together, these results point to a coming wipeout. Democrats have outperformed their 2024 presidential baseline by an average of 15 points in special elections this year, according to Ballotpedia — more than double the overperformance seen during Trump’s first term. In 45 of 46 key contests, Democrats either held or improved their position.

All liabilities, no benefits

Republicans now face the worst possible political scenario: They hold power, which unites and energizes Democrats, but they’ve done almost nothing with it to inspire anyone else.

The first year of Trump’s second term has been defined by trivial fights and tone-deaf priorities: tax favors for tech investors, special deals for crypto, and zoning disasters for rural and suburban voters. The data center explosion in Virginia, which has raised utility bills and wrecked communities, could have been an easy populist target. Instead, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) vetoed a bill to rein it in.

Despite cozying up to Big Tech, Republicans haven’t reaped any benefit. The Virginia Republican Party is broke, its candidates are outspent, and the grassroots are demoralized. The GOP keeps selling out to special interests that will never back the party. How have the ties to crypto, Big Tech, and Qatar paid off?

The reality is, Republicans don’t need those donors — they need a message to inspire a new generation of activists.

How Democrats outflanked the GOP

Democrats have learned to look like the party of normalcy while Republicans drift between populist posturing and corporate servitude. In Virginia, Abigail Spanberger ran on cutting costs, lowering taxes, and fighting crime — and she did it in the language of moderation. Republicans, who should own those issues, barely showed up for the debate.

Spanberger’s ads promised relief from inflation and touted her background in the CIA and law enforcement. She presented herself as steady and practical while Republicans floundered. Once again, Democrats outflanked the GOP on the right.

Republicans could have drawn blood by hammering Democrats on crime in Northern Virginia. Instead, they ran away from tough-on-crime policies. Winsome Earle-Sears even toyed with “criminal justice reform” while voters begged for accountability and order.

The result: Democrats ran as Bush-era Republicans, while Republicans looked like corporate consultants. Democrats talked about affordability and safety. Republicans talked about crypto and zoning boards.

The Trump paradox

The GOP’s reliance on one man has hollowed it out. Trump won the presidency in 2016 by talking about forgotten workers and American industry. But his divided message, personal vendettas, and fixation on media attention have since consumed the movement.

RELATED: Here’s what exit polls reveal about Tuesday’s electoral bloodbath

Photo by Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images

Now the party gets the worst of both worlds — all of Trump’s baggage, none of his appeal. Democrats use him to rally turnout. Independents recoil. The GOP lacks infrastructure, vision, and discipline. The movement that once promised to fight the establishment has become addicted to social media applause.

A party in search of conviction

If Virginia had a commanding figure like Ron DeSantis at the top of the ticket, Republicans might have dampened the blue wave. But without an inspiring message, voters in an economic crisis will always drift to the other side.

The problem isn’t demographics; if it were, Democrats would campaign in Virginia the same way they do in California or New York City. Instead, they skate by on empty promises because Republicans, trapped by special interests and lacking a winning message, have become easy targets — and surrendered the very issues that could win back suburban voters.

Republicans can still win — but not with hollow slogans or billionaire donors. They need to fight for affordable living, strong families, and safe communities. They need a moral and economic vision that reaches beyond social media and into the lives of working Americans.

The question conservatives must ask is the one George Patton once put to his men in another context: When will we finally fight and die on our own hills instead of dying on someone else’s?

Twitter is not America. And unless Republicans start acting like they know the difference, they’ll keep losing — and keep deserving it.