WHQR's Sunday Edition is a free weekly newsletter delivered every Sunday morning. You can sign up for Sunday Edition here.
Blue Wave
Much has been said about Tuesday’s election, the best of which has been fairly strait-laced, avoiding Schadenfreude and finger-pointing, and reminding folks that elections are overdetermined and mercurial. You can draw lessons from an election, but it’s hard to hammer out proven laws: if X, then Y. At best, they’re stochastic — you can find patterns in the randomness, but if you’re aiming at precise prediction, you’ll miss as often (or more) than you get it right.
Still, pundits gotta pundit — and people want some context and explanation for why Democrats ran the table on Tuesday night. In Wilmington, particularly, three good — but politically inexperienced — candidates swept the city council race, surprising many people (including me) with an incontestable victory. So, what happened?
The Third Law of Political Physics
The overarching conventional wisdom has been, simply, that frustration (to put it mildly) with the Trump administration ushered a lot more Democrats than Republicans to the polls. It was a blue wave — more than many expected, certainly more than I thought we’d see in Wilmington.
From 30,000 feet, it does provide a unified framework for the very different elections in New York City, New Jersey, Virginia, and here in the Wilmington area. It helps explain how Republican Hank Miller was ousted from his seat in Wrightsville Beach, a reliably conservative town not known for political upsets. And in Wilmington, it makes some sense of Republican Luke Waddell’s loss in the city council race, despite being a popular, well-funded incumbent.
It also feels of a piece with what I heard at the polls. While my survey of voters was anecdotal — and no substitute for proper polling — I talked to a lot of people who told me that they didn’t want to wait for the midterms to voice their frustrations with the Trump administration. Many said the recent No Kings protest had “fired them up.”
And if the protest itself hadn’t motivated them, there was also the Commander in Chief posting an AI-generated video of himself, wearing a crown, literally shitting on No Kings protestors from a fighter jet with “KING TRUMP” emblazed on the side.
I put this to conservative commentators Nick Craig and Reuel Sample on our most recent podcast, and they largely agreed. Other Republican strategists and commentators made more oblique references to the ‘national political environment,’ which amounted to more or less the same thing: Trump’s relentless, and often quite effective, trolling of the left had sparked a lot of outrage, and voters weren’t content to wait for the traditional mid-term pendulum swing.
It seems simplistic, I admit, but sometimes we overthink politics. At least on some level, it’s difficult not to see Tuesday’s turnout as an equal and opposite reaction to Trump’s gleeful provocations.
Republican reactions
Working through the election results, some conservatives tried to put the losses in perspective (or downplay them, depending on how you look at it).
As Andrew Egger wrote for The Bulwark, Tuesday night was bad for Republicans, but it wasn’t a full-on revolution.
“If there’s good news for Trump here, it’s that the damage was contained to a couple governorships and state supreme court and legislative elections. The GOP’s coalmine canary has croaked, but the miners are all still alive. They may even remain so. But that will depend largely on how Donald Trump responds,” he wrote.
Egger and The Bulwark crew suggested that a “saner” Trump would dial things down to maybe cushion the blow of future blue waves —especially for next year’s congressional elections. But, as Sample told me earlier this week, that’s probably against both Trump’s policy and his very nature. As we head into the primaries next spring, I’m sure there will be much speculation about whether the Trump administration will again drive heavy Democratic turnout.
There was also, especially at the national level, a notable attempt to shift the narrative from who lost to who won, including Democrat Jay Jones, who was elected as Virginia attorney general despite the revelation that he’d sent some pretty horrifying text messages in 2022. Many Democrats have wisely kept his name out of their mouths, but he hasn’t been completely repudiated.
And, of course, there’s Mamdani.
The joke has been that progressives elected Zohran Mamdani to be mayor of New York City, and conservatives are appointing him head of the Democratic Party. A Ugandan Muslim and self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist, Mamdani is about as good as the right could get for a boogeyman. Never mind that top Democrats gave him, at best, tepid support, or that the rarified weirdness (and wonderfulness) of NYC makes it a pretty unreliable microcosm for national politics. I suspect that even thousands of miles from the Big Apple, we’re going to see Republicans effectively running against Mamdani, instead of their actual opponents.
Closer to home, I think the Republican Party and candidates should get credit for taking the loss on the chin. They didn’t engage in downplaying or distracting — and there was no hint of election denialism bullshit.
The concessions from Waddell and fellow Republicans Richard Collier and Kelly Roberts were clean and kind. And, despite some grumblings about hiring a lawyer over the alleged ‘cash for votes’ scheme, Waddell, I’m told, actually walked upstairs to the Democratic watch party on Election night and personally congratulated the three candidates who swept the race — J.C. Lyle, Cassidy Santaguida, and Chakema Clinton-Quintana. (It’s the kind of story that makes you nostalgic for a more decent era of politics, one many of us have written off as gone for good.)
I’ll note, though Trump’s big lie still hangs over the electoral process, this year many of the conspiratorial rumblings I heard came from the left. Concern over the partisan shift of the state and local boards of election from Democratic to Republican was sharpened up by the early-voting location snafu, and came to a point when Elections Director Rae Hunter-Havens retired abruptly a month out from Election Day. Hunter-Havens cited health reasons, but there was ample speculation online that this was all somehow part of a conservative plot.
While Hunter-Havens was growing exasperated with the local GOP’s election integrity team, and had a long running feud of sorts with the county manager, there was little evidence — for me, at least — that there was some kind of coup happening at the elections office.
And, in fact, on Tuesday night the results came out online about as smoothly as I’ve ever seen them. By around 10:30 p.m. all precincts had reported and it was clear who had won. As a journalist, and someone who takes the security and reliability of elections pretty seriously, I couldn’t ask for much more.
The Wave and the Surfers
Nationally, a big blue wave of anti-Trump sentiment makes sense, and it probably takes the sting out of the loss for local Republican candidates. But you can lean too hard into its explanatory power.
In Wilmington, I’ve seen more than a little retconning of the odds, with conservatives claiming Waddell and Collier were doomed from the start because of the city’s left-leaning electorate and the protest sentiment that the No Kings rally starkly demonstrated.
Certainly, that’s not what the city’s conservative donor class thought, having put over $130,000 into Waddell’s campaign, over $85,000 into Collier's. That’s a lot of money to bet on a lost cause.
Frankly, not only did I think Waddell had a shot, but I had him pegged to again take the top spot, as he did in his inaugural 2021 race. I thought Collier had much more of a hill to climb as a newcomer, but he ran a good campaign and I didn’t count him out until I started hearing about early voter turnout (even then, I thought he might take a close fourth). And, had Democrat Jonathan Barfield, Jr. and Republican Billy Craig both run more successful campaigns, I did think there was a mathematical chance that Craig could have capitalized on a split Democratic vote and come close to becoming the city’s first Republican mayor in a long time.
Waddell’s loss was the most surprising part of the election, for me. It’s not that I discounted the animating reaction to the Trump administration, but I thought Waddell had avoided the style and substance of MAGA politics. As I put it elsewhere, he’s done a pretty good job of being a Republican in Wilmington.
Take Waddell’s most controversial policy, the so-called anti-camping ordinance. It infuriated liberal progressives, and not without reason, but it ultimately led to some positive conversation and a bipartisan compromise brokered with Democrats, namely Councilman David Joyner and Mayor Bill Saffo.
And there’s Collier, an engineer by trade and temperament, who gestured at law and order concerns but — if I’m being honest — didn’t seem to drift very far right from the center. Collier was concerned with zoning and infrastructure, not quite an existential threat to the Republic.
Don’t get me wrong, none of this means that I expected Democrats to vote for Waddell or Collier (although I know a few who did). But I was surprised at the number of people who told me they were voting against them, sometimes suggesting without evidence that Waddell and Collier might shed all trace of amiable moderation for hard-core MAGA policies if they got (back) into office.
It was a vibe, a feeling that left-leaning voters shared with me — it was important to push back, people told me they felt an emotional need to resist, to do something, against Republicans writ large.
There wasn’t much nuance — it didn’t matter where Waddell and Collier fell on the political spectrum, only that it was right of center. That doesn’t seem to have been quite the same for conservative voters. Based on the vote tally, and digging into some precinct data, it’s clear there were many conservative voters who chose Saffo over Craig (although Craig still had a pretty impressive showing for a political unknown with limited fundraising). Precinct reports also show Lyle landing in the top three, sometimes in the top spot, with Waddell and Collier. (Did the ‘mystery mailer’ help with that? Who knows.)
Democrats and left-leaning unaffiliated voters in Wilmington have been celebrating the blue wave online and off — but I’m not sure the Democratic party and candidates feel quite the same way. It’s one thing to chalk your loss up to seismic political forces beyond your control; it’s another to have your hard work washed away in a broad explanation of the election results. I admit, I have probably given less credit than is due when talking about the Wilmington council race — so let me try to amend that.
National politics notwithstanding, Lyle, Santaguida, and Clinton-Quintana faced serious headwinds. With the exception of Santaguida, whose run for county commissioner last year probably helped get her name out there, the candidates were breaking into politics. And they were outgunned, financially — Democratic candidates for council raised less than half of what Waddell and Collier did. (Saffo was a different story, raising six figures.)
And, it’s gotta be said, there is still some ambient misogyny here in Wilmington. Ask any female politician and, at least off the record, they’ll roll their eyes in acknowledgement of the boys club. It’s not insurmountable, of course, but it’s definitely there — so having three women sweep the council race, and a female majority on council for, best I can tell, the first time ever is pretty notable.
And the candidates worked hard to address some pretty tough policy issues: the perennial struggle to keep Wilmington’s public transportation system from collapsing, the seemingly intractable battle with unaffordable housing and homelessness, and a groundswell of anti-development furor that has transcended party and put public officials in a tough spot when it comes to managing growth.
The three candidates weren’t equally strong on policy, admittedly. And, in general, I think if you were voting solely based on candidates' performances at public forums, without knowing anything else about them, there would be more mixed ballots, and Election night would have looked a bit different.
Lastly, I’ve been rather pointedly asked: what of the New Hanover County Democratic Party, and the countless hours its volunteers spent knocking doors and working the polls? So, let me say, while I know NHC GOP Chairman John Hinnant dramatically improved Republicans’ ground game this year, I think NHCDP Chairwoman Jill Hopman outworked him.
Hopman also risked reputational immolation by again using a straw poll to ensure there were just three endorsed candidates for the three seats on council. It was a risky move, which between 2023 and this year has pushed three Black men — Marlowe Foster, Clifford Barnett, Sr., and Barfield — off of the party’s slate. Hopman was repeatedly accused, indirectly and directly, of racism, including by Barfield, who likened the straw poll to the 1898 coup and massacre (and, when I pushed him on whether that was hyperbolic, further compared it to the escalation toward genocidal violence under Nazi rule).
But, at the same time, the party’s slate helped put Clinton-Quintana, a Black woman, on council, hardly something the White supremacist Democratic Party of the late 19th century would have done.
Black voters aren’t a monolith, and I heard from people who really hated seeing Barnett, a two-term incumbent and mayor pro tem, and Barfield, a four-term county commissioner, get iced out. But, that said, based on precinct data, a lot of Black voters seemed to largely support not only the party’s slate for council, but also Saffo’s reelection bid, despite some pretty loud populist criticisms from the left and right.
On Derrick Anderson’s Facebook show, Democratic Councilman Kevin Spears called Hopman a “political mad scientist” — and ultimately, her experiment appears to have been successful, twice. Hopman has had to defend herself and the straw poll many times, but that’s probably the best argument: it worked.
So, at the end of the day, what happened with our Wilmington elections?
I think the blue wave played a major role. That’s not to disparage the quality of Democratic candidates or the groundwork of the party’s volunteers — but the national sentiment just can’t be ignored. I don’t have the data to give you a ratio. Was the blue wave half of the equation? A third? Three quarters? I don’t know. What I can say is that the deeply emotional reaction to Trump created an opportunity, and while Democrats didn’t explicitly pitch their local campaign against a national opponent, they worked hard to put themselves in a good position to benefit from it. (In other words, had the blue wave not materialized, would they have swept? I think not, but they would have still done well.)
But I also think Republican complacency or apathy tilted the scales considerably. As Hinnant put it on Wednesday, “Unfortunately, it seems as if some local Republican voters have given up on our city and that level of apathy cost us dearly.” Maybe that’s because, as Nick Craig put it, they’re essentially “fat and happy,” living high off the hog from the 2024 presidential election and the slew of ensuing conservative policy victories. Or, as I’ve said before, maybe it’s because life is not so bad in Wilmington, and while crime and fiscal oversight are real issues, it’s hard to make a case that things are catastrophic — at least to folks in the burbs.
Elections are overdetermined, and it’s hard to disentangle the various forces at work. They’re mercurial, lightning in a bottle. Democrats swept Wilmington in both 2023 and 2025, but the two elections look quite different. So what did we learn? I think two things. First, when it comes to boogeymen, Mamdami might be pretty good, but Trump is even better. Second, the blue wave was something of a surprise — we weren’t even really talking about it until we saw early voting numbers on Monday (again, I certainly underestimated it). At that point, there was nothing the parties could have done differently.
Political moments are fleeting, but there’s a sure bet for Republicans and Democrats alike that is evergreen: leave everything on the field and hope for the best.
Editor’s notes
Sledge Forest / Hilton Bluffs: You may have seen some reporting this week that plans for the Hilton Bluffs subdivision in the northwest corner of the county had been “chopped in half.”
That’s technically true. The Charlotte-based developer Copper Builders initially proposed a 4,000-unit project, using a density bonus to concentrate those units on about a quarter of the property. Hilton Bluffs has been contentious, with Copper Builders founder Wade Miller and his legal team at odds with the Save Sledge Forest organization, which opposes the project. Miller and Copper Builders say they actually want the same thing as Save Sledge Forest advocates – to conserve as much of the fleeting wetland forest as possible. But, since Save Sledge Forest’s ideal outcome is that nothing gets built, there’s some considerable daylight between them and the developer. (We detailed a lot of this, including the concerns of conservationists and the arguments of Miller and his team, a few weeks ago.)
Miller confirmed to me, through his attorney, that the new plan will put houses exclusively on upland, farmed timberlands, away from the wetland forest, and that it “retains flexibility for our preferred plan to convey much of the balance of the property to a third party for conservation and exclusion from the overall home count.”
Miller also noted that Copper Builders is still interested in finding someone interested in conserving the land. If a third party were to purchase that land, the developers are happy to go forward with a reduced footprint with fewer homes (and likely without the golf course that was proposed at one point). That would be expensive — for reference, an unsuccessful bid by a nonprofit to secure public funding for around 1,160 acres would have cost $10 million – and it’s not clear who, if anyone, would have the appetite for a project of that scale.
It’s also worth noting that, headlines aside, it’s not clear how much more Copper Builders could develop if the remaining 2,200 aren’t conserved, in whole or in part.
The county tells me there isn’t a definite answer. While the zoning for the area allows one unit per acre, Copper Builders (or another developer) would have to conduct environmental assessments and show how what’s known as ‘class IV soils’ (often tidal marsh or other floodplain areas) would be conserved. That would limit the overall number of units that would ultimately be allowed — but it’s unlikely to reduce that number to zero.
TL;DR (too long; didn’t read): The total number of units probably won’t be ‘chopped in half’ in the end, but the final plan for the overall 4,000 acres is still evolving. And, while conservation is still an option, it seems unlikely that advocates will see the entire property remain undeveloped.
Mystery park: Speaking of green space, there’s still very little public information on the local government effort to acquire property for a new park. About a month ago, the City of Wilmington announced it would consider a resolution to earmark $1 million for new park space, citing an overall desire to add 120 acres of green space in the city. The resolution suggested partnering with The Endowment and the county and, earlier this week, county commissioners approved a matching $1 million.
All of this was sparked by an apparent sense of urgency, according to the city’s initial resolution, which read in part, “A potentially viable property has been identified in an area that currently lacks notable park amenities; however, its anticipated cost exceeds what the City can independently afford at this time. Time is also of the essence, as the current owner is considering selling it for development purposes.”
Both city and county officials have met in closed session about this, the argument for secrecy being that, theoretically, if the property in question became public knowledge, someone could outbid the government and run up the price (although they could also be left holding the bag). I’ll say, while there is an argument for keeping their cards close to their vests here, I’ve heard plenty of frustration about the lack of transparency.
This week, a StarNews articlespeculated it could be a property near the intersection of North Kerr Avenue and MLK, Jr. Parkway. At 120 acres and valued at just under $3 million, I have to admit, it fits the bill. But I’ve also heard speculation about several other sites, including some on Greenville Loop Road.
Short version: We’ll know when a resolution to purchase the land finally becomes public — or if someone else spills the beans. If time really is of the essence, we shouldn't have to wait long.
The Walkout that Wasn’t: Over the last week, we heard rumors from around the state that there was a planned ‘sick out’ or ‘call out’ for educators on Friday and this coming Monday — a coordinated effort to use sick or personal leave to protest a double whammy: the lack of a new state budget (and, thus, a lack of cost-of-living raises) and increased costs for the state health insurance plan.
The viral post that sparked the interest of journalists was anonymous, and the state’s largest organizations representing teachers and other school staff denied having anything to do with it. Local organizers noted that the call-out lacked the impact of a more public-facing action.
Ultimately, the call out didn’t really seem to materialize — although the buzz around the potential story is certainly an indicator of the stress and frustration educators are feeling right now.
My colleague Rachel Keith wrote up what we knew (and didn’t know) as of Friday, which we hope helped assuage some concerns and explain some of the rumblings. She did a lot of work behind the scenes to try and gauge what the impact was actually going to be, even while we were in pledge mode, so kudos to her! I also want to thank Superintendent Chris Barnes, who was solicitous in providing data about the substitute teacher rate and call-out policy that helped us figure out what was (or wasn’t) going on.
