Chicago voters have rid themselves of Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who was touted as a figurehead of progressivism, being the city’s first black, lesbian chief executive.

RedState’s Nick Arama noted that “[t]he two top vote-getters would go on to a run-off. But the big breaking news is that the much hated Lori Lightfoot is projected to have lost. Badly.”

After years of heightened crime rates, it appears the residents have had enough and are ready for something different.

Unfortunately, “something different” might not be forthcoming. After the first round that saw Lightfoot lose by a wide margin, the two frontrunners are Paul Vallas, who won 34 percent of the vote and Brandon Johnson, who took 20 percent of the vote.

Vallas ran as a more conservative Democrat, touting more police, charter schools, and fiscal responsibility. On the other hand, Johnson ran on a decidedly progressive platform, advocating for increased taxes and criminal justice reform. He also happens to have been a “paid agent of the teachers’ union” according to City Journal.

There are six other contenders who each split 36 percent of the vote. Each of these individuals are also outspoken progressives.

Johnson might have a tough time convincing Chicago residents to let him replace Lightfoot. He has supported defunding the police, which is not exactly going over well with Chicagoans, who have had their share of criminal activity in their neighborhoods.

With Vallas running on a law and order platform similar to that of New York City Mayor Eric Adams, he might just be able to win over enough of the populace by speaking to an issue about which they are deeply concerned. Still, it is also worth noting that Johnson has backed off of his prior radical statements in support of far-leftist policies.

With Lightfoot being kicked to the curb, it might seem that things are looking up for residents of the Windy City. Unfortunately, this will likely not be the case. In a place like Chicago, the only choices voters have is between one Democrat or another.

If they elect Johnson, they will have yet another progressive who favors protecting criminals more than civilians. We have already seen how this has played out in other cities with so-called progressive leaders running things. Even if Johnson has backed off his far-leftist positions, it is unlikely that he has actually changed his mind. There can be little doubt that if he occupies the mayor’s office, he will run Chicago with a definite leftward slant, which will only mean more poverty, crime, and substandard education in the city.

One might be tempted to think that if Chicago voters choose Vallas, it might be an improvement. This is certainly possible, especially if he means what he says about law enforcement. But it is worth noting that Lightfoot also rejected the idea of defunding the police, and we all saw how poorly she handled the crime issue. While Vallas might not be as far left as his comrades, he is still a Democrat and will likely govern as such.

Moreover, even if Vallas does make a sincere effort to curb crime, he will still have to contend with the fact that his colleagues want no such thing. Remember prosecutor Kim Foxx? She is known for such hits as “Let’s Go Easy On Jussie Smollett.”

Foxx is also known for being soft on crime as well. In Chicago, police have pointed to the “skyrocketing use of electronic monitoring as a key factor” in the city’s shocking number of murders. To add insult to injury, the Chicago Tribune found that Kim Foxx, Chicago’s rogue DA, doesn’t hold defendants accountable when they violate their bail terms.

Indeed, about 400 people are charged with felony escape. Foxx’s predecessor dropped about 55 cases while Foxx dropped 420. If suspects know they will not be held accountable when they violate their bail, why would they comply?

With people like Foxx as prosecutors, Vallas will be in the same position as New York Mayor Adams, who has to deal with District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who never saw a criminal he didn’t want to put back on the street. What use is arresting bad guys, if other officials are just going to release them?

The bottom line is that Chicago residents do not have any decent options. I know the reply to this is going to be “it’s their fault for not voting Republican.”

The problem is that Republicans do not run local candidates in Chicago. They have ceded this city, and every other major city, to the Democrats. The few conservative candidates who have made the attempt receive little to no support from the party. You can’t vote for a party that is not running, can you?

Until this changes, the city’s residents have only two options: Try to tough it out, or get the hell out of the city. With businesses leaving the area, it will not be surprising to see more Chicagoans choose the latter option.