Connect with us

Politics

Wealthier Asian American and Latino voters in Orange County may be pivotal in upcoming elections

Published

on

Wealthier Asian American and Latino voters in Orange County may be pivotal in upcoming elections

Robert Baca’s political compass has always pointed toward the Republican Party, but lately he hasn’t felt as at home in the GOP.

Though he voted for Donald Trump in the last two presidential elections, Baca distances himself from the culture wars that seem to fire up today’s die-hard Republicans. Instead, he wants Washington to tackle the turbulent economy and rising costs of daily life.

He’s been called a RINO — short for “Republican in name only” — when he’s suggested that both parties should work together. He still backs conservative candidates most of the time, but he’s not a sure GOP vote anymore.

“It’s not about the party for me,” said Baca, 46. “It’s about the policy and the person.”

Baca lives in one of four Orange County congressional districts that are expected to be among the nation’s most competitive in the 2024 election as Republicans and Democrats fight to control the House.

Advertisement

Baca, a small-business owner, is also part of an important emerging group in the Orange County political landscape that UC Irvine researchers in a poll published Wednesday described as “modestly partisan Republicans.” This group differs from the traditional GOP voter in a few key areas: they’re wealthier, they’re diverse, they’re more socially liberal and they’re less resistant to being taxed to help solve issues related to climate change and homelessness, said Jon Gould, dean of the UCI School of Social Ecology, who spearheaded the poll.

Once considered a heart of Southern California conservatives, Orange County’s transformation into a more culturally, economically and politically diverse region has forced congressional candidates to find ways to appeal to voters without a strong party preference. Voters such as Baca not only will be pivotal to who Orange County sends to Washington, but also in determining the balance of power in Congress, Gould said.

“The fight is over the independents who could go either way and the voters who are not strongly attached to a party who may simply choose not to vote,” Gould said, adding that Orange County “should be the place that political eyes are glued to for the future of the next Congress.”

Orange County’s demographics have shifted dramatically in the last 20 years. In 2000, slightly more than half of the county’s population was white. Latinos made up roughly 31% and Asians, 13.5% of the population. Today, the majority of Orange County residents are people of color. Roughly 38% of the population is white, while 34% is Latino and 23% is Asian, according to census data.

Two decades ago, Republicans held an 18 percentage point advantage over Democrats in voter registration in Orange County. Today, Democrats enjoy a slight edge.

Advertisement

Orange County has been a political battleground since the 2018 election, when Democrats swept the region’s four congressional seats.

But it hasn’t been an easy fight for Democrats. Republicans reclaimed two congressional seats in 2020 with the election of Rep. Michelle Steel of Seal Beach and Rep. Young Kim of Anaheim Hills who became two of the first Korean American women to serve in Congress. Their wins came even as President Biden carried the county by 9 percentage points. The 2022 midterms proved uneventful — all Orange County incumbents held their seats.

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which has tracked House and Senate races for decades, has listed four Orange County congressional districts, including those held by Steel and Kim, as some of the most competitive races in the nation.

And how well candidates perform could rely significantly on how they woo a growing portion of Orange County voters who aren’t highly partisan.

UC Irvine’s poll, detailed in the report “Red County, Blue County, Orange County,” shows that modestly partisan Republicans in the region have become a “political anomaly.” Unlike strongly partisan party members, who are mostly white, a majority of modestly partisan Republicans are Asian and Latino voters, making them demographically similar to Democrats. Nearly 50% of them earn more than $100,000 per year.

Advertisement

They also don’t share the same cultural agenda as bedrock Republicans. When asked about their view of Walt Disney Co., more than 40% of those surveyed who were moderately attached to the GOP held somewhat favorable feelings toward the brand. Among those strongly attached to the Republican Party, less than 20% held somewhat favorable views of the entertainment giant.

Disney has been embroiled in a high-profile legal and political battle with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a candidate for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, that started last year after the company publicly opposed the Parental Rights in Education Act, often referred to by critics as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. The legislation, which DeSantis supported, barred classroom instruction and discussion about sexual orientation and gender identity in some elementary school grades.

The Disney question, Gould says, provides a window into how the modestly attached Republicans view hotly contested cultural issues that GOP politicians such as DeSantis have capitalized on for support.

“It strikes me that some of the cultural dog whistles don’t motivate them quite the same way,” Gould said.

At the same time, Democrats could use the same cultural issues to “scare some of the independents and modestly attached Republicans to either split their tickets or perhaps get them to just not vote at all in that race,” Gould added.

Advertisement

Although Baca, who lives in Kim’s congressional district, said he’s not sure whom he plans to vote for this November, he hopes the candidates will stick to kitchen-table issues rather than fighting over topics such as whether transgender individuals should be allowed to serve in the military.

“It doesn’t need to be a fight. We don’t need to do the bashing,” he said. “If we had people in Congress that would just not be so belligerent and not be so narrow minded … we’d have a lot more success.”

Data outlined in the UC Irvine poll indicated that appealing to Asian and Latino voters, particularly those without a strong party preference, could play a crucial role in a candidate’s success in the general election. The poll found that Asian and Latino residents make up the majority of independent voters and those who are loosely attached to a political party.

Republicans in Orange County for years have focused on recruiting Asian American candidates for local races and have put significant resources into attracting Asian American and Pacific Islander voters to win seats. Over the summer, the Republican Party opened a new community center in Little Saigon, home to one of the largest Vietnamese communities outside Vietnam, to aid in recruitment and training volunteers for voter outreach.

But they haven’t had the same success with Latinos. Randall Avila, the executive director of the Republican Party of Orange County, said this will be the focus heading into November.

Advertisement

“We are going to try to kind of replicate what we have been successful with Asian Americans and extend that into the Latino community,” he said.

California State Sen. Dave Min (D-Irvine), who is running in the hotly contested 47th Congressional District currently represented by Democrat Rep. Katie Porter, said the Democratic Party “as an institution is kind of behind the eight ball” in connecting with Asian American voters.

“I think a lot of times Asian American and Latino groups feel like they’re left out in the cold out here,” Min said.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

Published

on

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

new video loaded: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

transcript

transcript

Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

“How Long do you think you’ll be running Venezuela?” “Only time will tell. Like three months. six months, a year, longer?” “I would say much longer than that.” “Much longer, and, and —” “We have to rebuild. You have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. I would love to go, yeah. I think at some point, it will be safe.” “What would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela?” “I wouldn’t want to tell you that because I can’t, I can’t give up information like that to a reporter. As good as you may be, I just can’t talk about that.” “Would you do it if you couldn’t get at the oil? Would you do it —” “If they’re treating us with great respect. As you know, we’re getting along very well with the administration that is there right now.” “Have you spoken to Delcy Rodríguez?” “I don’t want to comment on that, but Marco speaks to her all the time.”

Advertisement
President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

January 8, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump calls for $1.5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’

Published

on

Trump calls for .5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s budget. 

“After long and difficult negotiations with Senators, Congressmen, Secretaries, and other Political Representatives, I have determined that, for the Good of our Country, especially in these very troubled and dangerous times, our Military Budget for the year 2027 should not be $1 Trillion Dollars, but rather $1.5 Trillion Dollars,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday evening. 

“This will allow us to build the “Dream Military” that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe.” 

The president said he came up with the number after tariff revenues created a surplus of cash. He claimed the levies were bringing in enough money to pay for both a major boost to the defense budget “easily,” pay down the national debt, which is over $38 trillion, and offer “a substantial dividend to moderate income patriots.”

Advertisement

SENATE SENDS $901B DEFENSE BILL TO TRUMP AFTER CLASHES OVER BOAT STRIKE, DC AIRSPACE

President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s record budget.  (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the increased budget would cost about $5 trillion from 2027 to 2035, or $5.7 trillion with interest. Tariff revenues, the group found, would cover about half the cost – $2.5 trillion or $3 trillion with interest. 

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in a major case Friday that will determine the legality of Trump’s sweeping tariff strategy.

Advertisement

CONGRESS UNVEILS $900B DEFENSE BILL TARGETING CHINA WITH TECH BANS, INVESTMENT CRACKDOWN, US TROOP PAY RAISE

This year the defense budget is expected to breach $1 trillion for the first time thanks to a $150 billion reconciliation bill Congress passed to boost the expected $900 billion defense spending legislation for fiscal year 2026. Congress has yet to pass a full-year defense budget for 2026.

Some Republicans have long called for a major increase to defense spending to bring the topline total to 5% of GDP, as the $1.5 trillion budget would do, up from the current 3.5%.

The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships. (Lockheed Martin via Reuters)

Trump has ramped up pressure on Europe to increase its national security spending to 5% of GDP – 3.5% on core military requirements and 1.5% on defense-related areas like cybersecurity and critical infrastructure.

Advertisement

Trump’s budget announcement came hours after defense stocks took a dip when he condemned the performance rates of major defense contractors. In a separate Truth Social post he announced he would not allow defense firms to buy back their own stocks, offer large salaries to executives or issue dividends to shareholders. 

“Executive Pay Packages in the Defense Industry are exorbitant and unjustifiable given how slowly these Companies are delivering vital Equipment to our Military, and our Allies,” he said. 

“​Defense Companies are not producing our Great Military Equipment rapidly enough and, once produced, not maintaining it properly or quickly.”

U.S. Army soldiers stand near an armored military vehicle on the outskirts of Rumaylan in Syria’s northeastern Hasakeh province, bordering Turkey, on March 27, 2023.  (Delil Souleiman/AFP via Getty Images)

He said that executives would not be allowed to make above $5 million until they build new production plants.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Stock buybacks, dividends and executive compensation are generally governed by securities law, state corporate law and private contracts, and cannot be broadly restricted without congressional action.

An executive order the White House released Wednesday frames the restrictions as conditions on future defense contracts, rather than a blanket prohibition. The order directs the secretary of war to ensure that new contracts include provisions barring stock buybacks and corporate distributions during periods of underperformance, non-compliance or inadequate production, as determined by the Pentagon.

Continue Reading

Politics

Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan

Published

on

Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday unveiled a sweeping proposal to overhaul how California’s education system is governed, calling for structural changes that he said would shift oversight of the Department of Education and redefine the role of the state’s elected schools chief.

The proposal, which is part of Newsom’s state budget plan that will be released Friday, would unify the policymaking State Board of Education with the department, which is responsible for carrying out those policies. The governor said the change would better align education efforts from early childhood through college.

“California can no longer postpone reforms that have been recommended regularly for a century,” Newsom said in a statement. “These critical reforms will bring greater accountability, clarity, and coherence to how we serve our students and schools.”

Few details were provided about how the role of the state superintendent of public instruction would change, beyond a greater focus on fostering coordination and aligning education policy.

The changes would require approval from state lawmakers, who will be in the state Capitol on Thursday for Newsom’s last State of the State speech in his final year as governor.

Advertisement

The proposal would implement recommendations from a 2002 report by the state Legislature, titled “California’s Master Plan for Education,” which described the state’s K-12 governance as fragmented and “with overlapping roles that sometimes operate in conflict with one another, to the detriment of the educational services offered to students.” Newsom’s office said similar concerns have been raised repeatedly since 1920 and were echoed again in a December 2025 report by research center Policy Analysis for California Education.

“The sobering reality of California’s education system is that too few schools can now provide the conditions in which the State can fairly ask students to learn to the highest standards, let alone prepare themselves to meet their future learning needs,” the Legislature’s 2002 report stated. Those most harmed are often low-income students and students of color, the report added.

“California’s education governance system is complex and too often creates challenges for school leaders,” Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Assn. of California School Administrators, said in a statement provided by Newsom’s office. “As responsibilities and demands on schools continue to increase, educators need governance systems that are designed to better support positive student outcomes.”

The current budget allocated $137.6 billion for education from transitional kindergarten through the 12th grade — the highest per-pupil funding level in state history — and Newsom’s office said his proposal is intended to ensure those investments translate into more consistent support and improved outcomes statewide.

“For decades the fragmented and inefficient structure overseeing our public education system has hindered our students’ ability to succeed and thrive,” Ted Lempert, president of advocacy group Children Now, said in a statement provided by the governor’s office. “Major reform is essential, and we’re thrilled that the Governor is tackling this issue to improve our kids’ education.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending