Connect with us

Politics

Why Donald Trump still could not conquer Orange County

Published

on

Why Donald Trump still could not conquer Orange County

Donald Trump posted notable gains in Orange County during the November election, but it was not enough to win the increasingly purple county that has become a suburban battleground between Republicans and Democrats — and a reflection of the demographic political realignment unfolding across the nation.

Kamala Harris won Orange County, but by a much tighter margin than either Hillary Clinton in 2016 or Joe Biden in 2020. When it comes to presidential politics, Orange County has backed Democrats since 2016, with increasingly blue areas such as Santa Ana, Anaheim and Irvine besting more red areas such as Huntington Beach and south Orange County.

But experts say the 2024 results offer some warning signs for Democrats.

“What the early numbers indicate is that Donald Trump made inroads with minority voters including probably substantial gains with Latino and Asian voters,” said Jeff Corless, a former strategist for Orange County Dist. Atty. Todd Spitzer. “What we’re hearing is that he made those same kinds of gains in other communities similar to Orange County across the country. He also made gains with traditional suburban voters, which he struggled with in 2020.”

Paul Mitchell, a Democratic data specialist, said Trump probably did better in the county because of lower Democratic turnout this year compared with 2020, as well as voters being familiar — and potentially comfortable — with Trump because of their experience during his prior tenure.

Advertisement

“It may also be Trump has been normalized, in an odd way,” Mitchell said. “He’s been in our political eyesight for the last decade now. Maybe voters like the economy better under Trump.”

In 2016, Clinton received roughly 100,000 more votes in Orange County than Trump, making her the first Democrat county voters selected for the presidency in 80 years. In 2020, Biden fared even better, besting Trump by more than 137,500 votes. Now, Harris has edged out Trump, but the margin of victory is on trend to be much tighter than seen in past elections.

Votes in Orange County are still being counted and final numbers aren’t required to be certified by the county until Dec. 5 and by the state until Dec. 13. But it’s clear, experts say, that Trump harnessed the disillusionment felt by voters who are unhappy with the direction of the country and the economic pains that have beset many living in the suburbs.

“People in the press and people like me still so often take Trump literally, whereas voters lived through this once and the apocalypse didn’t happen and they liked the economy better,” said Rob Stutzman, a veteran GOP strategist and Trump critic who previously advised former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

He noted that Trump’s improved performance in Orange County was not an outlier.

“He did better — look at how he did in New York, on the Eastern Seaboard, in Massachusetts,” Stutzman said. “There are red dots that never existed the last few decades.”

Advertisement

Still, there were some bright spots for Democrats, notably being able to hold on to a congressional seat that became open because Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine pursued an unsuccessful Senate bid, and flipping the 45th Congressional District. In that race, first-time candidate Derek Tran defeated Republican Rep. Michelle Steel of Seal Beach in a hotly contested race that became one of the most expensive in the country.

A UC Irvine poll released last year conveyed discord among Orange County voters, particularly Republicans and those who choose not to identify with a political party, who said despite their optimism about Orange County and somewhat about California, they did not have a good feeling about the future of America.

“The [election] results are much more a statement about people’s dissatisfaction with the current national administration than some grand statement about Trump or Republicans,” said Jon Gould, dean of the university’s School of Social Ecology.

“This is not a sign that Orange County is suddenly a red county,” Gould said. “This is exactly what it means to be a purple county.”

Michele Monda, a Republican who lives in the deep-blue city of Laguna Beach, voted for Trump in 2016, 2020 and 2024 with her son and grandchildren in mind. The high housing costs and general lack of affordability have made it a challenge for middle-class couples, like her son and daughter-in-law, to build a life in many parts of California, including Orange County.

Advertisement

“Who is looking out for them?” Monda said. “They’re barely getting by, and quite honestly, the Democrats don’t seem to care. While I know Trump is a billionaire, I think he understands the needs of a middle-class person.”

Economics and Trump’s stance on immigration were the two main drivers that motivated her to vote for him. While she’s not always a fan of Trump’s behavior, she loves his policies. It’s not surprising, she said, that others in Orange County were swayed to his side as well.

“I think people have had enough of the Democrat party line, enough of the economy, enough of the whole platform. The things they espouse they just don’t work,” Monda said. “I think people in California are waking up.”

Trump’s improvement in the county has generated excitement among California Republicans who for years have tried to strengthen its hold on Orange County as Democratic voter registration grew and elections became more competitive.

For decades, Orange County was a conservative stronghold — the birthplace of former President Nixon, the cradle of Ronald Reagan’s ascent to the governor’s mansion and then the White House, and, for decades, a virtual synonym for the Republican Party of California.

Advertisement

The county’s shift over the last decade from deeply red to a more politically and demographically diverse region has fascinated the public for years.

“Orange County is a battleground,” said Jon Fleischman, a Republican campaign strategist and former executive director of the California GOP.

Trump’s popularity boost among Latinos and Asian Americans seen nationally could very well also be at play in swing counties such as Orange County. Republicans in the county for years have sought to attract Latinos and Asian Americans to their party with mixed success, and Trump’s performance could signal gains among these voter blocs, as well as Black Americans. He also won back some suburban women who turned against the Republican Party during his 2016 campaign and in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn federal protection for abortion access in 2022.

Democrats leaned heavily into messaging about the loss of reproductive rights during this year’s campaign, in television ads and during their convention when they nominated Harris. However, Stutzman contended that the argument failed to resonate with suburban women in affluent areas such as Orange County as much as Democrats expected it to.

“Most women in America still have access — an overwhelming majority have access to abortion,” he said. “I just don’t know if there’s a connection, any real existential threat that their rights are being further eroded than they have been.”

Though Harris won the majority of votes across deep-blue California, Trump was on track to win Butte, Stanislaus, Fresno, Inyo, San Bernardino and Riverside counties, all areas that Biden carried in 2020. Trump also gained ground in Silicon Valley and Los Angeles County compared with 2016 and 2020.

“In order for Trump to win Orange County, he had to make inroads with minority voters, and he did that through issues that mattered to them and the struggles they’re facing,” Corless said.

Democrats’ ability to register voters in Orange County has also slowed.

Between October 2022 and October 2024, the Democratic Party in Orange County grew by just over 3,100 voters. At the same time, the Republican Party’s numbers swelled by 31,000 people, according to data from the California secretary of state.

Advertisement

In the years that the GOP voter registration waned, the number of nonparty-preference voters grew. Many longtime Republicans in Orange County, irritated by Trump’s outlandish speaking style and policy positions, branded themselves as “Never Trumpers.” But Republicans in Orange County have made a concerted effort this cycle to reregister former GOP voters and push early voting and mail ballots, a recognition of how much Trump’s opposition to such efforts harmed the party in 2020.

“When Trump was first elected, he was not everybody’s favorite flavor of ice cream, and I think you saw a lot of Republicans who decided to become independent,” Fleischman said. “I think as people have decided that they’re OK with Trump, they’ve been coming back to the party.”

The Republican Party of Orange County went as far as hosting a ballot collection day on Oct. 11 in which Republican Party offices served as designated ballot-drop locations. The move, it said at the time, makes voting more accessible while “maintaining the highest level election integrity.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Column: Trump shoots his mouth off as L.A. burns. His claims about fire hydrants don’t hold water

Published

on

Column: Trump shoots his mouth off as L.A. burns. His claims about fire hydrants don’t hold water

OK, I admit it. I’m biased. I hate it when an opportunistic politician capitalizes on other people’s miseries and tries to score political points.

I’m especially biased when it’s a president-elect who shoots off his mouth without regard for facts and blames a governor for fire hydrants running dry.

Not that Democrat Gavin Newsom is a perfect governor. But his California water policies had no more to do with Pacific Palisades hydrants drying up during a firestorm than did Republican Donald Trump’s turning on sprinklers at his golf course.

News reporters shouldn’t allow personal biases to seep into their stories, as Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong has reminded us. Reporters have long strived to not do so and mostly succeeded. But I’m not a reporter. I’m a columnist who analyzes and opines. And yes, I’m biased — but on issues, not politics.

It has always been my view that liberals, moderates and conservatives all have good and bad ideas. Neither party has a monopoly on truth and justice — except in relating to Trump.

Advertisement

I wanted to give Trump the benefit of the doubt and watch whether he really intended — as promised — to be a president for all Americans. But the guy just can’t help himself.

When Trump blamed Newsom for water hydrants going dry as Pacific Palisades burned, it wasn’t something people should dismiss as just another Trumpism.

Here was a president-elect mouthing off and showing his ignorance in a barrage of vindictiveness and insensitivity as thousands of people fled for their lives and hundreds of homes blazed into ashes.

Yes, I’m biased against anyone who’s that uncivil, especially when he disrespects facts or — worse — is a pathological liar.

So, let’s recap what Trump did.

Advertisement

As scores of hydrants went dry while fire crews battled flames in Pacific Palisades, the president-elect instinctively went on social media to point the finger at his left coast political adversary, the Democrat he tastelessly derides as Gov. “Newscum.”

“Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water from excess rain and snow melt from the north to flow daily into many parts of California, including the parts that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way,” Trump asserted.

“He wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt … but didn’t care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price is being paid.

“I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to flow into California. He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster.”

True drivel, putting it politely.

Advertisement

First, what was this so-called water restoration declaration?

“There’s no such document,” responded Izzy Gardon, Newsom’s communications director. “That is pure fiction.”

Trump probably was referring to his policy differences with Newsom on water exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to farmlands in the San Joaquin Valley. In his first presidency, Trump wanted to drain more fresh water from the delta for irrigation in the valley. But both Govs. Jerry Brown and Newsom took a more centrist approach, striving for a balance between farms and fish.

Second, it’s not the demise of the tiny smelt — the Republicans’ favorite target — that’s so concerning to many conservationists. It’s the rapid decline of iconic salmon that previously provided world-class recreational angling in the delta and fed a healthy commercial fishery on the coast. Salmon fishing seasons have been closed recently to save what’s left of the fish.

Third, despite Trump’s claptrap, plenty of fresh delta water is being pumped south to fill fire hydrants and the tanks of firefighting aircraft. Hundreds of millions of gallons of water flow daily down the California Aqueduct. Major Southland reservoirs are at historically high levels. Anyway, much of L.A.’s water doesn’t even come from the Delta. It flows from the Owens Valley and the Colorado River.

Advertisement

Fourth, the hydrants went dry simply because there were too many fires to fight, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power explained. Storage tanks went dry.

“We pushed the system to the extreme,” Janisse Quinones, DWP chief executive and chief engineer, said. “Four times the normal demand was seen for 15 hours straight.”

Yes, I’m biased against politicians who make up stuff.

But you’ve got to listen to Trump because he could follow through on what he’s bellowing about.

For example, Trump vowed during the presidential campaign to deny Newsom federal money to fight wildfires unless the governor diverted more water to farms.

Advertisement

That apparently wasn’t an idle threat.

Trump initially refused to approve federal wildfire aid in 2018 until a staffer pointed out that Orange County, a beneficiary, was home to many voters who supported him, Politico reported. And in 2020, the Federal Emergency Management Agency rejected an aid request during several California wildfires until Republicans appealed to Trump.

So, what’s Trump going to be like when he actually becomes president again and is wielding real power, not just running off at the mouth?

Will he try to annex Greenland? Seize the Panama Canal? When a reporter asked him whether he’d commit to not using “military or economic coercion” to achieve these goals, he immediately answered: “No.”

Will he keep calling Canada our “51st state?”

Advertisement

Yep. I’m biased against such immature and dangerous political leaders.

Continue Reading

Politics

How a Phone Call Drew Alito Into a Trump Loyalty Squabble

Published

on

How a Phone Call Drew Alito Into a Trump Loyalty Squabble

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. received a call on his cellphone Tuesday. It was President-elect Donald J. Trump, calling from Florida.

Hours later, Mr. Trump’s legal team would ask Justice Alito and his eight colleagues on the Supreme Court to block his sentencing in New York for falsifying business records to cover up a hush-money payment to a pornographic film actress before the 2016 election. And the next day, the existence of the call would leak to ABC News — prompting an uproar about Mr. Trump’s talking to a justice before whom he would have business with substantial political and legal consequences.

Justice Alito said in a statement on Wednesday that the pending filing never came up in his conversation with Mr. Trump and that he was not aware, at the time of the call, that the Trump team planned to file it. People familiar with the call confirmed his account.

But the fact of the call and its timing flouted any regard for even the appearance of a conflict of interest at a time when the Supreme Court has come under intense scrutiny over the justices’ refusal to adopt a more rigorous and enforceable ethics code.

The circumstances were extraordinary for another reason: Justice Alito was being drawn into a highly personalized effort by some Trump aides to blackball Republicans deemed insufficiently loyal to Mr. Trump from entering the administration, according to six people with knowledge of the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.

Advertisement

The phone call centered on William Levi, a former law clerk of Justice Alito’s who seemingly has impeccable conservative legal credentials. But in the eyes of the Trump team, Mr. Levi has a black mark against his name. In the first Trump administration, he served as the chief of staff to Attorney General William P. Barr, who is now viewed as a “traitor” by Mr. Trump for refusing to go along with his efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.

Mr. Levi has been under consideration for several jobs in the new administration, including Pentagon general counsel. He has also been working for the Trump transition on issues related to the Justice Department. But his bid for a permanent position has been stymied by Mr. Trump’s advisers who are vetting personnel for loyalty, according to three of the people with knowledge of the situation.

As Mr. Trump puts together his second administration, Mr. Barr is among a handful of prominent Republicans who are viewed with such suspicion that others associated with them are presumptively not to be given jobs in the administration, according to people familiar with the dynamic. Republicans in that category include Mr. Trump’s former secretary of state Mike Pompeo and his former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley. To be called a “Pompeo guy” or a “Haley person” is considered a kiss of death in Mr. Trump’s inner circle. Resistance to such people can usually be overcome only if Mr. Trump himself signs off on their hiring.

Tuesday’s phone call took place against that backdrop. Several people close to the Trump transition team on Thursday said their understanding was that Justice Alito had requested the call. But a statement from Justice Alito framed the matter as the justice passively agreeing to take a call at the behest of his former clerk.

The disconnect appeared to stem from Mr. Levi’s role in laying the groundwork for the call in both directions. It was not clear whether someone on the transition team had suggested he propose the call.

Advertisement

Mr. Levi did not respond to a request for comment. The Supreme Court press office said it had nothing to add to the statement it put out from Justice Alito on Wednesday. In that statement, Justice Alito said that Mr. Levi “asked me to take a call from President-elect Trump regarding his qualifications to serve in a government position. I agreed to discuss this matter with President-elect Trump, and he called me yesterday afternoon.”

He added: “We did not discuss the emergency application he filed today, and indeed, I was not even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed. We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the president-elect.”

During the call, according to multiple people briefed on it, Mr. Trump initially seemed confused about why he was talking to Justice Alito, seemingly thinking that he was returning Justice Alito’s call. The justice, two of the people said, told the president-elect that he understood that Mr. Trump wanted to talk about Mr. Levi, and Mr. Trump then got on track and the two discussed him.

A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to an email seeking comment.

While it is unusual for an incoming president to speak with a Supreme Court justice about a job reference, it is routine for justices to serve as references for their former clerks. Justices traditionally treat their clerks as a network of protégés whose continued success they seek to foster as part of their own legacies.

Advertisement

Seemly or not, there is a long history of interactions between presidents and other senior executive branch officials and Supreme Court justices who sometimes will have a say over the fate of administration policies.

In 2004, a controversy arose when there was a lawsuit seeking disclosure of records about Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force meetings. One of the litigants, the Sierra Club, asked Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself from participation in the case because he had recently gone duck hunting with Mr. Cheney. Justice Scalia declined, issuing a 21-page memorandum that explained why he believed stepping aside was unjustified.

Part of Justice Scalia’s argument was that Mr. Cheney was being sued over an official action. That makes Mr. Trump’s pending attempt to block his sentencing for crimes that he was convicted of committing in his private capacity somewhat different, although the basis of Mr. Trump’s argument is that being sentenced and then fighting an appeal would interfere with his ability to carry out his official duties.

In trying to justify his decision not to recuse, Justice Scalia noted that justices have had personal friendships with presidents going back years, including some who played poker with Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman but did not recuse themselves from cases challenging their administrations’ policies and actions.

Mr. Trump has long sought to pressure the Supreme Court, in some cases by publicly hectoring the justices on social media for decisions he disagrees with. Mr. Trump has often privately complained that the three justices he appointed in his first term — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — had “done nothing” for him, according to a person who has discussed the matter with Mr. Trump.

Advertisement

One week after the 2018 midterm elections, Mr. Trump and the first lady, Melania Trump, had lunch with Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Virginia Thomas. Ms. Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, made suggestions about personnel shake-ups to Mr. Trump and later supported his efforts to try to overturn the 2020 election results.

In December 2020, Mr. Trump attacked the Supreme Court as “incompetent and weak” for refusing to address his legal team’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election. Two years later, he attacked the court again for giving Congress access to his tax returns.

The Supreme Court redeemed itself in Mr. Trump’s eyes last summer when the six Republican-appointed justices ruled that former presidents have broad immunity from being prosecuted over actions they took in their official capacity. That ruling threw into doubt how much of the indictment brought against Mr. Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election could actually survive to go to trial — even after prosecutors filed a revised version trying to account for the court’s decision.

The Supreme Court’s intervention also seriously delayed the case’s progress, effectively making it impossible to get the charges to a jury before the election. And once Trump won the 2024 race, he could no longer face prosecution under Justice Department policy.

Kirsten Noyes contributed research from New York.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Appeals court will not block partial release of special counsel Jack Smith's Trump report

Published

on

Appeals court will not block partial release of special counsel Jack Smith's Trump report

A federal appeals court rejected a bid to block the release of a portion of special counsel Jack Smith’s final report detailing his investigation and prosecution of President-elect Trump’s alleged 2020 election interference and alleged improper retention of classified records. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit denied a request from Walt Nauta, an aide to Trump, and Carlos de Oliveira, the former property manager at Mar-a-Lago, who were charged with obstructing a separate federal investigation into Trump’s handling of sensitive government records. 

The court left a three-day hold on DOJ’s release of the report.

JUDGE GRANTS JACK SMITH REQUEST TO DISMISS JAN. 6 CHARGES AGAINST TRUMP, APPEAL DROPPED IN FLORIDA DOCS CASE

Jack Smith, U.S. special counsel, speaks during a news conference in Washington, D.C., Aug. 1, 2023. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Advertisement

The Justice Department said it would proceed with plans to release the first of two volumes centered on the election interference case but would make the classified documents section of the report available only to the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees for their private review as long as the case against Trump’s co-defendants is ongoing.

It was not immediately clear when the election interference report might be released.

The election interference case was narrowed by a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, which ruled that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.

Following Trump’s presidential victory, Smith’s team abandoned both cases in November, citing Justice Department policy that prohibits federal prosecutions of sitting presidents.

TRUMP SAYS HE RESPECTS SUPREME COURT’S DECISION TO DENY HIS RESQUEST TO STOP SENTENCING, VOWS TO APPEAL

Advertisement

Justice Department regulations call for special counsels appointed by the attorney general to submit a confidential report at the conclusion of their investigations. It is then up to the attorney general to decide what to make public.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has made public in their entirety the reports produced by special counsels who operated under his watch, including Robert Hur’s report on President Joe Biden’s handling of classified information and John Durham’s report on the FBI’s Russian election interference investigation.

Trump mar-a-lago

President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at Mar-a-Lago, Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2025, in Palm Beach, Fla.  (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

In a statement, Trump Communications Director Steven Cheung said that it was time to “put a final stop to the political weaponiziation of our Justice system.”

“Deranged Jack Smith was sent packing after losing both of his Witch Hunts against President Trump. Deranged was unconstitutionally appointed and paid for, so he cannot be allowed to do anything more in perpetuation of his election-interfering hoaxes, let alone prepare an unconstitutional, one-sided, falsehood-ridden screed,” he said.

Advertisement

“Today’s decision by the 11th Circuit keeps Judge Cannon’s injunction in place and prevents any report from being issued. It is time for Joe Biden and Merrick Garland to do the right thing and put a final stop to the political weaponization of our Justice system,” Cheung said. “The American People elected President Trump with a historic and overwhelming mandate, and we look forward to uniting our country in the new Administration as President Trump makes America great again.” 

Fox News’ Brooke Signman and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending