We’re three weeks (!) out from election day, and the Orange County Registrar reports that there are still 12,676 votes left to process county-wide. While that is an embarrassingly large number, I think we’re finally close enough to the end to start making some calls locally.

No changes in District 1, 2, and Mayor

Nothing in the post-post-election period has changed the top-line results in District 1, where Mike Buley still holds a commanding lead over current Chair of Planning Commission Adam Ereth, District 2, where Loren Gameros ran unopposed, or the Mayor’s seat, where incumbent John Stephens has widened his lead over challenger Jim Peters by about 2 percentage points. These three will join Manuel Chavez, Arlis Reynolds and Andrea Marr, all of whom won’t be up for reelection until 2026, as Council Members come the next meeting on December 3rd.

Pettis likely unseats incumbent Harlan in District 6

In the last couple of weeks, challenger Jeff Pettis has seen his lead over incumbent Jeff Harlan narrow from 287 votes to as close as 72 votes, but the gap has remained in the 80s for the past couple of ballot updates. This includes the most consequential ballot update last night, which would have accounted for the ballots cured and counted over the weekend.

Based on the relatively even split between the Jeffs in these subsequent ballot updates, I think it’s fairly certain at this point that Pettis will prevail. So assuming that result holds up…

Where I got it right, and wrong

When I looked ahead at the race back in August, I expected the District 1 race to be reasonably close and the District 6 race to advantage the incumbent, Jeff Harlan. Obviously both guesses are likely to be wrong. So what happened?

First, I overestimated the strength of the Democratic turnout machine and underestimated the organizational strength of the local Republican Party, especially the newcomer “grassroots” organization We Are Costa Mesa. It is fairly clear at this point that Democratic turnout was down in both District 1 and District 6, while Republican turnout was slightly up. Local Republicans were super quick to get massive amount of yard signs out everywhere and that likely helped buoy a perception of strength. In contrast, the local Democratic campaigns seemed more passive and reactive than in prior elections. Campaign events were mostly limited to partisan affairs, which doesn’t really help when you are chasing no-party-preference voters or crossover votes.

Additionally, while I correctly guessed that the very close Dave Min/Scott Baugh race for the 47th Congressional District would pump tons of money and attention into the Costa Mesa races, I didn’t account for how each campaign would tailor their efforts to their strongest districts. Because of the heavy partisan registration split in District 1 and District 6, it seems evident now that Min chose to spend less time in those areas and more in the heavily Democratic sections of the city, which would help Stephens in the mayoral race but hurt Ereth and Harlan. Conversely, Baugh was clearly hunting for votes in District 1 and District 6, which had to help Buley and Pettis in terms of resources.

And finally, I while I was right that the national election’s penchant for bizarre twists and turns could affect the local election, I was wrong in my guess that this election wouldn’t be a “wave” election. It almost certainly was.

So was this a “change” election? No, it wasn’t…

On the one hand, the City Council shook out exactly as you would expect if you looked just at party identification and turnout. District 1 and District 6 have a heavy Republican registration advantage and, this time, both races featured only one candidate from each of the two major parties. Add to that a slight overall Republican turnout advantage and the uphill climb for the Democratic-aligned candidates in these districts was, in hindsight, pretty steep.

The contention that party ID, rather than “change”, dominated local races is further supported by the results further up the ballot. For example, the Mayor’s race looked essentially identical to the past two mayoral elections featuring victorious Democrats Katrina Foley (2020) and John Stephens (2022). Each time, including in 2024, the Democratic candidate took 52-54% of the vote, which aligns closely to the Democratic registration advantage in the city as a whole. That such result seems impervious to changes in candidates, turnout, issues and national environment undermines the idea that we can glean much of a message from the local results.

And further up the ballot, Republicans lost their bids for the two local congressional seats. Michelle Steel, Costa Mesa’s former Congresswoman who was redistricted out of our area, has likely lost her seat narrowly to Democratic challenger Derek Tran for the 47th Congressional District, while Republican Scott Baugh has already conceded to Democrat Dave Min in a close race for Costa Mesa’s own 45th Congressional District. In both cases, Democrats enjoyed either a significant (in the 47th) or slight (in the 45th) registration advantage. Once again, it looks like party ID, not national zeitgeist, was destiny.

… and yes, it was

On the other hand, elections are won and lost on the margins, not in the base. And if you are a Democrat, there are definite warning signs that the margins are pretty unhappy with Democrat-dominated institutions. Let’s look at how the incumbents fared compared to their last elections.

First, in District 6, it’s worth pointing out that Jeff Harlan won his seat in 2020 without a majority, winning only 46.9% of the vote. While he’s improved that margin to about 49.5% this time around — likely thanks to his tireless personal campaigning — that’s obviously not enough to win in a one-on-one match-up. Harlan had to make the case that he was a crossover candidate. And while close observers like myself would say that he did, I can’t say he did so in a way that was particularly visible to less-plugged-in residents. And close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Second, Stephens is going to prevail with a slightly smaller margin over Peters than he did over his previous opponent, John Moorlach. As candidates, Peters and Moorlach could not be more different: Peters is a political newcomer and, to the extent people got to know him, strongly aligned with Donald Trump. John Moorlach, on the other hand, is a more traditional conservative who had strong name recognition and a legacy track record as a former State Senator. That Stephens would win more narrowly over the neophyte firebrand Peters than the well-known and respected Moorlach is indicative that something was afoot this year.

And finally, the school board races should really give Democrats pause. Yes, each of the incumbents: Carol Crane, Leah Ersoylu, and Krista Weigand (nominally a Republican, but far more moderate than her hardline opponent, Amy Peters) will retain their seats. But not only did each of them failed to match their vote totals from 2020, they underperformed what the overall reduction in turnout from 2020 to 2024 would have predicted. And, like Stephens, each faced challengers that weren’t just moderates; they were strong conservatives that ran on change. So it’s hard to look at that result as anything but a chastisement of NMUSD’s performance in the last few years.

What do the voters want, anyway?

I’ve been casting about for a good framing in the aftermath of one of the most consequential elections of my lifetime. The best I’ve found, from a pundit I don’t follow regularly, sounds a note that has particular salience for our local elected officials. The election was a referendum on business as usual, notes the liberal Ezra Klein in his podcast hosted by the New York Times, especially in city government, and the status quo lost badly:

If you look at the election, Democrats lost the most support in blue states and blue cities. They lost the most support in the places where people are most exposed to Democratic governance — and yeah, Democratic institutions. I always find this amazing.

The first contract to build the New York subways was awarded in 1900. Four years later — four years — the first 28 stations opened.

Compare that to now. In 2009, Democrats passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, pumping billions into high-speed rail. Fifteen years later, you cannot board a high-speed train funded by that bill anywhere in the country.

So, yeah: I’m worried about our institutions. I’m angry at our institutions. I don’t want to defend them.

I want them to work.

– Ezra Klein, “In This House, We’re Angry When Government Fails” (emphasis mine)

I couldn’t agree more. I think the people are tired of government that acts like a platform for social change or critique, rather than a basic service provider. They want a government that performs its essential tasks well. And they get annoyed when it tries to do anything else while those essential tasks aren’t being performed at a high level.

With that in mind, there is a lot to reflect on as this City Council, which has remained essentially intact for the past four years, will seat new members. Yes, it’s done a number of good, even great things for the city. But there is a lot of work left to do to improve the city’s core services. Hopefully, with the 2024 election behind us, the spirit of reform will be the focus in the new year.