The vote counting in the 4th District County Supervisor primary is all but over, and of four candidates, Fullerton Mayor Fred Jung finished a surprisingly distant fourth. Connor Traut is first with 37,375 votes (33.27%), while Tim Shaw is second (35,445 votes; 31.26%). These two will be in the general election. Rose Espinosa, in a largely self-funded campaign with few endorsements, came in third (20,258 votes; 17.87%). And, despite being one of the biggest spenders, Jung trails Espinosa by about 300 votes (19,955 votes; 17.60%) out of 133,383 votes cast to date. Jung came in third in the Fullerton precincts and first in his own Council district. But even there, where he is best known, he only received 34% of the total vote, not exactly a ringing endorsement.
How could Jung do so poorly? The most obvious reason is that the winners had major-party support: Democrats for Traut and Republicans for Shaw. Jung, whose politics seem to be flexible, was initially a Republican and then a Democrat before changing his registration to No Party Preference in 2025. Perhaps he recognized that he was not a very convincing Democrat. In any case, that switch may have helped him get the endorsement of the far-right Lincoln Club and pick up some conservative votes, but he seems to have lost more than he gained.
But there is more, and it has to do with Jung himself. In public, he does not communicate well, when he chooses to communicate at all. He does not give voters any sense of who he is and what he is trying to do, other than being for Fred Jung and for advancing his own career. We simply do not know much about him, nor has he provided much reason to vote for him. What are his values and what does he stand for? What is his day job and his major source of income? What does he really want to accomplish while he is in office? For that matter, what has he accomplished in five-plus years in office? His campaign literature was bland, generic and anodyne: grow the economy, reduce homelessness, support public safety. It could have been written by and for any candidate.
As Mayor, Jung has snapped up most of the plum appointments to other boards and commissions available to councilmembers, many with stipends (at least one former councilmember pretty much lived on those stipends). Currently, according to his campaign literature, he is on nine boards and has been on more. These include the Orange County Power Authority, Orange County Transit Authority, LOSSAN Rail Corridor, Municipal Water District and Orange County Water District.
This is bizarre. He collects board positions like other people collect antiques or trading cards. How can you be an effective participant when you’re spread so thin? Yet while he serves on many of these boards as a representative of Fullerton, he rarely reports to the Council about his activities or the boards’ actions. In fact, he sometimes leaves meetings before his turn while his colleagues are reporting on their activities.
By way of contrast, I was struck by a comment in the NY Times (6/18/26) about incoming British Prime Minister Andy Burnham. A British political scientist commented: “His big strength is that he is a very effective communicator, a very effective storyteller; he’s good at giving voters a sense of who he is, who he’s for, and what he’s trying to do.”
This is the polar opposite of Fred Jung’s public persona. He apparently does not feel it is important to inform constituents about who he is, why he is on the Council, and what he is trying to do. In short, he is an enigma, and an unpleasant one at that.
More: In an interview with the OC Independent, Jung, in explaining why he left the Democratic Party, said that one-party dominance in California has harmed governance and society. Disingenuously, he goes on to say that “You don’t accomplish many good things when you don’t compromise and won’t listen to the other side…you need to see the other side as human beings.” This may be what he believes—and a statement I agree with—but it is not how he acts as a member of the Fullerton Council. He is rude to and dismissive of his colleagues and the public, often cutting people off mid-sentence and trying to minimize discussion. He makes no effort to bring his colleagues together to seek solutions for the City.
Even more: His public persona is not very “likable”, an important political quality. Writing in the LA Times recently, columnist George Skelton addressed the importance of likability in politics while covering the losing campaign of billionaire gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer. Skelton writes: “Steyer came across to many voters, I suspect, as a wild-eyed meanie. He would have been better off spending his negative ad money on positive spots that promote himself and make him more likable. Likability is a candidate’s No. 1 asset. We learn that as grammar schoolers in class president elections. It beats a billion dollars every time — at least in California.”
Perhaps this is an overstatement, but this aptly describes Jung: not opening up to the electorate about who he is or what his politics are, while at the same time not attempting to be collegial, outgoing or gregarious. What is the incentive to vote for him? Did he expect to win on money alone?
Lincoln is well remembered for his Gettysburg Address comment about government being “…of the people, by the people and for the people…” In short, this means that (a democratic) government exists only with the consent of the people; that this consent is demonstrated through public participation in governing processes, including voting and public forums; and that the role of government is to serve and protect the public interest. How does Jung embody this: Does he reflect the public will, does he serve the public interest, does he encourage public participation, does he promote the public welfare?
To the extent we know him and can observe his public behavior, the answers would not seem positive.
Share this:
Discover more from Fullerton Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Local Government, Local News
The story above is not a true “in-depth analysis” of an election loss at all, but rather a lengthy reflection of the author’s own impression of Fred Jung’s campaign, personality, and tenure in office. An actual analysis would have presented some evidence for Mr. Hutt’s conclusion that Mr. Jung’s loss could be attributed to his No Party Preference status and the quality of his campaign materials.
Additionally, any real analysis would have tried to measure the appeal of his opponents to voters who chose a different candidate in the race, and might have also examined negative campaign materials critical of Jung circulated during the election. For example, a Conor Traut campaign mailer that disingenuously called Jung a “MAGA conservative” and signs and banners paid for by the Fullerton Forward PAC calling him a “Fraud” and implying that “money” was somehow missing from city government when there is no evidence of any such thing and a recent audit found no reason to suspect fraud in the city’s budgets. How about an analysis of that dishonest negative campaign by an active PAC promoted by The Fullerton Observer?
Finally, the author drifts off into commentary about how many governmental bodies on which Fred Jung serves, as if it had any bearing at all on how many votes he received in the recent election.
I think it’s clear what Jung stands for. Not through his inscrutable persona or his public statements, but from his actions on the dais: he stands for Jung, and Jung alone. He seeks power, connections, money. He seeks to climb the ladder politically and somewhat professionally. I believe he deliberately obscures his real job and income source because to do so would reveal more than he would like and invite scrutiny into what could be unsavory business practices. It is clear that he does not stand for the people and that his intentions are not for – and are often diametrically opposed to – the good of the people who elected him to power.
My earlier reply to Amy’s comment above hasn’t been published, so I’ll try again. Amy, what evidence can you present to justify your belief that Fred Jung has engaged in possible “unsavory business practices?”
I think this malicious online speculation about Mr. Jung’s private businesses reflects a certain frustration with the recent audit that found no fraud in the city’s budget on the part of Mayor Jung (or anyone else), despite Jung’s detractors displaying PAC sponsored signs and banners that baselessly suggested otherwise.
From what I’ve observed in FCC meetings, Fred Jung is exactly as the article describes, as well as your comment was expressed. I’m so glad he is NOT going to be a member of the OC Supervisors, but quite unfortunately, he remains as mayor; a position he stole from Ahmad Zahara. Fullerton was deprived of an excellent mayor bc of Fraud Jung.
I’m sure it didn’t help that he was dating Tammy Kim, an Itvine City Councilwoman who was charge with 11 felony counts. He was married the whole time. I agree with the other commenter that the article lacks real metrics, but I agree with the Author, Jung is in politics for Jung.
What a tired trope. Blaming Tammy Kim means you don’t know what you’re talking about, or you’re too lazy to make a real argument. It also lets him off the hook way too easily. If that were true, I suspect Jung would not have lost so badly. She still has formidable relationships with the Democratic Party and labor, and has helped campaigns across OC for years. Jung lost because of Jung. His campaign, his decisions, his record, his baggage
Wow, now an accusation of personal improprieties from a completely anonymous commenter. Is this what the Observer now allows on its site?
I was looking forward to reading some real analysis, but this was personal opinion dressed up as analysis, with election results sprinkled in to make it look serious. Here’s my thought for someone who wanted to vote for him. The explanation is simpler and more structural: Traut had the Democratic lane. Shaw had the Republican lane. Jung ran as No Party Preference in a low-information county race where party cues, voter guides, and institutional support matter. It was hubris for Jung to think his name ID was strong enough to make party support irrelevant. He is not a long-serving countywide figure, not an incumbent supervisor, and not established enough to overcome the Democratic and Republican voter-guide machinery on personal brand alone.
That was the real arrogance of the campaign. Jung chose the NPP lane, then failed to build a campaign strong enough to replace what party support gave the other candidates.
And no, that does not mean he ran a good campaign. He didn’t. His website was weak, his public materials were unimpressive, and his OC Registrar questionnaire did very little to answer the most basic question: why Fred Jung? Even his interview sounded generic. “Give more money to the Sheriff and District Attorney” is not a countywide governing vision nor was it a particularly thoughtful one when voters have real concerns about accountability and public trust. The AI cartoon ad was another mistake. It made him look unserious at the exact moment he needed to look credible, serious, and ready for a larger office.
Being on a long list of boards is impressive, but he wasn’t able to translate how that actually delivered for constituents. If the answer is not clear, it stops looking like public service and starts looking like someone collecting titles and power. As the top fundraiser, he wasn’t able to use those dollars to run an effective campaign. I’ll be interested in seeing where and how he spent all the money he raised.
The real takeaway is simple: Jung had no clear lane, no compelling message, weak voter persuasion, limited mainstream appeal, and apparently no effective GOTV. Anyone inside the Fullerton echo chamber may have thought he was a major figure. The broader district clearly didn’t.
The personal gossip in the comments is even worse. Dragging in rumors and someone else’s unrelated personal life is not analysis. It is what people do when they don’t have a real argument. Jung’s loss can be explained by campaign fundamentals. Bringing someone else’s unrelated personal life into it does not make you look insightful, it makes you look unserious.