Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass emerged from this week’s election in a strong position for reelection, leading a crowded field and appearing likely to face the opponent her campaign would prefer in November.
As of Wednesday afternoon, with about 62% of ballots counted, reality television personality Spencer Pratt was ahead of Councilmember Nithya Raman by roughly 7 percentage points for the second runoff spot, according to election results reported by The Associated Press. Pratt had about 30% of the vote, while Raman stood at about 23%.
For Bass, that matchup would be politically advantageous. Raman, a progressive councilmember, could have forced a deeper debate over housing, homelessness, public safety and the mayor’s record after four years in office. Pratt, by contrast, has drawn attention through celebrity and social media, but has not demonstrated the same command of city policy or the same ability to expand his coalition beyond voters already frustrated with City Hall.
The returns nonetheless carry a warning for Los Angeles leaders. Pratt, who lost his Pacific Palisades home in last year’s fires, appears to have attracted a sizable bloc of voters unhappy with the direction of the city. Their concerns vary — homelessness, affordability, public safety, rebuilding after the fires and dissatisfaction with Bass’ leadership — but the scale of his support suggests many residents are willing to cast a protest vote even for an unconventional candidate with little government experience.
That discontent should not be dismissed simply because Pratt is unlikely to pose a serious threat to Bass in November.
Raman’s voters, by contrast, are generally on Bass’ political left. Many may believe the mayor has not moved aggressively enough on housing affordability or homelessness, or may disagree with her support for increased police spending. But they are unlikely to migrate in large numbers to Pratt, whose views on homelessness and public safety are far more conservative than Raman’s. Polling circulated by the Bass campaign indicated that more than 90% of Raman supporters viewed Bass as their second choice.
That dynamic gives Bass a clearer path than she had four years ago, when she defeated businessman Rick Caruso after a hard-fought contest. Pratt may have a committed base, but his room to grow appears limited. Some backers of other candidates may consider supporting him, especially those aligned with former President Donald Trump, who has endorsed Pratt. But many Los Angeles voters are likely to be wary of a candidate whose public résumé centers on reality television, social media and business ventures such as crystal sales rather than experience managing a large public agency.
Election night underscored the contrast between the two campaigns.
Pratt’s campaign event drew media attention, but reporters were kept outside until he briefly appeared with his wife, Heidi Montag, at Don Antonio’s Mexican restaurant in Los Angeles. In remarks to reporters, Pratt suggested his candidacy was part of “God’s plan,” while continuing the social media-driven style that helped fuel his campaign.
Bass, meanwhile, surrounded herself with labor and business leaders and emphasized the breadth of her institutional support. She highlighted her opposition to Trump, whose backing of Pratt may be more liability than asset in heavily Democratic Los Angeles.
“We are a union town,” Bass told supporters, drawing loud applause.
The line reflected one of Bass’ central advantages: a long-standing understanding of Los Angeles political coalitions. She has represented the region in Sacramento, in Congress and now at City Hall, and her campaign event was designed to show that organized labor, civic leaders and key business voices remain largely behind her.
Still, Bass faces a complicated reelection message. She has often been most effective politically when presenting herself as an agent of change. Now, as the incumbent, she must argue for continued change after already having had four years to deliver on some of the city’s most urgent problems.
Those problems remain substantial. Los Angeles is still grappling with severe homelessness, a shortage of affordable housing, rising living costs and sharp disagreement over the future of public safety. Housing policy continues to divide residents who want to protect existing neighborhoods from those who argue the city must build more quickly and at greater density. On policing, Bass has pursued a more traditional approach that includes increased LAPD funding, while progressives such as Raman have argued for shifting more money toward mental health response and alternatives to incarceration.
A Bass-Raman runoff likely would have put those differences at the center of the campaign. A Bass-Pratt runoff may not.
Pratt’s positions are generally to the right of the city’s electorate, while many voters who are skeptical of Bass are more progressive than she is. That leaves Bass with less incentive to engage in a detailed policy debate. If Pratt remains a weak opponent, the mayor may be able to run a cautious campaign focused on competence, stability and opposition to Trump rather than a full defense of her record.
That would benefit Bass politically, but it could leave voters without the kind of serious discussion the city needs.
Critics of the mayor argue that housing production remains too slow, homelessness is not improving quickly enough and City Hall lacks urgency in managing basic services and major departments. Some say Bass is more comfortable as a legislative negotiator than as an executive driving a large city bureaucracy.
A stronger challenger could force Bass to answer those criticisms directly and explain what she would do differently in a second term. Pratt’s candidacy, despite its visibility, may not force that reckoning.
For now, the mayor has reason to be pleased with the shape of the race. But the vote also makes clear that a significant share of Los Angeles residents remain frustrated, angry or unconvinced that city government is meeting the moment. Whether that frustration leads to a serious civic debate before November is far less certain.
Original source: CalMatters
