Two winners, one loser in L.A. mayor’s debate
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
Karen Bass, Spencer Pratt and Nithya Raman each came into Wednesday night’s mayoral debate at the Skirball Cultural Center with goals for what may be their only time together onstage.
As the incumbent mayor, Bass had to weather blows from her challengers while trying to sell voters on her fitness for another term, despite a disastrous 2025.
As a reality TV star with no political experience, Pratt needed to show that he could offer substance instead of just AI fanboy videos and the name-calling — “Karen Basura” — he has indulged in on social media.
Raman’s task was perhaps the hardest. As a City Council member whose two previous campaigns were backed by the local Democratic Socialists of America chapter, she needed to convince Pratt-curious voters that she’s more conservative than Bass. Yet for others, Raman needed to appear liberal enough to peel away support from the mayor and come out as a progressive lioness to excite Democrats in a year when GOP candidates such as Pratt have to answer for the disaster that is President Trump’s second term.
Only one of the three failed.
At one point, Councilmember Nithya Raman accused Mayor Karen Bass and reality TV star Spencer Pratt of teaming up to attack her.
At times, Raman was tongue-tied trying to answer simple questions. Moderators kept telling her she was going over her time. Answering a yes/no question about whether noncitizens should be allowed to vote in city elections, the council member went on and on, until the moderator cut her off.
While Raman offered some policy plans and pitched herself as a fiscal hawk, she also played a card straight out of Trump’s arsenal: victimhood. The council member claimed that Pratt and Bass were teaming up against her — an unlikely scenario that drew laughs from the audience and bemused grins from her opponents. She got more and more frustrated as the one-hour debate went on, to the point that when Bass was allowed time for a rebuttal, Raman dejectedly proclaimed, “I haven’t been offered that in a lot of this debate.”
The council member, who had endorsed Bass’ reelection before throwing her hat in at the last minute, came off as inexperienced, touchy and unprepared. Debating is not her forte, and she repeatedly tripped as though she were making her way through a roomful of banana peels.
The line of the night was Pratt dismissing Raman as a “random City Council member” — which is how the L.A. political world responded to her entry into the race. She was so upset about Pratt’s remark that she continued to whine about it to a KNBC reporter after the debate.
What’s shocking about Raman’s flop is that she should know how important it is to project well to a television audience, given that her husband is a screenwriter. Her tone was usually flat, when she needed to be passionate at all times.
No one had to remind Pratt of that. He was parrying tough questions on a big stage for the first time, facing an audience who knew him only as the Angry L.A. White Guy he has reveled in playing.
He mostly succeeded.
At his best, Pratt came off as a boisterous bro with enough charm to call himself “humble” without coming off as obnoxious (he vowed to “surround himself with the smartest people in the world” as mayor). He dominated the flow of conversation without coming off as commandeering, even interrupting Raman at times to let Bass speak. At one point, he even said “Sorry” when he had taken up too much time.
Pratt was light on specifics, other than saying he was going to do better than the others and that he would prioritize public safety above all. Instead, he was the one person onstage who used anecdotes to sell himself, citing conversations with Angelenos about abused animals, downtown workers too afraid to eat outside and film producers hiring local gang members to keep their shoots safe.
As a TV-personality-turned-influencer, Pratt knows that storytelling is far more effective than drowning the audience in statistics, as Bass and Raman did. He’s also aware that knowing your script is important. His attacks on his opponents were obviously prepared but came off smoothly, and he never seemed rattled, unlike Raman.
But the bad Pratt flared up at times. He earned a reprimand from KNBC anchor and debate co-moderator Colleen Williams when he called the mayor an “incredible liar.” Affecting high-pitched voices to mock Bass and Raman came off as juvenile and possibly sexist. And when it came to last summer’s federal immigration raids that terrorized Southern California, Pratt appeared flummoxed when Bass pointed out that 70% of those arrested didn’t have criminal records — a use of stats that hit.
Bass was also who she had to be — measured, forceful and raring to defend her record, without coming off as defensive. Her hits on Raman were especially withering — addressing the council member as “my colleague” was a case study in throwing shade on her former ally — and she didn’t let Pratt trample over her. Bass wasn’t exactly inspirational, but she didn’t have to be. The city’s powerful labor unions have backed her, along with much of the Democratic establishment.
Raman and Pratt are right in deeming Bass the old guard of a beat-up city — but the old guard didn’t get there without knowing how to win.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
Nithya Raman emerged as the clear loser of the debate, struggling to articulate coherent responses and repeatedly exceeding time limits when answering straightforward questions. The article contends that Raman employed divisive tactics by falsely claiming Pratt and Bass were coordinating against her, a characterization that drew audience laughter and demonstrated her inexperience and insufficient preparation for the mayoral contest.
Spencer Pratt demonstrated unexpected success on the debate stage by leveraging his background in television and storytelling, using compelling anecdotes about public safety concerns rather than overwhelming viewers with dense policy statistics. The piece argues that Pratt showed sufficient composure and charm while displaying deference to moderators and occasionally yielding speaking time to Bass, though the article notes he occasionally lapsed into mockery and made unsubstantiated characterizations.
Karen Bass performed as an effective communicator by maintaining a measured and forceful demeanor while defending her record without becoming defensive, successfully drawing on backing from powerful labor unions and the broader Democratic establishment. The article suggests her experience in governance provided meaningful contrast to her opponents’ approaches, despite their attempts to position her as emblematic of established politics.
Different views on the topic
- Bass faces substantial criticism regarding her management of Los Angeles, with political observers characterizing her as a political loser due to the city recording its worst tourism year since the pandemic while simultaneously struggling with homelessness, crime, high costs, and disorder—failures in quality-of-life issues that would disqualify her from another term regardless of her debate performance[1].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
William Mulholland was the water boss who made L.A. possible. His reputation gave him unchecked authority as a dam builder. In 1928, that led to one of America’s deadliest disasters--and the question of whether it was a crime.
It started as a ploy to scare Texas out of redrawing its congressional map and ended with California voters approving a new map of their own, one that could hat could help alter the balance of power in Washington.
On this week’s episode of Boiling Point, Miranda Green speaks with Los Angeles Times climate reporter Hayley Smith about how AI bots are meddling in California’s clean energy policymaking.
