In Karen Bass’ bad debate night, she even trashed taco vendors
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass’ terrible, horrible, no good, very bad reelection campaign just got worse after Wednesday night’s debate in Sherman Oaks.
Bass came in as the clear favorite after toying with City Councilmember Nithya Raman the two times they faced off on the debate stage during the primary, as easily as the Dodgers sweeping the Angels.
Her Honor just needed to do more of the same: hail her own accomplishments, deliver well-timed zingers and keep as cool as a cucumber while baiting Raman into self-immolation.
Bass did none of that, while Raman stepped up the way she needed to.
This time, the challenger offered concrete answers instead of word salads. She mostly stuck to the allotted time limits while Bass repeatedly whined that she wasn’t given enough time. Raman effortlessly turned the mayor’s rhetorical traps around like Bugs Bunny twisting Elmer Fudd’s rifle right in his face.
The showdown in Sherman Oaks was the first face-to-face debate since Mayor Karen Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman emerged as the top vote-getters in the June 2 mayoral primary.
Take the moment when Bass pointed out that Raman had missed the second-most votes among council members during her six years in office. Raman responded that she missed many meetings while representing the city on the South Coast Air Quality Management District and other governmental boards. Bass’ clapback — that Raman’s colleagues also had other official responsibilities yet “they find their way to work” — drew “ooohs” from the audience at the debate, put on by the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn.
If this were still the primary, Raman would have flustered her way to a non-answer. This time, she calmly said that she must not be such a bad council member, since Bass had appointed her to those boards.
“Well, we really need to look at that,” Bass stammered before asking Raman if she was “getting ready to resign” from them.
“I’m sorry?” Raman asked off mic as Bass challenged her to step down from all her boards. “No,” Raman then said firmly before shrugging and letting the moderator move on to the next question.
The moment was par for the mayor’s night.
Again and again, Bass went after Raman in the pettiest, most personal ways. She kept mocking the MIT graduate as a clueless egghead with no idea what’s going on in the city, stating twice that Raman governed as if L.A. were “an academic institution” — a line that sounded like a MAGA talking point and that was originally trotted out by Councilmember Imelda Padilla.
Bass tried to paint Raman as a member of an ineffectual city establishment, not a newcomer, which fell flat, considering that Bass has held one elected office or another for 22 years while Raman has been in politics only since 2020.
Bass frequently resorted to her trademark nervous laughter and repeated obviously crafted lines with all the enthusiasm of someone gulping down cod liver oil. Her furrowed brow and exasperated looks, which she had effectively used in previous debates, made her come off as embittered, tired and unable to defend the indefensible mess that has been her first term.
At one point, the mayor even trashed one of L.A.’s most famous industries: street vending.
After a moderator complained that a taquero had set up in the parking lot of Sherman Oaks’ Cal-Mex fave La Fogata, Raman argued that vendors shouldn’t be ostracized but rather brought into the city’s regulatory system, maintaining that they and restaurants “can coexist in L.A.” and make the metropolis better.
“I do not believe that you should have a food vendor in front of a restaurant, period,” Bass shot back, adding that she wanted them in brick-and-mortar locations instead. Their presence near restaurants “discourages people from going in, just like you shouldn’t have encampments in front of restaurants or in front of schools. You just should not do that.”
Somewhere, Jonathan Gold is shaking his head in disgust.
“You have lots of plans and lots of ideas but have done very little,” Bass told Raman at another point.
And what have you done, Mayor Bass?
I’ve really tried to like Bass. Her trajectory from South L.A. activist to nonprofit founder to Sacramento, Washington and City Hall is impressive and important. Yet when Angelenos needed her to rise and succeed as their city faced one crisis after another during these last four years, Bass stumbled and stumbled again. Her flop of a debate performance left her sounding like someone with no vision or kindness — career suicide for someone who has made her reputation on both traits.
At this point, the architects of Bass’ campaign need to burn sage to drive out bad spirits or just bow out altogether. Any time something could go wrong, it has.
Bass placed first in the primary with 34% of the vote — an abysmal number for a Democratic incumbent in a deep blue city. Her campaign’s cynical gambit to boost washed-up reality TV star Spencer Pratt into the general election, because he’d be an easier opponent than Raman, failed. The Lineage fire in Boyle Heights brought back memories of the deadly Palisades inferno, angering a voting bloc Bass desperately needs: Latinos.
Then came news this week that a poll the Bass campaign had promoted, claiming that she held a commanding lead over Raman, turned out to be fake. Bass came out looking like someone incapable of overseeing paint dry, let alone running America’s second-largest city.
And now, this debate.
The audience, which was heavily pro-Bass, eventually started applauding more and more of Raman’s responses. Bass, desperate to trip up her opponent, talked over her so much that the council member responded with the line of the night and possibly the race:
“You’ve got to let me answer, Mayor Bass. This is my time.”
Raman still faces an uphill battle. Nearly all of the city’s power structure — elected officials, labor unions, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, business owners and even the three other democratic socialist council members — has endorsed Bass. The mayor has outpaced Raman in fundraising. Raman has to win over voters who supported Pratt’s conservative stances while not alienating her progressive base. She did herself no favors with the Democratic Socialists of America’s local chapter, which didn’t endorse her in the primary and will decide next week whether to endorse her in the general election, by stating that the city needs to maintain the current size of its police force.
But in Wednesday night’s debate, she offered voters a distinct choice between how she would run L.A. and how Bass has.
All the mayor could sputter in her closing remarks was that Raman “does not have the support of [any] of her colleagues” — yet another line she had repeated ad nauseam.
When it was her turn, Raman said she keeps hearing from residents “that this city feels rudderless.”
“I have news for you, Angelenos. You’re right,” she continued. “No one is in charge right now.”
Then, instead of launching another fusillade against Bass, Raman went for something few people associate with L.A. nowadays:
Hope.
“You have every right to expect more from your city,” Raman proclaimed, her voice strong and clear. She urged Angelenos to “raise our expectations” of what’s possible and strive for a city that’s “affordable, functional, safe, joyful, ambitious.”
A few months ago, that would have sounded like the delusional ramblings of someone with no chance at winning. After Wednesday night’s debate, Raman seems like L.A.’s final, best chance.
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
The article argues that Mayor Karen Bass clearly lost the Sherman Oaks debate, describing a performance marked by petty personal attacks, defensive complaints about time limits and an inability to articulate a compelling vision for Los Angeles.
It contends that Councilmember Nithya Raman showed significant growth compared with earlier primary debates, offering concrete answers instead of vague rhetoric, staying largely within time limits and calmly turning Bass’ attempted “gotcha” moments to Raman’s advantage.
The piece suggests Bass’s strategy of mocking Raman’s MIT education and portraying Raman as part of a tired political establishment backfired, especially because Bass has held elected office for more than two decades while Raman has been in electoral politics only since 2020.
It argues that Bass’s body language and delivery—nervous laughter, repeated canned lines, furrowed brow and visible exasperation—made the mayor seem embittered and exhausted, reinforcing the notion that Bass has failed to meet the city’s overlapping crises during the first term.
The article highlights Bass’s comparison of street taco vendors to homeless encampments as an example of a worldview that treats informal commerce and poverty as nuisances disrupting a “well‑run” city, casting doubt on Bass’s sensitivity to cultural and economic life at street level.
It situates the debate inside a broader narrative of a campaign in disarray: Bass’s weak 34% showing in the primary, a failed attempt to elevate Spencer Pratt as a weaker general‑election opponent, the political damage from the Lineage warehouse fire in Boyle Heights, and an embarrassing fake poll that undermined the campaign’s credibility.
The column underscores that, despite Bass’ advantages in fundraising and establishment endorsements from elected officials, unions, police and business interests, Raman used the debate to offer a sharp contrast between Bass’ stewardship and Raman’s promise of a city that is more affordable, functional, safe, joyful and ambitious.
It concludes that although Raman still faces an uphill battle—including skepticism from some democratic socialists and the need to appeal to both conservative and progressive voters—the Sherman Oaks debate transformed Raman from a long‑shot challenger into what the article describes as Los Angeles’ “final, best chance” for change.
Different views on the topic
At the same time, other commentary on the Sherman Oaks debate has judged both candidates harshly rather than declaring a clear winner, with one national column arguing that Bass and Raman spent much of the evening attacking and interrupting each other and suggesting that both deserved poor marks for their performances[2].
Additionally, straight news coverage of the debate has emphasized substantive policy clashes over homelessness, spending, police contracts and projects like the convention center expansion, without declaring Raman the decisive victor, instead portraying an evening in which each candidate tried to claim the mantle of accountability and fiscal responsibility[4][6].
In contrast to the article’s portrayal of Bass as a consistently weak debater, earlier forums have produced assessments that Bass handled herself effectively, with one televised debate recap stating that Bass “might have emerged as the victor” and “probably had the best night” by deflecting attacks and keeping the focus off her record[7][9].
Furthermore, Bass and allied voices argue that the mayor has taken concrete action on homelessness, pointing to the Inside Safe program that has moved thousands of unhoused residents into hotels and motels and contributed to reductions in street encampments in several council districts, including parts of Raman’s own district[1][10].
At the same time, Bass and supporters contend that Raman is not a political outsider but a key participant in City Hall decision‑making, noting that Raman chaired the powerful council committee overseeing homelessness and housing for several years and has been in City Hall longer than Bass in her current role, which they say undercuts claims that Bass alone embodies the status quo[1][3][4].
Additionally, Bass has criticized Raman’s record on encampment policy, arguing that Raman voted repeatedly to limit tools for removing encampments near schools and other sensitive locations and has opposed laws that keep encampments at least 500 feet from schools, a stance Bass and some residents see as incompatible with their expectations for public safety and neighborhood conditions[1][3][6].
Moreover, some coverage has raised questions about the feasibility of Raman’s pledges—such as cutting street homelessness in half by the 2028 Olympics and eliminating encampments citywide in four years—suggesting that while ambitious, those goals would require substantial resources and coordination that may be difficult to achieve within a single mayoral term[1][5][10].
In addition, reporting on the broader race stresses that Bass remains a formidable incumbent: polls and fundraising show a tight contest but give Bass a monetary edge, and the mayor’s campaign argues that ongoing initiatives on infrastructure, economic development and public safety make the case for continuity, while Raman’s effort is framed by some analysts as a classic “change versus status quo” challenge rather than a clear repudiation of Bass[3][8][10].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
The latest effort is coming from the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. They just announced a $3 million program in conjunction with some nonprofits groups to test and clean the soil at homes still standing in the areas impacted by the Eaton Fire.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
Hosts Fidel Martínez and Suzy Exposito sit down with Dr. Vanessa J. Díaz, professor of Chicano and Latino Studies at Loyola Marymount University and co-author of P FKN R: How Bad Bunny Became the Global Voice of Puerto Rican Resistance.
