Los Angeles mayoral candidate Nithya Raman repeatedly cast herself Wednesday night as the common target of Mayor Karen Bass and challenger Spencer Pratt during and after a televised debate that exposed increasingly sharp strategic divisions in the race.
The exchanges highlighted the political dynamics emerging ahead of the June 2 primary, where only two top finishers will advance to a November runoff. While Raman portrayed herself as the focus of attacks from both opponents, Bass’ campaign rejected that framing as a distraction from her debate performance and City Council record. Political observers, meanwhile, said the debate underscored both Bass’ vulnerabilities as an incumbent and Pratt’s effort to prove he is a more serious contender than his social media persona suggests.
“Bass performed very well, but a debate like this one demonstrates how vulnerable she is heading into the primary,” Dan Schnur, a longtime California political strategist, said Thursday. “She has to persuade voters that Raman is too liberal and that Pratt is too conservative all at the same time.”
Former Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said the night’s biggest surprise was Pratt’s performance.
“I expected him to be a screamer, like he is on his social media, but he was very effective,” Yaroslavsky said. “He exceeded my expectations, and I think he’s a serious contender.”
During the KNBC Channel 4 and Telemundo’s KVEA Channel 52 debate, both Bass and Pratt frequently challenged Raman during exchanges over homelessness, policing and city governance, while Raman argued the criticism reflected growing political maneuvering ahead of the runoff.
“It was very clear to me, within a few minutes of me being there, that the two of them wanted to face each other in a November election,” Raman told reporters during a post-debate media scrum. “They both think that they can beat each other, so they’re trying to bring me down.”
Raman repeatedly framed herself as offering a distinct alternative to both Bass and Pratt, criticizing what she described as a broken status quo at City Hall while contrasting her approach with Pratt’s tougher rhetoric around homelessness and public safety.
“There were three very distinct visions for the future of Los Angeles on that debate stage,” Raman said in response to a question from the Southern California News Group. “One was the status quo, which I think is broken and I think a lot of Angelenos would agree is broken. We’re moving in the wrong direction. One was a MAGA Republican caricature of L.A. And one is mine.”
Still, Yaroslavsky said he was not convinced voters would necessarily interpret the debate through the lens Raman described.
“I don’t think that anybody can conclude that from the debate,” he said. “I think Karen Bass probably believes she’d rather run against Pratt than against Raman, but I’m not sure that she does… based on his performance yesterday, I’m not sure Karen Bass would rather run against Pratt, if Pratt continues to perform the way he did the other night.”
Raman was the only candidate to participate in the post-debate media scrum, speaking extensively with reporters after Bass and Pratt departed shortly after the event.
But Yaroslavsky cautioned against reading too much into the decision, saying it was common for candidates to avoid extended post-debate exchanges.
“It may be something as simple as they had somewhere else to go,” he said. “They said what they wanted to say in the debate, and they didn’t want to detract from what they said in the debate. I don’t think there’s anything to be read into it.”
The debate frequently turned combative, particularly during exchanges over homelessness and policing.
Bass defended her administration’s handling of homelessness, pointing to declining homelessness counts and the city’s Inside Safe program, while criticizing Raman’s record on police hiring and past votes against some encampment enforcement measures near schools and other sensitive sites.
Pratt, meanwhile, repeatedly cast both Bass and Raman as representatives of failed City Hall leadership, though many of his sharpest exchanges were directed at Raman.
After Raman accused Bass and Pratt of effectively working together politically, Pratt rejected that characterization and argued it would make little political sense for him to prefer running against Bass, given her incumbency advantages and union backing.
“You think it’s easier to run against the incumbent mayor with all the unions, or a random City Council member who’s been a failure for six years,” Pratt said.
The campaigns themselves continued sharpening those contrasts after the debate ended.
In a statement to SCNG on Thursday, Bass campaign spokesperson Alex Stack dismissed Raman’s claims as “conspiracy theories.” The campaign also noted that Pratt had separately accused Bass of coordinating with Raman.
The campaign argued Raman was attempting to distract from what it described as a poor debate performance and concerns about not making the runoff.
“While they focus on conspiracy theories, Mayor Karen Bass is talking about bringing down homelessness and crime, building more housing, and making L.A. more affordable,” Stack said.
Pratt’s campaign likewise declared victory in a post-debate message to followers, arguing voters had seen “a real look at this race” and contrasting Pratt’s campaign with what it described as failed leadership from both opponents.
The campaign did not immediately respond Thursday to requests for comment on Raman’s characterization of the debate dynamics.
Asked whether Raman’s framing resonated politically, Schnur said many voters tune into the debate primarily to hear candidates discuss policy positions and leadership priorities, making arguments about political maneuvering potentially harder for casual audiences to follow.
“There’s no reason to think that Raman was hurt by her accusations, but I don’t know if many voters understood the argument she was making,” he said. “If she is able to explain why a Pratt-Bass alliance is relevant to the lives of everyday Angelenos, it may have some resonance. But it’s a little bit abstract for the less-engaged voters to follow.”