Exclusive | Spencer Pratt gets most support in these LA neighborhoods, new poll shows 64%

By Daniel Farr69%

5/30/2026, 10:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Anchoring Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 36.6% saturation with 250 hits. Analysis detected 1,879 faulty-reasoning hits from 683 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59% and a BS Rank of 64% (7,315 of 20,175 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 63.70% of the article peer group.

Spencer Pratt is gaining significant support in key pockets of Los Angeles, according to a new poll that spells trouble for Mayor Karen Bass as more voters blame City Hall for homelessness, rising costs and the city's overall direction. 
The California Post poll conducted with McLaughlin & Associates released Friday shows a regional breakdown revealing Pratt's strongest support comes from parts of LA where dissatisfaction with Bass is running highest. 
Pratt was at a campaign event in Baldwin Village Saturday where he made important connections with the community. 
"Baldwin Village is a beautiful area with great people and tremendous potential, but the thing that stood out to me is how disappointed they all are with Karen Bass. 
They all feel disillusioned and demoralized with city leadership, and they find a glimmer of hope in seeing somebody running who hates and distrusts politicians as much as they do," he told The Post. 
Pratt urged people to get to the polls if they want a shot at making a change in the city. 
"It's now or never. 
We have a once-in-lifetime chance to right the ship in LA, but people need to get off the internet and go vote. 
I don't want to hear anyone complain about druggies or vagrant fires or potholes if they haven't voted. 
There's no fate but what we make," he added. 
In the San Fernando Valley, where the median household income is about $92,000, Pratt leads with 39%, compared with 36% for Bass and 14% for Raman. 
The region includes neighborhoods such as Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Pacoima, Sylmar, Northridge and Reseda. 
Voters there identified homelessness as their most important issue, while Bass faces a crushing 68% job disapproval rating. 
"Bass is in trouble, she has huge negatives" John McLaughlin of McLaughlin & Associates told The Post. 
Adding he believes it's possible Raman could knock her off with a good campaigning weekend. 
"People are looking for change, that's what they want, whether that's a Republican or a Democrat," he said. 
"Spencer must get some Democrat support, though, otherwise he won't win in November," McLaughlin added. 
Pratt also holds a commanding lead on the Westside, where the median household income is $135,383, and in Harbor-area neighborhoods, where the median household income is $79,436, winning 35% support. 
Bass and Raman are tied at 23% each. 
The area includes Westwood, Marina Del Rey, Mar Vista, Palms, Venice, San Pedro, Wilmington and Harbor Gateway. 
Homelessness again ranked as the top concern, and Bass' job disapproval stands at 70%. 
Raman performs best in Central LA, where the median household income is $68,064, and East LA, where the median household income is $68,741, where she captures 36% support. 
Pratt receives 26% and Bass 20%. 
The region includes Koreatown, Hollywood, Downtown LA and Boyle Heights. 
Unlike other parts of the city, voters there identified housing affordability as their most important issue. 
Bass' job disapproval rating reaches 71%, the highest of any region surveyed. 
Bass finds her only stronghold in South LA, where the median household income is $57,500, and Mid-City, where the median household income is $56,538, where she leads with 49%. 
Raman earns 20% while Pratt receives just 8%. 
Neighborhoods in the area include Watts, Mid-Wilshire and Exposition Park. 
It is also the only region where Gavin Newsom-endorsed Bass enjoys positive job ratings, with voters approving of her performance by a 56% to 42% margin. 
Even there, homelessness remains the top issue. 
McLaughlin explained his polling targets voters who have voted in primary elections before and are most likely planning to vote in primaries again. 
Overall, the reality TV star-turned-mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt is narrowly leading the race with 30.1% support, edging out Bass at 29.5% and putting the incumbent in a statistical tie heading into next week's primary election. 
Socialist LA City Councilwoman Nithya Raman trails in third at 23.4%. 
The survey covered only neighborhoods within LA city limits. 
Independent cities including Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Culver City, Inglewood, El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Long Beach, Burbank and Glendale were not included. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.4%Daniel Farr: 3.7%California Post: 4.0%Confirmation Bias16.4%This article: 16.8%Daniel Farr: 1.3%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias16.8%This article: 2.6%Daniel Farr: 4.7%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic2.6%This article: 13.5%Daniel Farr: 1.1%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic13.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.6%California Post: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Daniel Farr: 0.5%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias9.1%This article: 7.2%Daniel Farr: 12.8%California Post: 10.4%Framing Effect7.2%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.2%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 11.3%Daniel Farr: 0.9%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias11.3%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.6%Daniel Farr: 1.3%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias14.6%This article: 0.6%Daniel Farr: 1.5%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.6%This article: 36.6%Daniel Farr: 17.6%California Post: 16.1%Negativity Bias36.6%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.9%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.5%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.0%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.9%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Daniel Farr: 2.2%California Post: 3.0%Halo Effect7.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.5%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.2%Daniel Farr: 1.7%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.4%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Daniel Farr: 2.2%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem1.6%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.2%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.0%Daniel Farr: 3.1%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority11.0%This article: 10.2%Daniel Farr: 1.5%California Post: 1.4%False Dilemma10.2%This article: 2.2%Daniel Farr: 0.7%California Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope2.2%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.7%Daniel Farr: 4.0%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization15.7%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.7%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.0%Daniel Farr: 0.5%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon5.0%This article: 13.3%Daniel Farr: 8.4%California Post: 9.0%Appeal to Emotion13.3%This article: 2.5%Daniel Farr: 0.6%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question2.5%This article: 9.5%Daniel Farr: 2.3%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.5%This article: 2.6%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque2.6%This article: 2.2%Daniel Farr: 0.7%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof2.2%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.6%Daniel Farr: 2.0%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal2.6%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.9%Daniel Farr: 1.7%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.9%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.3%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 2.5%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 6.7%Daniel Farr: 1.9%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection6.7%This article: 23.7%Daniel Farr: 12.4%California Post: 13.2%Biased Writer Voice23.7%This article: 8.8%Daniel Farr: 1.6%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination8.8%This article: 1.6%Daniel Farr: 0.3%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias1.6%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 3.9%California Post: 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.7%California Post: 6.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

683 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers33%attributed speech459writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 29 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 34 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 20 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 4 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 22 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 18 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageJohn McLaughlin • 17 words • 100.0% coverageJohn McLaughlin • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJohn McLaughlin • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJohn McLaughlin • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJohn McLaughlin • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Spencer Pratt

100%flagged-word coverage
136 attributed words61% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Indoctrination+44.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Spencer Pratt: 44.1%44.1%Biased Writer Voice-35.3 ptsWriter: 35.3%Spencer Pratt: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+21.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Spencer Pratt: 21.3%21.3%Politically Left Leaning B-2.4 ptsWriter: 2.4%Spencer Pratt: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.