Nithya Raman knocks Spencer Pratt off second place in LA mayor's race 37%

By Jamie Paige0%

6/8/2026, 12:08:41 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Self-Serving Bias, and Recency Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 23% saturation with 113 hits. Analysis detected 683 faulty-reasoning hits from 491 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.3% and a BS Rank of 37% (13,986 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 63.90% of the article peer group.

Nithya Raman has overtaken Spencer Pratt for the first time in the race for second place in Los Angeles’ mayoral contest. 
New results released by Los Angeles County show Raman with 196,198 votes, or 27.12%, compared with Pratt’s 193,085 votes, or 26.69%. 
The latest tally gives Raman a 3,113-vote lead after she trailed Pratt by 7,494 votes just one day earlier. 
Raman picked up 19,096 votes in Sunday’s count, more than double Pratt’s gain of 8,489 votes. 
The latest batch of ballots produced a 10,607-vote swing between the two candidates, erasing Pratt’s advantage and moving Raman into second place. 
Mayor Karen Bass remained in first place with 250,871 votes, or 34.68%. 
The turnaround marks a remarkable shift from election night, when Pratt appeared well-positioned to secure a runoff spot. 
As additional ballots have been counted over the past week, Raman has steadily narrowed the gap before finally moving ahead Sunday. 
Pratt dropped a snarky dig at Raman’s homeless record after the new ballots dropped, citing a homeless report showing over 43,000 people are homeless in LA on any given night in 2025. 
He said: “A net swing of more than 43,000 votes since Tuesday… 43,000, huh? 
Where have I seen that number before…? 
Probably nothing.” 
Raman's campaign, meanwhile, pointed to the latest results. 
“We are encouraged by the latest vote count and remain grateful to the thousands of Angelenos who have powered this campaign,” Raman said. 
Bass campaign spokesman Alex Stack signaled the mayor’s team was already looking ahead to a potential November matchup. 
“If Raman maintains that position, Mayor Bass looks forward to winning a contest against an opponent who allows encampments near schools and fights against hiring more cops, yet is MIA on saving Hollywood jobs and fighting back when ICE invades L.A.,” Stack said. 
Sunday's update brought Los Angeles County to 83% of ballots counted, according to election officials. 
California counties have until early July to complete and certify their election results. 
The governor's race also continued to move Sunday as former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra widened his advantage over Republican Steve Hilton. 
According to results reported by the Associated Press at 5:15 p.m. 
Sunday, Becerra increased his total from 1,732,755 votes, or 26.8%, on Saturday to 1,882,399 votes, or 27.2%, gaining 149,644 votes in the latest rounds of counting. 
Hilton rose from 1,704,821 votes and 26.4% on Saturday to 1,787,476 votes and 25.8% on Sunday, adding 82,655 votes. 
The latest ballots allowed Becerra to expand his lead from 27,934 votes on Saturday to 94,923 votes by Sunday evening  an increase of 66,989 votes. 
Billionaire businessman Tom Steyer remained in third place with 1,488,251 votes, or 21.5%. 
Although Steyer added 126,702 votes since Saturday, he remained nearly 300,000 votes behind Hilton in the race for the second spot in November's runoff. 
Election officials are expected to release another round of results Monday. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.9%Jamie Paige: 5.3%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.0%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Jamie Paige: 5.7%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic6.5%This article: 5.9%Jamie Paige: 1.4%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.9%This article: 7.5%Jamie Paige: 0.3%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 2.0%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Jamie Paige: 14.3%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.8%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.2%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%Jamie Paige: 1.2%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 2.1%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.0%Jamie Paige: 15.8%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias23.0%This article: 13.4%Jamie Paige: 2.6%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias13.4%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.4%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 2.0%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.1%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.8%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.2%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.0%Jamie Paige: 2.6%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias13.0%This article: 3.7%Jamie Paige: 0.5%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect3.7%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 2.5%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.8%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.5%Jamie Paige: 2.9%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority14.5%This article: 8.8%Jamie Paige: 2.7%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma8.8%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.5%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 8.3%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.9%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.8%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 9.5%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.7%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.8%Jamie Paige: 3.6%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.8%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.8%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.6%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.9%Jamie Paige: 4.5%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal2.9%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.4%Jamie Paige: 2.2%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.4%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.2%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.2%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.4%Jamie Paige: 2.4%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote0.4%This article: 4.3%Jamie Paige: 1.8%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection4.3%This article: 3.7%Jamie Paige: 12.5%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice3.7%This article: 8.8%Jamie Paige: 1.3%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination8.8%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.9%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 4.7%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.2%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

491 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers28%attributed speech352writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 32 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 14 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 7 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Pratt • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageNithya Raman • 23 words • 0.0% coverageAlex Stack • 18 words • 0.0% coverageAlex Stack • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Alex Stack

100%flagged-word coverage
61 attributed words44% of attributed speech71% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Indoctrination+70.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Alex Stack: 70.5%70.5%Biased Writer Voice-5.1 ptsWriter: 5.1%Alex Stack: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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