Democratic Socialist Overcomes GOP-Funded Opponent to Advance in Los Angeles Mayor Race 64%

By Jessica Washington65% Jonah Valdez72%

6/9/2026, 1:41:48 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Emotion, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 43.7% saturation with 499 hits. Analysis detected 2,794 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,141 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.8% and a BS Rank of 64% (7,452 of 20,381 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 63.40% of the article peer group.

The surprising and divisive mayoral campaign of right-wing reality TV star Spencer Pratt came to an end on Monday, when Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, claimed her spot on the general election ballot against incumbent Mayor Karen Bass. 
The second-place finish for Raman means that in the coming months, Bass will have to grapple with a challenger from her left. 
The incumbent mayor’s establishment bonafides at once lend her a strong political apparatus and make her the object of voter frustration. 
Raman, meanwhile, will face an uphill battle against the entrenched Democratic machine, which helped Bass easily secure a first-place finish. 
The embrace of mail-in voting by Angelenos slowly turned the tide for Raman, who initially trailed Pratt when polls closed last Tuesday. 
Under California’s nonpartisan, open primary system, all viable candidates stood for the same June election  putting Pratt, a Republican, in the same primary as the heavily Democratic field. 
The top two advance to a runoff in November, meaning Los Angeles voters will choose between two Democrats in the general election ballot. 
The emergence of Pratt, who rode a wave of outside conservative funding, prompted an intense debate among the city’s left on how to vote in the open primary. 
Rae Huang entered the race early on a progressive platform of strident police accountability measures, free and fast buses, and public housing. 
Raman, a city councilmember, decided to run at the last moment, with polls quickly showing she had a clearer path to a November runoff to fend off Pratt. 
Huang and her supporters insisted that she had the bolder leftist vision for the city, while Raman's backers accused the Huang campaign of splitting the left amid a real threat from Pratt. 
The left is now faced with the task of repairing its fractures ahead of the November runoff. 
Following Zohran Mamdani’s successful run for mayor in New York City, pundits were quick to ponder whether Los Angeles might be having its own Mamdani moment. 
But closer watchers of LA politics have been asking whether a different New York import could improve elections in the nation’s second biggest city: ranked-choice voting. 
A ranked-choice voting system allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. 
The system often leads to opponents with similar platforms and voter bases to cross-endorse, as was the case with Mamdani and his fellow progressive opponent Brad Lander, which helped stave off the more conservative-leaning former New York Gov. 
Andrew Cuomo. 
In the LA race, ranked choice would have allowed Raman and Huang to forge a similar alliance without compromising their positions and cooling the fierce debates among their supporters. 
“We’ve heard lots of voters that they are voting strategically, they try and follow the polls instead of supporting their real favorite  that’s the narrative that I think ranked-choice voting would solve,” said Rachel Hutchinson, deputy director of research and policy at FairVote, a nonprofit that is pushing for ranked-choice voting across the U.S., including in Los Angeles, where City Council has until June 26 to decide whether to place a measure on the November ballot that would implement the system in future elections. 
“Not only do people not have to drop out, but they can actually act civilly toward each other, especially if they share an ideology or they represent a similar community,” Hutchinson continued. 
“Voters under this system would feel more empowered to vote their conscience because they can still support their candidate.” 
Raman joined the LA City Council as part of a wing of left-leaning victories that shifted the city’s political calculus, and has cast herself as a pragmatic leader with an eye for policy. 
But she faced challenges garnering support from the left amid accusations of flip-flopping and cozying up to entrenched local power. 
Despite running on defunding the police in 2020 as the first member of the Democratic Socialists of America elected to the council, Raman repeatedly voted to expand the Los Angeles Police Department budget, although she has pushed back on plans to expand the force. 
In 2024, Raman accepted an endorsement from Zionist group Democrats for Israel–Los Angeles, which opposed a ceasefire in Gaza, for which she was widely rebuked and even censured by DSA–LA. 
Even though Raman and Huang are both DSA members, the local chapter declined to reopen the endorsement process for them. 
Raman’s three DSA colleagues on the City Council opted to endorse Bass. 
Bass focused much of her fire on attacking Raman, despite arguably having the biggest ideological disagreements with Pratt. 
Bass and Raman were once allies: Bass campaigned for Raman in 2024, and Raman supported Bass in her previous mayoral race. 
But once Raman launched her last-minute campaign, Bass criticized her for claiming to be an outsider with no control over the current issues plaguing the city, despite Raman having spent years in City Hall. 
On Monday, the local publication LA Material released a text message Bass sent Raman shortly after the latter filed to run; it contained only a tweet announcing Raman’s filing and a woman shrugging emoji. 
Bass’s tenure as mayor has been rife with controversy, particularly over her handling of the deadly 2025 Pacific Palisades fire. 
The mayor was in Ghana attending an embassy party when the fire broke out, and she returned home the following day, with her city and reputation in tatters. 
Bass’s office has also been criticized for watering down an after-action report on the Palisades fire, including allegations that she scrubbed the most damning findings about the city's shortcomings in responding to the blaze. 
Her supporters are quick to point out that the Santa Ana winds, and not Bass, fueled the intense fire. 
And in fact, President Donald Trump, who endorsed Pratt, also shares blame for the slow recovery effort. 
The president and Republicans in Congress have declined to release the $34 billion in Federal Emergency Management Agency aid requested by California Gov. 
Gavin Newsom for assisting fire survivors. 
The controversy over the fires largely fueled the campaign of third-place finisher Pratt, a former television star on “The Hills” who has never worked in politics and is best known for getting into public spats with his female co-stars. 
He centered his pitch on his anger at Bass’s handling of the Palisades fire  which consumed his home as well as thousands of others  as well as his disdain for the city’s homeless population, whom he called “bums” and “zombies” and argued should be arrested en masse. 
Housing experts told The Intercept that Pratt’s assertions were completely divorced from reality. 
But they pointed out that the lack of significant progress on the issue of homelessness in Los Angeles under Bass has emboldened figures like Pratt to swoop in and spread misinformation and dangerous propaganda. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 5.5%The Intercept: 5.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.6%The Intercept: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.9%Jessica Washington: 3.0%The Intercept: 3.0%Availability Heuristic9.9%This article: 9.6%Jessica Washington: 1.3%The Intercept: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic9.6%This article: 2.5%Jessica Washington: 0.7%The Intercept: 0.7%Hindsight Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 1.1%The Intercept: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.3%Jessica Washington: 7.7%The Intercept: 9.3%Framing Effect16.3%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.8%Jessica Washington: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.4%Status Quo Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.0%Jessica Washington: 1.5%The Intercept: 1.0%Optimism Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 1.6%The Intercept: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 43.7%Jessica Washington: 11.4%The Intercept: 12.5%Negativity Bias43.7%This article: 3.2%Jessica Washington: 1.7%The Intercept: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias3.2%This article: 6.8%Jessica Washington: 1.8%The Intercept: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error6.8%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 11.8%Jessica Washington: 2.1%The Intercept: 1.8%In-Group Bias11.8%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.8%The Intercept: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Jessica Washington: 2.0%The Intercept: 1.0%Halo Effect4.7%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.6%Jessica Washington: 1.9%The Intercept: 1.3%Recency Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Jessica Washington: 3.9%The Intercept: 2.5%Ad Hominem8.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.5%The Intercept: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.0%Jessica Washington: 3.6%The Intercept: 3.5%Appeal to Authority14.0%This article: 3.9%Jessica Washington: 2.1%The Intercept: 2.0%False Dilemma3.9%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 1.1%The Intercept: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 7.1%The Intercept: 7.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.2%Jessica Washington: 7.2%The Intercept: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion14.2%This article: 10.0%Jessica Washington: 1.3%The Intercept: 1.4%Begging the Question10.0%This article: 13.9%Jessica Washington: 3.6%The Intercept: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.9%This article: 3.0%Jessica Washington: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.2%Tu Quoque3.0%This article: 3.0%Jessica Washington: 1.0%The Intercept: 0.8%Burden of Proof3.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.3%Jessica Washington: 2.2%The Intercept: 2.3%Anecdotal5.3%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.5%Jessica Washington: 1.6%The Intercept: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.5%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.4%Jessica Washington: 1.0%The Intercept: 2.1%Unattributed Quote13.4%This article: 7.4%Jessica Washington: 1.1%The Intercept: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection7.4%This article: 11.7%Jessica Washington: 7.3%The Intercept: 10.7%Biased Writer Voice11.7%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 1.0%The Intercept: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 3.9%The Intercept: 6.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Jessica Washington: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Jessica Washington: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1141 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers13%attributed speech992writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageRachel Hutchinson • 85 words • 100.0% coverageRachel Hutchinson • 32 words • 0.0% coverageRachel Hutchinson • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 0.0% coverageThe Intercept • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Rachel Hutchinson

100%flagged-word coverage
136 attributed words91% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Quote-first Misdirection+62.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Rachel Hutchinson: 62.5%62.5%Unattributed Quote+1.8 ptsWriter: 12.2%Rachel Hutchinson: 14.0%14.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.5 ptsWriter: 13.5%Rachel Hutchinson: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -8.7 ptsWriter: 8.7%Rachel Hutchinson: 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.