MS NOW⁠95%

Raman to advance in Los Angeles mayor’s race, taking on Bass in November ⁠51%

By Julianne McShane⁠0%

6/8/2026, 4:57:43 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 30% saturation with 183 hits. Analysis detected 1,192 faulty-reasoning hits from 609 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠51% (10,744 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 50.90% of the article peer group.

Los Angeles Council member Nithya Raman will advance to the November general election in the mayoral race to face the incumbent, Karen Bass, after overtaking ex-reality TV star Spencer Pratt in the primary, The Associated Press projects. 
Raman has steadily trended upward in the vote count since Election Day, and she overtook Pratt on Sunday. 
Monday’s vote update gives Raman a cushion of more than 20,000 votes, making her position in the top two safe, with an estimated 93% of the vote counted. 
The runoff between Raman, 44, and Bass, 72, is the latest example of a younger Democrat trying to oust an older incumbent. 
Raman, a Harvard- and MIT-educated member of the Democratic Socialists of America who has represented LA’s 4th City Council District since 2020, launched her surprise mayoral campaign in February — less than two weeks after she endorsed Bass’ campaign for re-election. 
The runoff between Raman, 44, and Bass, 72, is the latest example of a younger Democrat trying to oust an older incumbent. 
She campaigned on a pledge to bring change to the city, but struggled to deliver consistent messaging during debates, where she walked back some of her more left-wing policy stances, including support for defunding the police and opposing anti-camping zones for homeless people. 
Bass previously represented LA in the California Assembly, including as speaker. 
She has served six terms in the U.S. 
House and entered the mayor’s race facing extensive criticism from Angelenos over both her handling of last year’s deadly LA wildfires — she was in Ghana when the blazes broke out — and her failure to achieve her goal of ending homelessness by the end of her first term. 
She has pledged that, if re-elected, she will deliver on that goal. 
She has also vowed to continue standing up to the Trump administration, pointing to her confrontation with federal agents when the president deployed Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the city last year. 
In a statement provided to MS NOW Monday night, Raman thanked her supporters and sought to cast herself as a change agent, pledging to “fight for a healthier, safer, more affordable, and more joyful Los Angeles.” 
“For too long, City Hall has prioritized giving political advantage to powerful interests that fund elections. 
Meanwhile, working people pay the price in higher rents, depleted services, and a city that has stopped working for them,” Raman said. 
“If you’re as frustrated by the broken status quo as I am, I hope you’ll join our movement to build a city that works for everyone.” 
Meanwhile, Bass campaign strategist Douglas Herman said in a statement to MS NOW Monday night: “A campaign against Nithya Raman, who allows encampments near schools and cuts the police force, is one Mayor Bass looks forward to winning.” 
Pratt’s fast rise, social media savvy and massive online audience also seemed to make it more difficult for Raman to break through in the primary. 
He outraised both Bass and Raman since launching his campaign in January. 
But some strategists predicted Pratt’s backing by MAGA, and President Donald Trump himself, would ultimately help catapult Raman to second place in deep-blue LA. 
Indeed, Pratt’s lead over Raman steadily narrowed since primary night as mail-in ballots came in — a fact that Trump and other MAGA allies baselessly alleged proved “fraud” in the race. 
On Tuesday, Pratt led Raman by 9 percentage points; by Sunday night, she had overtaken him by less than 1 percentage point. 
Spokespeople for Pratt’s campaign did not immediately respond to MS NOW’s requests for comment after the results were called Monday night. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.9%Julianne McShane: 3.8%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias3.9%This article: 8.2%Julianne McShane: 0.5%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias8.2%This article: 12.2%Julianne McShane: 3.4%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic12.2%This article: 11.2%Julianne McShane: 0.8%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic11.2%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.7%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Julianne McShane: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias4.6%This article: 14.3%Julianne McShane: 11.9%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect14.3%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.3%Julianne McShane: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.9%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 30.0%Julianne McShane: 14.5%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias30.0%This article: 5.3%Julianne McShane: 3.4%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.8%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 4.1%Julianne McShane: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 3.9%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 1.2%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 3.4%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.4%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.6%Julianne McShane: 2.8%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Julianne McShane: 2.9%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem6.2%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.8%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.3%Julianne McShane: 5.1%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority11.3%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 1.1%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.0%Julianne McShane: 3.9%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization9.0%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 8.2%Julianne McShane: 0.9%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon8.2%This article: 7.9%Julianne McShane: 5.2%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion7.9%This article: 3.6%Julianne McShane: 0.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question3.6%This article: 13.1%Julianne McShane: 3.0%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.1%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 1.7%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 2.4%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.7%Julianne McShane: 1.0%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.7%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.5%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 2.2%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.6%Julianne McShane: 1.7%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection2.6%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 3.2%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 10.2%Julianne McShane: 1.2%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination10.2%This article: 7.1%Julianne McShane: 2.5%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias7.1%This article: 5.1%Julianne McShane: 1.5%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Julianne McShane: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

609 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers23%attributed speech471writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageNithya Raman • 36 words • 100.0% coverageNithya Raman • 16 words • 100.0% coverageNithya Raman • 22 words • 0.0% coverageNithya Raman • 26 words • 100.0% coverageDouglas Herman • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Douglas Herman

100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words28% of attributed speech78% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Politically Left Leaning B-9.1 ptsWriter: 9.1%Douglas Herman: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -6.6 ptsWriter: 6.6%Douglas Herman: 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.