Spooked LA lawmaker voting for Karen Bass to be re-elected mayor even though she dislikes her… because woke alternative Nithya Rahman is far worse
Los Angeles council member Traci Park says she will vote for incumbent Mayor Karen Bass in the upcoming runoff, despite having serious concerns about Bass’s leadership. Park argues that progressive challenger Nithya Raman would be worse for the city, while stressing that her vote is not an endorsement of Bass.
Park represents the Westside, including Pacific Palisades, which was devastated by wildfires in early 2025; the city’s response has become a key election issue. In the June 2 primary, Bass received 34 per cent of the vote, Raman 29 per cent and former candidate Spencer Pratt 26 per cent, prompting a runoff between the two leading candidates. Park criticised Raman’s visits to the neighbourhood and policy proposals, including her past support for defunding and abolishing the police, though Raman has since distanced herself from that position.
- Traci Park will vote for Karen Bass despite concerns about her leadership.
- Park says Nithya Raman would be worse for Los Angeles.
- Bass and Raman advanced to a runoff after the June primary.
New here? Start with this
Los Angeles has a mayor and a city council, which represents different parts of the city. Karen Bass is the incumbent mayor, while Nithya Raman is a council member challenging her. Traci Park represents the Westside, including Pacific Palisades.
Wildfires devastated Pacific Palisades in early 2025, and the city’s response has become an issue in the mayoral race. In the June primary, no candidate won a majority, so the two leading candidates advanced to a runoff.
The candidates have different records and policy positions, including on policing. Raman previously supported defunding and abolishing the police, but has since moved away from that position; Park has criticised her proposals and public visits to the fire-hit neighbourhood.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Park’s choice can be seen as a pragmatic judgement about which candidate is more likely to protect public safety and respond effectively to the city’s needs, particularly after the Palisades fires. Voters may reasonably weigh Raman’s earlier support for defunding or abolishing the police, alongside concerns about her proposals and engagement with the neighbourhood, even though she has since distanced herself from that position. Supporting Bass in a runoff need not amount to endorsing her record if Park believes the alternative poses greater risks.
The case against
A vote for Bass could be criticised as overlooking serious concerns about her leadership and the city’s handling of the wildfire aftermath, when residents need accountability and effective recovery. Raman’s past position on policing is relevant, but she has since distanced herself from it, so voters may judge her on her current proposals rather than treat that earlier stance as decisive. They may also see the runoff as an opportunity to choose a different direction instead of backing an incumbent they consider inadequate.