The mayoral election in Los Angeles is a contest between the incompetent incumbent mayor, Karen Bass (D), and the far-left challenger, Nithya Raman (D).
This is not democracy’s finest hour, writes Wall Street Journal in an editorial. Even the candidates themselves seem to realise that they are not particularly appealing, and are therefore trying to divert attention away from their own backgrounds.
During his term, Bass has gone from one scandal to the next, and found himself in hot water following the catastrophic fire that struck LA in January 2025.
The city’s total inability to tackle the fire and at least limit the massive destruction was a demonstration of the socially damaging ‘woke’ socialism that has plagued the Democratic Party.
The mayor herself chose to travel to Ghana rather than remain in the city, despite having been warned of a high risk of fire. When interviewed upon her return to LA, she refused to answer the questions.
Three of LA’s female fire chiefs came across as caricatures of incompetence, but in the spirit of diversity and DEI, at least the three of them were lesbians.
Bass and Raman are neck and neck in the latest opinion polls. Bass won the primary in June with 34 per cent of the vote, whilst Raman, with 29 per cent of the vote, beat the Republican candidate Spencer Pratt.
The challenger, Raman, is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, a radical left-wing, quasi-communist faction of the Democratic Party. She is often compared to her party colleagues Zohran Mamdani and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Trump and several others, incidentally, suspected electoral fraud when Raman beat Pratt in the primary.
Trump and several others suspect electoral fraud in Los Angeles
Raman served as an ally to Mayor Bass on the city council and chaired the housing and homelessness committee. She supported defunding the police during the Black Lives Matter protests and opposed the removal of tent camps for the homeless.
In March, Raman voted to channel tens of millions of taxpayers’ money to a charity that took legal action to prevent the city from clearing the camps.
Recently, the City Council’s solicitor, Hydee Feldstein Soto, reported that between 55 and 87 million dollars of these funds had vanished without a trace.
Oops! It’s amusing to see how Raman throws up his hands at the issue of homelessness and criticises the mayor for mismanaging funds intended for the homeless.
In a recent debate, Raman said:
“Homelessness is the most important issue facing voters. They are frustrated by the lack of progress, and they are frustrated by how much money is being spent without any form of accountability.”
Under Bass’s leadership, the city has spent $82,420 annually on each homeless person it has provided shelter for in motels. In other words, homeless people receive ‘housing support’ of over 63,000 kroner every month!
Raman calls the programme a money pit, but her proposed solution is at least as bad. She wants to place homeless people in ‘supportive’ and ‘affordable’ housing. These affordable homes cost an average of $832,158 to build due to local authorities’ wage requirements and other cost-increasing regulations.
Interestingly, Raman holds a master’s degree in urban planning from MIT. Her approach to urban planning, then, is to allow homeless people to occupy the city’s streets with tents, litter and drugs before they are allowed to move into homes that ordinary working people in the city can only dream of being able to afford.
The middle class is being forced to move out and is being replaced by homeless people and illegal migrants. This is how the cities of California are being transformed into shithole cities.
The middle class can no longer afford to live in San Francisco
In January, Federal Judge David Carter criticised the city for a lack of financial oversight.
“There have been numerous instances of fraud and corruption that have spread unchecked within the so-called homelessness-industrial complex”.
Bass’s only response was that things could get even worse if Raman were elected.
One can hardly help but feel sorry for the voters in LA, the WSJ concludes. They are forced to re-elect a mayor they know is a disaster, or replace her with a radical socialist they suspect might be even worse.
But they could, of course, have supported Pratt in the primary election. It’s sad to say, but the residents of La La Land risk ending up with the dysfunctional city they voted for.
