Nithya Raman’s late entry to L.A.’s mayoral race changes the dynamics
By Jon Vein
Nithya Raman’s late entry into the Los Angeles mayoral race doesn’t just add another name to an already long list of candidates. It shifts the balance of the contest.
LAST MINUTE ENTRY into the L.A. mayoral race of Nithya Raman brings Adam Miller and other contenders up as options to incumbent Karen Bass.
Drawing by Finnegan Walker
Until she filed, the race was shaping up largely as a referendum on Mayor Karen Bass—her approach to homelessness, her wildfire response, and whether City Hall feels steady or stalled. Raman’s decision to jump in changes that equation. It sharpens the ideological contrast and raises a real possibility in a crowded field: progressive vote-splitting.
Bass is running. Tech entrepreneur Adam Miller is running. So are community organizer Rae Huang, engineer Asaad Alnajjar, and others. Voters aren’t facing a narrow set of choices. They’re facing abundance.
Raman enters with energy and name recognition—but not with an empty lane waiting for her.
The incumbent factor
Karen Bass still begins from a position of strength. She has institutional backing, relationships across labor and civic groups, and a governing style that emphasizes coordination over confrontation.
But incumbency accumulates dissatisfaction. Homelessness remains the city’s defining challenge, and many voters feel the pace of improvement has not matched the scale of the crisis.
The Palisades Fire added another layer of scrutiny. LAFD Chief Jaime Moore acknowledged that earlier drafts of the department’s after-action report were edited in ways that softened criticism of leadership decisions. Reporting showed that Bass’ office reviewed the report before it was publicly released. Bass has denied directing substantive changes, saying her team sought factual clarification rather than revising findings. Even so, the episode added to scrutiny at a moment when crisis leadership is closely examined.
Her advantages remain real. But they are no longer unqualified.
A managerial lane and a real opening
Adam Miller has made a different argument. Through his nonprofit Better Angels, he has focused on housing production and lower-cost development models aimed at addressing homelessness more efficiently. His campaign centers on execution: Los Angeles doesn’t lack plans; it lacks systems that work.
Raman’s entrance sharpens that contrast.
If she and Bass draw from overlapping progressive voters—particularly those motivated by housing and equity issues—their support could split. In a primary where only two candidates advance, fragmentation can shape the outcome. It doesn’t require a majority. It requires arithmetic.
That possibility is now part of the race’s underlying structure.
Why the New York analogy doesn’t fit
Some have tried to frame Raman’s candidacy through the lens of New York’s recent mayoral contest. The comparison overlooks critical context.
In New York, voters faced unusually constrained options. One major political figure exited amid serious sexual misconduct allegations. Another leading contender was widely viewed as occupying a far-right ideological lane. In that environment, a credible alternative could consolidate broad support simply by not being either of those polarizing figures.
Los Angeles is different. There is no vacuum created by scandal or ideological extremes. There are multiple viable candidates across the spectrum. Raman isn’t inheriting a coalition by default; she must assemble one in competition with established figures.
That is a more difficult path.
Economic judgment and policy consequences
Two votes from Raman’s time on the City Council will likely resurface repeatedly during this campaign: Measure United to House LA (ULA) and the Convention Center modernization.
Raman was a strong supporter of Measure ULA, the real estate transfer tax intended to fund housing and homelessness programs. Critics argue that after its passage, commercial transactions slowed and financing for multifamily projects became more complicated. Raman has since backed amendments exempting certain new developments, calling the changes necessary adjustments.
She also voted against modernization of the Los Angeles Convention Center. Business leaders and labor unions—not often aligned—supported the upgrade, warning that without it Los Angeles risked losing major conventions to cities with newer facilities. The concern extended beyond convention halls: hotel bookings, restaurant traffic, tourism, surrounding development, and ultimately the city’s general fund all depend in part on maintaining a competitive convention destination.
For many voters focused on economic stability, these are not minor policy disagreements. They speak to executive judgment. For some, the pattern is troubling enough to be disqualifying.
Raman’s effort to amend ULA has only intensified that perception. One critic described it as “the arsonist calling the fire department and claiming to be a hero.” The phrasing may be harsh, but it reflects a belief among segments of the business community that economic consequences became clear only after implementation.
Her stance on public safety funding has also divided voters. Raman has supported shifting portions of police funding toward alternative response models and social services—a position reform advocates applaud but some moderates and small business owners view with concern.
The strategic question
Raman clearly energizes a segment of the electorate. The question is whether that segment expands—or hardens.
If she consolidates voters seeking a sharper break from the current administration, she could force a runoff and redefine the race. But if she and Bass divide overlapping constituencies, particularly on housing and homelessness, the arithmetic shifts. A candidate running on operational steadiness rather than ideological repositioning could advance with a smaller but more unified coalition.
This isn’t New York. There’s no binary dynamic driving consolidation. Los Angeles voters have options.
Raman’s late entrance doesn’t clarify the field. It makes the math more complicated. And in a fragmented primary, math can matter more than momentum.
Category: News
