Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass is heading into her reelection bid with a narrow lead in the polls but a deeply unpopular record that underscores the growing frustration of voters in a city battered by crime, homelessness, and government mismanagement.
According to Breitbart, a new UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies survey, co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times, shows Bass leading the crowded field with just 25 percent support among likely voters, a weak showing for an incumbent in a heavily Democrat-controlled city. City Councilmember Nithya Raman trails at 17 percent, while reality television personality Spencer Pratt of The Hills registers a surprisingly strong 14 percent, and roughly one-quarter of voters remain undecided, signaling a volatile race and a restless electorate.
The same poll reveals a stark warning sign for Bass: 56 percent of likely voters hold an unfavorable view of the mayor, compared with only 31 percent who view her favorably. That means Bass is attempting to secure a second term while more than half the electorate already disapproves of her performance, a dynamic that would be politically perilous even in a less liberal city.
Dan Schnur, a politics professor who teaches at USC, UC Berkeley, and Pepperdine, described the findings as borderline catastrophic for Bass despite her nominal lead. That shes having this much trouble against this field, against such a little-known field of opponents, bodes very, very poorly for her, Schnur said, underscoring how vulnerable the mayor appears against relatively obscure challengers.
Schnur further noted that Basss position is being propped up less by enthusiasm for her leadership and more by the absence of heavyweight challengers who opted not to enter the race. The only thing saving her at this point is that the top tier of potential candidates who were considering running against her decided to stay out of this race, he observed, suggesting that a more formidable opponent could have capitalized on the widespread discontent.
The troubling poll numbers arrive as Bass faces fresh scrutiny over allegations that she interfered with an official after-action report on the devastating Palisades Fire of early 2025, raising serious questions about transparency and accountability in her administration. Multiple sources told the Los Angeles Times that Bass ordered the watering down of the report to present a more flattering narrative of the citys response, rather than a candid assessment of failures that left residents vulnerable.
The first draft of the report, prepared in August under then-interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva after Bass fired former Fire Chief Kristin Crowley, reportedly included blunt language and even a negative cover image of flaming palm trees. That image, according to the account, was targeted for replacement with a more positive photograph of firefighters in action, and as many as seven drafts were produced before the final version emerged, with no names attached to the edited documents.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the most consequential edits involved language about the citys failure not to fully staff up and pre-deploy all available engines ahead of dangerously high winds. Though Bass has repeatedly denied ordering any changes, two sources with direct knowledge of the matter indicated that she did exactly that, contradicting her public statements and fueling accusations of a cover-up.
Two sources with knowledge of Bass office said that after receiving an early draft, the mayor told then-interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva that the report could expose the city to legal liabilities for those failures, the Times reported. Bass wanted key findings about the LAFDs actions removed or softened before the report was made public, the sources said and that is what happened, a claim that, if accurate, suggests political self-preservation was prioritized over full disclosure to the public.
The same sources told the Times that two individuals close to Bass relayed details of the mayors behind-the-scenes role in diluting the report. One source said they spoke with both confidants, while the other had contact with one of them, and both insisted on anonymity so they could speak candidly about Basss private conversations with Villanueva and other officials.
One of those sources was blunt in assessing the mayors public denials. The source said flatly that Bass didnt tell the truth when she said she had nothing to do with changing the report, adding that a confidant close to Bass believed that altering the report was a bad idea.
The sources further claimed that two of Basss confidants are prepared to testify under oath if the controversy escalates into litigation. All the changes [the Times] reported on were the ones Karen wanted, a source said, a statement that, if tested in court, could have serious legal and political ramifications for the mayor.
Basss office has categorically rejected the allegations that she directed any edits to the report, insisting that her record shows concern, not concealment, regarding the citys fire response. The statement from her office read: The Mayor has been clear about her concerns regarding pre-deployment and the LAFDs response to the fire, which is why there is new leadership at LAFD and why she called for an independent review of the Lachman Fire mop-up. There is absolutely no reason why she would request those details be altered or erased when she herself has been critical of the response to the fire full stop. She has said this for months.
Her office went further, attacking the Los Angeles Times for its reporting and attempting to discredit the story as politically motivated. This is muckraking journalism at its lowest form. It is dangerous and irresponsible for Los Angeles Times reporters to rely on third hand unsourced information to make unsubstantiated character attacks to advance a narrative that is false, the statement added, even as the mayor confronts a skeptical electorate and a growing perception that City Hall is more focused on image management than on honest governance.
Login