Mayor-elect Nithya Raman inherits a Los Angeles full of promise and burdened by challenges

Los Angeles, once California’s most reliably Republican stronghold, now faces a future under the leadership of a democratic socialist. Incumbent Mayor Karen Bass has lost her reelection bid to a friend-turned-rival, Councilmember and Mayor-elect Nithya Raman. 

Her election ushers in a new era for California’s largest city, decisively breaking it from the history that preceded it. Raman’s victory was unusual in some respects — she rode a national blue wave that toppled Republicans from Maine to California and, along the way, ousted the liberal, Black woman serving as mayor of Los Angeles — but natural, even overdue, in others. Raman, a 45-year-old Indian immigrant and mother of twins, was carried into office by younger voters and newer arrivals to L.A., those least burdened by the expectations or limitations of the city’s past.

Raman will face significant challenges: Homelessness is a grinding human tragedy that resisted her predecessor’s best efforts; housing is expensive and likely to remain so at least for a while; the 2028 Summer Olympics are fast approaching; the city’s police department and public safety strategies are a source of contention. 

Meanwhile, some of Raman’s campaign pronouncements may prove difficult to execute and even contradictory. She has vowed, for instance, to support a smooth run-up to the Games and promised to remove the city’s police chief. These two goals may bump into each other.

Still, she arrives at the post on the heels of a largely positive, uplifting, even joyful campaign. Her election night party at the Greek Theater in Griffith Park was an outpouring of exuberant energy that her supporters hope to carry with them into office.

“Are you ready for an L.A. that loves you back?” she asked those supporters. Their answer was obvious, and their excitement was real.

First, though, what happened to Bass, who will become only the second mayor in modern Los Angeles history to be shown the door by voters after one term. The first, James Hahn, defied his political base — an unusual combination of Valley moderates and Black voters — by opposing Valley secession and denying Police Chief Bernard C. Parks a second term at the helm of the LAPD. That left Hahn in 2005 without allies to face Antonio Villaraigosa in a rematch of their 2001 contest. Hahn was easily defeated.

This race was not so easy for Raman, and Bass did not fold as quickly or decisively as Hahn did. But some noteworthy events conspired with some of Bass’ executive weaknesses to create the conditions for her downfall.

Foremost was one over which she had no control. Dry conditions and furious winds descended upon Los Angeles in January 2025. Once brush and homes began to ignite, nothing could have stopped the inferno that swept across the city — and, simultaneously, over land outside the city, notably in nearby Altadena. The Palisades and Eaton fires were not Bass’ fault, but they were crippling crises that turned a mostly sedate electorate into an enraged one. Her approval ratings plummeted, and she was suddenly vulnerable, especially because she happened to be out of town when the fires erupted. She struggled to regain her footing once she returned.

If it was unfair to blame Bass for the fires, other aspects of her leadership were more susceptible to criticism. She gave police officers a gigantic raise, and the city’s police union became one of her most conspicuous supporters, fueling the critique that she was in cahoots with her backers. She appointed some mediocre deputies and often second-guessed them, delaying decisions on important matters. She frustrated allies by letting problems linger and resisting new ideas in the area of homelessness, for instance. 

Perhaps most importantly, though, she suffered from a politicians’ worst enemy: bad timing. Bass chased off potential rivals in the runup to her reelection, but Raman jumped in late and then flourished as the national electorate was growing more restive. Rising prices, hostility toward immigrants, a general tone of nastiness in national discourse all were the work of President Donald Trump, whom Raman and Bass loathe equally, but those sources of unhappiness made this a bad time to be an incumbent on the ballot.

Bass conceded defeat Thursday morning. In a statement, she took credit for progress while also acknowledging the mounting votes against her.

“Coming out of the pandemic, when encampments lined our streets and businesses were trying to reopen — we got Angelenos off the streets, made our neighborhoods safer, built more affordable housing and created new opportunities for working families,” Bass said. “We stood together through devastating wildfires and protected our immigrant communities when Donald Trump sent federal troops into our streets to spread fear and intimidation. That progress belongs to all of us.”

Raman’s campaign, by contrast, was fresh and positive. She successfully positioned herself as an outsider to the mainstream of Los Angeles politics. 

Running both as a member of the council and as the alternative to the status quo gave Raman the luxury of claiming credit for city progress — she boasted of the decline in street homelessness in her district last year — while also distancing herself from the city’s struggles. She did not run a perfect campaign — a few late gaffes gave the Bass camp room for optimism as Election Day approached and the mayor closed the polling gap on the council member.

In the end, however, Bass’ negative ratings — about two-thirds of city voters disapproved of her performance in office — outweighed Raman’s — about half of voters disapproved of hers.

Raman now inherits a city full of promise and potential as well as one burdened by challenges.

Homelessness will top the agenda, and Raman has made herself susceptible to clear accountability: She has promised to reduce street homelessness in the city by 50% over the next two years. That’s a measurable goal, and one she may find hard to meet. Bass, no less committed to solutions in this area, managed to bring down street homelessness about 17% over four years.

But Raman is nothing if not smart, and her background in urban planning and her experience on council give her fresh perspective on this ancient and frustrating problem. She will certainly be less singularly committed than Bass to Inside Safe, a program that Bass initiated but that has proved very expensive and only incrementally successful. 

Much has been made of Raman’s lack of support from her council colleagues, and it is true that they lined up against her mayoral bid, reflecting a combination of professional disagreements, assessments of her work and flat-out jealousy. There, however, the transition may not be as rough as some suggest. 

Relationships at City Hall are not friendships in the way most people experience friendship. They are commonalities of interest, and the same council members who did not appreciate Raman as a colleague will find ways to mend fences now that they need her. Necessity has a way of papering over differences. 

The issue that may most complicate her new life, however, is public safety. During the campaign, Raman struggled with questions about the LAPD and its leadership. She repeatedly asserted that Chief Jim McDonnell had lost public confidence and that she would seek to replace him. But she never said how she had reached that conclusion or how she would approach replacing him.

At first, she equivocated, saying that the process for firing a chief was complicated by the roles of the council and Police Commission. But that was a dodge, and she knew it. Here’s the process: The mayor appoints the Police Commission and can direct the commission to fire the chief. The chief could appeal to the council, but likely won’t. So, yes, the mayor can fire the chief.

Whether the mayor should fire the chief is another matter. Crime is down significantly since Mayor Bass and Chief McDonnell moved into their positions, so disrupting that progress risks creating a problem where none exists. Moreover, Raman’s insistence that LAPD is doing too much to share information with federal authorities is both historically inaccurate and infuriatingly vague.

Her wisest course there may be to look for an out and to recognize that the police department requires firm civilian oversight. The values she represents as a (politically) young democratic socialist have a place in public safety, but change merely for the sake of politics is unwise.