As vote counting from the June 2 primary election entered its second week, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass remained in first place in her bid for reelection. But the battle for second place had changed dramatically.
Republican candidate Spencer Pratt, who had held second place, fell to third. Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman, often called the “Mamdani of the West,” moved into the runner-up position.
Early in the count, Pratt remained in second place longer than many expected, prompting speculation that Los Angeles’ progressive-dominated political landscape might be shifting.
But as later ballots were counted and Raman moved ahead, the race appeared to turn left again.
The media response was familiar.
As soon as Raman overtook Pratt, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and other outlets reported that she was likely to advance to the runoff against Bass.
At the time, 93% of ballots had been counted, and Raman led Pratt by about 20,000 votes. Yet more than 140,000 ballots still remained uncounted.
The same pattern was even more noticeable in coverage of the California governor’s race.
Republican Steve Hilton led during the early stages of the count before former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, a Democrat, overtook him over the weekend.
With 84% of ballots counted, Becerra had 2,208,883 votes, while Hilton had 1,999,522.
In California elections, it is not unusual for the standings to shift between the early and later stages of the count because of mail ballots and differences in how quickly individual regions process votes.
Yet the Los Angeles Times treated Becerra’s advancement to the general election as virtually certain while declining to use the same language for Hilton.
The newspaper did not project Hilton as advancing until June 9, when the count was approaching 90%.
Becerra received the language of certainty early. Hilton received caution.
What was the standard?
The electorate clearly showed signs of movement in this primary.
Voters expressed dissatisfaction with the state’s established progressive politics amid rising living costs, frustration over homelessness and growing fatigue with taxes.
Yet the election appears to be returning to a familiar direction.
The attitude of the major media outlets interpreting the results also appears unchanged.
When a conservative candidate rises unexpectedly, the media remain cautious until the end. When a progressive candidate regains position, the conclusion comes quickly.
Different standards appear to be applied to the same stage of vote counting.
That raises two questions: Does a genuine balance between conservatives and progressives exist in Los Angeles politics, and are the media evaluating that balance fairly?
