Spencer Pratt’s – Spencer Pratt has accelerated fundraising, delivered a debate performance, and remains competitive in polling ahead of Los Angeles’ June 2 primary. But his message—fuelled by insults, doomsday portrayals, and platforms for the harshest voices among his support
Every morning, for anyone still trying to keep their politics tethered to the city they claim to love, the question is simple: tell me who you’re with, and I’ll tell you who you are. Spencer Pratt has made that easier than most.
Instead of holding events around Los Angeles to convince skeptics that his mayoral campaign is “for everyone. ” Pratt has built his public life inside an echo chamber of sycophants. friendly podcasters. and milquetoast media outlets. In that world. he doesn’t just criticize Mayor Karen Bass—he calls her “Basura. ” and he derides her supporters as “Bassholes.” Those insults are mirrored back by his followers on social media by the thousands.
Pratt’s campaign also refuses what many Angelenos say they want: an on-ramp to improvement. Rather than leaning into surrogates who might offer an uplifting vision for Los Angeles’ future. he elevates voices describing the city as a West Coast Chernobyl. The result is a race defined less by competing proposals than by a kind of anger that feels rehearsed.
He is, however, running on a personal story that resonates with plenty of people in Los Angeles. Pratt frames his campaign as the message of “righteous fury” from a survivor of the Palisades fire. And in recent months. he has raised funds at a faster pace than Bass and City Councilmember Nithya Raman. delivered a “decent debate performance. ” and held strong in the polls with two weeks left before the June 2 primary.
Those campaign milestones matter. They suggest this isn’t a sideshow. Now, the question for voters is whether Pratt’s electoral momentum translates into trust.
What many of Pratt’s most visible backers are doing online makes that harder to ignore. They have depicted Pratt in AI-generated videos as a superhero—Batman. Luke Skywalker. and a gladiator. among others—battling Bass as a clown. Darth Vader. the Joker. or as herself handing out needles to “half-crazed homeless people.” They also harass people who push back on the idea that Los Angeles is nearly apocalyptic.
The contrast they build their arguments on is not subtle. Pratt’s fans depict the city’s present as beyond repair. even as they are confronted with claims that homicides are at their lowest since the 1960s. burglaries are down 30% from last year. and unsheltered homelessness has dropped two years in a row. They follow Pratt’s example in how they talk about people struggling with drug addiction and homelessness. calling unhoused people with drug problems “zombies” and “bums.” They also portray Los Angeles in the past as a problem-free playground from “The Wonderful World of Disney. ” suggesting the city “derailed once Democrats took over.”.
Not all of Pratt’s supporters are obnoxious in this way. But the pattern is that he repeatedly platforms the worst among them, and he has offered no sign he will stop.
That nihilism might sell books and grow followings. but it does little to prove Pratt is serious about fixing anything beyond his reputation. Anyone who truly loves Los Angeles knows the city isn’t perfect—even on its best days. It’s that uneven reality, the constant work of improvement, that makes the place worth caring about. When people try to better their piece of paradise, everyone benefits.
Pratt’s problem. in the view of critics. is that he keeps acting like Los Angeles must be torn down before it can be rebuilt. Criticizing the status quo can be necessary. Humiliating it—especially in a style that mirrors Donald Trump—isn’t how to heal a city full of people who still have to live there together.
And for critics, the discomfort doesn’t end with Pratt. It includes how his brand of politics is being welcomed by certain allies.
One example is former Times contributor Meghan Daum. who calls herself the “official Liberal Elite for Pratt.” She has praised Pratt in the Atlantic as a “factory-reset option” to “Make L.A. Great Again.” In the telling here. that “reset” prompts more questions than comfort: is it a return to the 2000s of the Great Recession. the 1990s of anti-immigrant policies. the Northridge earthquake and the riots. the 1980s and its out-of-control gangs. the white flight of the 1960s. or the 1950s of legal segregation and hideous smog?. Or is it simply a reminder that the problems of Los Angeles didn’t lap up to everyone in “Prattland” until they did?.
The concern grows sharper when critics point to what these voices allegedly overlooked during earlier crises—particularly last summer. when Trump unleashed “ICE goons across Los Angeles.” The criticism is that Daum and people like her stayed largely silent while housing affordability and violent crime were pressing issues in South Los Angeles and the Eastside. They also allegedly didn’t have a “fit” about homelessness until encampments spread beyond Skid Row.
Taken together, the message is blunt: Pratt’s loudest fans don’t just want change. They “fundamentally loathe modern-day L.A.” If those are the people who become his primary constituents—and if they fill his brain trust—critics say the city would be in trouble.
At the same time, Pratt’s chances of winning are not dismissed. The argument here is that he’s too savvy a media pro to “fully flop.” It is also claimed that Bass and Raman might have misread anger in Los Angeles—failing to capitalize on it and ending up defensive against Pratt’s populist push.
The broader worry. critics say. is that Pratt has learned the politics of demonizing that has appeared in past Los Angeles campaigns. from Yorty’s mayoral campaigns of the 1960s to the San Fernando Valley secession movement a generation ago. and to the continued accusations of communism aimed at the democratic socialist wing of the City Council.
Critics also acknowledge the obvious human complication: Pratt’s life was upended after the Palisades fire. and the response to that upheaval is part of why he entered the race. They also point to L.A.’s middle-class malaise as a long-running political force. one that has helped shape reactionary currents in city politics for decades.
But the central objection remains. Critics say Pratt and his crew are only now beginning to talk about reforming Los Angeles. even though his campaign has fought for what they describe as a “dark idea of the city.” For them. that is the real stakes of the June 2 primary: whether voters will accept a vision that looks like rupture rather than repair.
On a recent podcast with Adam Carolla—who has railed against Los Angeles’ liberal. multicultural ways and plans to move to Nevada after his children graduate high school—Pratt said he would “be done with trying to live” in the city if he is not elected mayor. “I’ll go find somewhere that my kids will not have to see naked zombies,” he said. The comment was cheered on and seconded by his online army.
That is the line opponents say voters must weigh carefully. Do Angelenos want their city entrusted to someone who may “pick up his ball and quit on a place he professes to love” if he doesn’t get his way?
Los Angeles politics Spencer Pratt Karen Bass Nithya Raman June 2 primary Palisades fire homelessness crime Adam Carolla Meghan Daum