Comments
THE BOTTOM LINE -
What was once shaping up as a routine re-election campaign has now become something far more volatile and far more dangerous for Los Angeles.
The late entry of City Councilmember Nithya Raman into the mayoral race against incumbent Mayor Karen Bass did more than disrupts the political calendar. It exposed deep fractures within City Hall, escalated ideological tensions already straining the city, and turned the 2026 mayoral election into a high-risk showdown over how and whether Los Angeles can still govern itself effectively.
This is no ordinary challenge. Raman’s bid is not coming from an outsider or a reformer locked out of power. It comes from inside the mayor’s own political ecosystem, launched at the last possible moment, amid mounting public frustration and institutional fatigue. That alone should give voters pause.
Los Angeles is not a city with room for internal warfare at the top. It is already buckling under historic pressures: spiraling housing costs, entrenched homelessness, deteriorating infrastructure, public safety anxieties, and a bureaucracy that too often moves at a glacial pace when urgency is required. In a city this large and this stressed, political instability is not theoretical it has measurable consequences.
Mayor Bass entered office with unprecedented goodwill and a mandate to restore order and competence after years of scandal, dysfunction, and erosion of public trust. Yet as her term unfolds, patience is wearing thin. Visible conditions on the ground have not kept pace with the city’s optimistic messaging. Street-level realities darkened streets, delayed services, unresolved encampments, and uneven emergency response continue to challenge claims of progress. The gap between rhetoric and results has become harder to dismiss.
Raman’s candidacy fills that vacuum, but it does so in a way that introduces new risks. This is not a clean ideological contrast between competing governing philosophies. It is a civil war within the same political coalition one that threatens to harden factions, paralyze decision-making, and pull City Hall deeper into ideological trench warfare at precisely the moment when coordination and clarity are most needed.
The danger is not simply who wins. The danger is what happens during and after the fight.
A prolonged, bruising contest between two progressive leaders’ risks freezing governance at the worst possible time. Budget negotiations become political weapons rather than tools of problem solving. Department heads hedge rather than act decisively. Labor talks, emergency preparedness, and infrastructure planning slow as leaders wait to see who will still be standing. Even temporary paralysis can have lasting consequences in a city already struggling to keep up.
This kind of internal battle also encourages absolutism over pragmatism. It rewards rhetorical escalation instead of administrative competence. It elevates purity tests over performance metrics. And it risks sidelining the practical concerns of residents who are not interested in factional struggles but are deeply interested in whether the lights turn on, streets are paved, fires are contained, and neighborhoods feel safe.
For voters, this election is no longer about r?sum?s, alliances, or political symbolism. It is about whether Los Angeles chooses stability or fracture, governance or gridlock, results, or rhetoric. The city cannot afford a mayoral race that becomes an ideological bloodsport while core systems continue to strain.
Competitive elections are healthy until they become destructive. When a sitting mayor is challenged from within her own ranks under conditions of deep civic stress, the city must ask whether the contest will sharpen accountability or further erode already fragile institutions.
Los Angeles cannot afford leadership paralysis. It cannot afford symbolic politics. And it cannot afford to treat this race as entertainment rather than a warning sign.
This election will shape not only who leads Los Angeles, but whether the city emerges stronger or more divided, more brittle, and more vulnerable than before. That is why this race is not just consequential.
It is dangerous.
(Mihran Kalaydjian is a seasoned public affairs and government relations professional with more than twenty years of experience in legislative affairs, public policy, community relations, and strategic communications. A respected civic leader and education advocate, he has spearheaded numerous academic and community initiatives, shaping dialogue and driving reform in local and regional political forums. His career reflects a steadfast commitment to transparency, accountability, and public service across Los Angeles and beyond.)

