Los Angeles voters know that their city is in trouble. They describe a place that has become prohibitively expensive, increasingly disorderly, and persistently incapable of performing the basic functions of municipal government. They complain about homelessness, crime, deteriorating infrastructure, government waste, and a quality of life that no longer seems to justify the extraordinary cost of living.
Yet dissatisfaction has not produced ideological reconsideration. Unlike San Francisco—which, after years of progressive overreach, has begun electing leaders who emphasize public order, housing construction, administrative competence, and economic growth—Los Angeles remains trapped at an earlier stage of the same political cycle. Many Angelenos recognize that their government has failed. They have not yet concluded that the governing philosophy behind it bears much responsibility.
Finally, a reason to check your email.
Sign up for our free newsletter today.
In July, we convened Manhattan Institute focus groups in Los Angeles and San Francisco to understand how Californians are thinking about their cities and state ahead of consequential elections this November. This first instalment examines Los Angeles. Next, we will turn to San Francisco, where participants offered a considerably more optimistic assessment of their city’s direction—and appeared far more willing to reconsider the policies that had contributed to its decline.
Our Los Angeles focus groups brought together 19 voters in two sessions: one with nine registered Democrats and another with ten voters registered with no party preference. Participants represented a range of ages, races, occupations, and backgrounds. Though the independent group included voters from across the ideological spectrum, both conversations were shaped by a broadly progressive worldview. Even many of the participants most dissatisfied with L.A. interpreted its failures through a progressive political framework.
Participants began by speaking warmly about the city. Most had chosen to move to Los Angeles, drawn by its climate, cultural diversity, economic opportunities, natural beauty, and creative energy. Their affection for the place was genuine. But their optimism faded when the conversation shifted from Los Angeles as a place to live to L.A. as a city to govern.
Asked to grade how well city officials were serving residents, most participants gave Los Angeles a C or worse. Those who awarded higher marks often did so only by comparing California with states they considered less liberal or less desirable. As the discussions unfolded, three explanations for those low grades surfaced repeatedly: the cost of living, homelessness, and crime.
Affordability was the problem participants experienced most personally. They described deciding which bills to pay, watching friends leave for less expensive cities, struggling to find housing, and remaining in jobs whose salaries had failed to keep pace with rising expenses. Even some of the most progressive Democrats complained that California’s high taxes had become increasingly difficult to justify.
But their frustration was directed less at the size or ambition of government than at its performance. Participants generally believed that Los Angeles and California have more than enough money to address their problems. The money, they argued, was simply being wasted, mismanaged, or captured by developers, wealthy interests, nonprofits, and political insiders.
This belief allowed participants to acknowledge extraordinary government failure without seriously questioning the progressive model of governance that had produced it. Public spending was not excessive; it was merely reaching the wrong people. Government had not assumed too much responsibility; it had simply failed to exercise that responsibility competently. Los Angeles did not need to rethink its progressive government; it needed a more authentic, more efficient, and more egalitarian version of progressive government.
Discussions of crime and homelessness revealed the same tension. Participants recounted shootings, burglaries, car break-ins, open-air drug use, severely mentally ill people, and homeless encampments that had overtaken public spaces. One participant had his car set on fire by a vagrant. Another described bullets flying past the apartment building he managed. Several suggested that they no longer bothered reporting crimes because they assumed that the police would do nothing.
Yet many resisted describing Los Angeles as unusually unsafe. Instead, they treated these experiences as unfortunate but inevitable features of urban life. They described conditions that would seem intolerable almost anywhere else while insisting that Los Angeles was no different from any other major city.
The discussions of homelessness followed suit. Participants overwhelmingly attributed the crisis to systemic forces: high housing costs, untreated mental illness, addiction, inadequate health care, economic inequality, and government mismanagement. Even when they endorsed policies associated with a tougher approach—such as involuntary commitment for people who posed a danger to themselves or others—they framed those policies primarily as acts of compassion rather than as matters of public order.
While the implication suggested a more conservative policy, the moral vocabulary remained unmistakably progressive.
This framework shaped the way participants evaluated political alternatives. Most agreed that Los Angeles government was failing to meet residents’ needs, and few expressed confidence that conditions would improve substantially in the near future. But that dissatisfaction rarely translated into a broader rejection of progressive politics.
Instead, many Democrats and independents looked to City Councilwoman Nithya Raman and socialism as vehicles for change. They viewed Raman not as a representative of the political tendency that had governed Los Angeles, but as an outsider willing to challenge an entrenched establishment. Several explicitly invoked New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani as the kind of figure Los Angeles needed: a more committed leftist who, they believed, would finally make government work for ordinary people.
That response captures Los Angeles’s political predicament. Voters know that the status quo is failing, but many believe that the answer is to move further in the direction the city has already been traveling. They blame establishment progressives for failing to deliver progressive governance, leaving an opening not for reformers but for socialists who promise to finish the job.
Candidates carrying even the faintest association with the Republican Party faced a far higher barrier. Former mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt, who built his campaign around the government’s response to the Pacific Palisades fire, was largely dismissed before participants seriously considered his arguments. Even voters who believed that Pratt had identified real failures tended to regard his candidacy as unserious, dangerous, or outside the bounds of acceptable politics.
Participants were more willing to entertain ideas associated with the political Right—such as involuntary treatment, lower taxes, streamlined permitting, greater police responsiveness, and accountability for public spending—when those ideas were presented in progressive language. The substance was not always the problem. The perceived identity of the messenger often was.
Evidence of government failure did not necessarily weaken participants’ progressive commitments. In some cases, it reinforced them. Waste became proof that special interests had corrupted government. Disorder became evidence that social services remained inadequate. Housing scarcity demonstrated that developers and wealthy homeowners wielded too much influence. Each failure supplied a new rationale for entrusting more power to a purer progressive alternative.
None of this means that Democratic dominance in Los Angeles rests on deep satisfaction. Participants often described their political choices as reluctant, defensive, or dispiriting. Democrats repeatedly called their party the lesser of two evils. No-party-preference voters objected to the two-party system and expressed broad distrust of politicians. Several participants wanted outsiders, independents, or candidates wealthy enough to resist pressure from established interests.
They want change. They simply do not want change that feels too tribally foreign.
San Francisco, which we’ll turn to in our next instalment, has begun moving beyond this stage. After years of visible deterioration, the city’s voters have increasingly embraced a reform-oriented politics focused on competence, growth, public safety, and restoration of basic order. L.A. does not appear ready to make the same turn. Its voters recognize the symptoms of progressive failure but remain reluctant to reconsider the underlying diagnosis.
The city may therefore have to pass through one more phase of progressive experimentation before a durable reform coalition can emerge. Angelenos may first have to discover that replacing establishment progressives with socialist insurgents is highly unlikely to resolve the contradictions of progressive governance.
Below is a partial transcript of our conversation, selected for insight and lightly edited for clarity and length.
Participants
Democrats
Alex, 36, white, freelance musician; in Los Angeles 10 years; somewhat right-leaning; did not vote for president in 2024; backed Hilton for governor
Andrew, 44, white, children’s book author; in Los Angeles 22 years; somewhat left-leaning; Harris voter; backed Raman and Becerra
Ayan, 35, black, program manager; in Los Angeles for more than a decade; very left-leaning; Harris voter; backed Raman and Steyer
Brenda, 31, Hispanic, unemployed; lifelong Angeleno; moderate; Harris voter; backed Bass and Becerra
Caitlin, 37, white, administrative assistant; in Los Angeles 12 years; moderate; Harris voter; backed Raman and Steyer
Dyane, 41, black, affordable-housing developer; in Los Angeles more than 20 years; somewhat left-leaning; Harris voter; backed Raman and Becerra
Erik, 37, white, sales representative; in Los Angeles 13 years; moderate; Harris voter; backed Bass and Katie Porter
Glenn, 61, white, lighting technician and building manager; lifelong Angeleno; very right-leaning; Trump voter; backed Spencer Pratt for mayor and Hilton for governor
Jehan, 50, black, consultant; in Los Angeles 15-plus years; moderate; Kamala Harris voter; backed Karen Bass for mayor
Jon, 45, white, business owner and actor; in Los Angeles more than a decade; moderate; Trump voter; backed Steve Hilton for governor
Independents (No Party Preference)
Karmen, 40, multiracial, clinical psychologist; in Los Angeles nearly five years; very left-leaning; Harris voter; backed Raman and Steyer
Kevin, 37, white, bartender; in Los Angeles 15 years; somewhat left-leaning; Harris voter; backed Raman and Steyer
Meredith, 43, white, dog walker; in Los Angeles 12 years; moderate; Harris voter; backed Bass and Steyer
Nate, 48, Asian, personal assistant; in Los Angeles more than a decade; somewhat left-leaning; Harris voter; backed Adam Miller for mayor and Matt Mahan for governor
Ryan, 46, black, teacher; in Los Angeles 22 years; moderate; Harris voter; backed Bass and Becerra
Shada, 41, black, homemaker; lifelong Angeleno; moderate; Harris voter; backed Bass and could not recall her gubernatorial vote
Sharon, 56, white, event producer; in Los Angeles more than 20 years; very left-leaning; Harris voter; backed Bass and Steyer
Tristan, 43, white, camera operator; in Los Angeles since 2013; moderate; Harris voter; backed Nithya Raman for mayor and Tom Steyer for governor
Veronica, 41, multiracial, nonbinary, performer; in Los Angeles nearly five years; very left-leaning; Harris voter; backed Raman and Xavier Becerra
MODERATOR: How did you feel about the recent California and Los Angeles primary elections?
TRISTAN: So-so.
JEHAN: I’m concerned. Given the state of the country, you wonder if your vote is going to mean anything. We’re living through unprecedented times, and I’m scared.
DYANE: I agree with that. It shows what happens when you put unqualified people in office.
KARMEN: Bad.
SHARON: Ridiculous. The amount of money in politics is a big part of the problem. Citizens United should never have happened.
ANDREW: I didn’t feel like our choices in Los Angeles were especially exceptional.
RYAN: Similar to Andrew, I often ask myself, “Why are these our choices?” Most of the time, I end up picking the lesser of two evils.
MEREDITH: I’m skeptical. I think politicians are corrupt, so I look for the person I find least morally offensive and least likely to ruin the community. It’s a really crappy way to feel about voting.
ALEX: I wasn’t excited about any candidate. When it’s time to vote, I research their websites and even use Gemini to compare their positions. But once you dig deeper, most have no real chance of winning. It makes you wonder: Why bother?
[Asked to Democrats] MODERATOR: Why are you a Democrat?
AYAN: You basically register as a Democrat or Republican. If you have progressive politics, you’re probably a Democrat. The party isn’t as progressive as I’d like, but it’s the closest fit.
JEHAN: If you vote another way, you end up splitting the vote. So it becomes a question of who’s the best of the worst.
DYANE: Yeah, it’s the lesser of two evils.
CAITLIN: Democratic priorities generally align with my values. I grew up in Indiana, and I see the difference in opportunity whenever I go home—health care, employment opportunities, and things to do.
TRISTAN: Over the last decade, I’ve come to identify more with Democrats. I’ve moved further left as I’ve gotten older.
NATE: I’ve lived in five states, and they’ve all been Democratic, so I’ve kind of stuck with it.
[Asked to independents] MODERATOR: Why are you registered with no party?
SHARON: My God, it was so long ago. I just didn’t want to check a box.
MEREDITH: I object to a two-party system.
KEVIN: I don’t relate to or like either party, so I didn’t want to be affiliated with either one.
ERIK: I don’t vote for someone just because they have a D or an R next to their name. I vote for the person whose policies make sense.
[Asked to independents] MODERATOR: Which candidate did you vote for in the Los Angeles mayoral primary, and why?
GLENN: I was for Pratt. Pratt had some balls. His house burned down, and he decided to try to do something about it. He put himself out there and fought the fight.
JON: I thought Bass handled the fires horribly, and I thought Raman was a disaster as a city councilmember. Pratt raised valid concerns, but I didn’t think he had any idea how to fix them.
MEREDITH: I voted for Bass because the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t. The alternatives were bad.
KARMEN: I voted for Raman. I think she had the best housing policy.
ANDREW: I voted for Nithya Raman. Pratt’s heart is in the right place, and he’s speaking to a lot of L.A.—especially the Palisades. But I don’t think he has anything beyond that, and that becomes dangerous.
ERIK: I voted for Karen Bass. Like Meredith said, she was the devil you know. I just didn’t think the other candidates could really say what they would have done better or differently.
SHARON: I voted for Bass. I think she’s done a decent job. Crime is down a lot, and she’s built a foundation. She’s gotten a bad rap over the fires, and I think Raman is just an opportunist.
KEVIN: I voted for Raman because she wasn’t Spencer Pratt or Karen Bass. I wasn’t excited about her either, but I thought she was the best of the three.
MODERATOR: What was the top issue on your mind when you voted?
SHADA: Housing. I grew up in South Central, and there’s no housing. I see homeless people every day, so that’s a big issue for me.
VERONICA: Housing. I used to work with the unhoused community, and the more you learn about how people become unhoused, the more you realize how systemic the issue is.
AYAN: ICE—and seeing what was happening in New York City with Mamdani. He made a lot of promises and was actually showing up for them. I didn’t feel like we had that here.
BRENDA: Immigration.
ERIK: Climate is obviously very important.
NATE: Crime. Copper wire was being stolen from streetlights, and burglaries in high-end neighborhoods were happening nonstop. The reduction in the LAPD’s force probably played a big part in that.
CAITLIN: Definitely housing. During and after the pandemic, I lost a lot of friends who had to move because they couldn’t afford the rent. I’m fortunate to have a rent-stabilized apartment, but a lot of people don’t. I’d like to see someone come in and help change that.
KARMEN: Health care.
ALEX: Sustainability, but maybe not in the way most people think. I think nuclear has a lot more potential than wind and solar. The idea that we need to use less energy feels like a mindset of scarcity. I’d rather develop technology that lets us use more.
GLENN: What’s the antithesis of chaos? I see chaos. I grew up in this town, and it’s not the town I grew up in. There’s a lack of accountability—from the leaders, from everybody. Lying. Just constant lying. And acting.
MODERATOR: How would you grade the officials managing Los Angeles?
NATE: D+.
CAITLIN: D+.
AYAN: D.
VERONICA: C.
JEHAN: C-.
DYANE: C-.
BRENDA: D.
SHADA: D-.
TRISTAN: C.
ERIK: C+ to maybe B-.
SHARON: Probably a B.
RYAN: Lotta C work out there.
KEVIN: F.
GLENN: F-.
JON: D.
ALEX: I’m not sure.
MEREDITH: C-.
KARMEN: C-.
ANDREW: I’ll be the optimist, C+.
MODERATOR: What would improve your perception of L.A.’s leadership?
SHADA: Lower the cost of living.
NATE: Lower taxes.
CAITLIN: Improve infrastructure.
AYAN: The fires exposed a lot of issues. I met people who lost their homes and were living in hotels, and no state, city, or county official ever contacted them. It was just volunteers. I don’t think Angelenos realize people are still struggling.
JEHAN: I worked with the unhoused, so you see behind the curtain—all the things that aren’t being done. I don’t understand why we’re stepping over people and fecal matter. Walking down Hollywood Boulevard is like a horror show.
GLENN: Accountability. If you say you’re going to do something, do it. If you don’t, get rid of them.
SHARON: Fix permitting. It shouldn’t take years to get anything approved. That’s part of why housing is so expensive.
MODERATOR: How would you grade the government of California?
NATE: C-.
CAITLIN: C.
AYAN: I’m from Virginia, so I’d say B.
VERONICA: B—better than Utah, where I’m from.
JEHAN: Solid B. I’m from Indiana. I see where California needs to go, but I also see where I used to live, and I’m glad I’m not there.
DYANE: Probably C.
BRENDA: C.
SHADA: C-.
TRISTAN: B or B-.
ERIK: C-.
ALEX: C-.
SHARON: C or C+.
RYAN: F-.
KEVIN: F.
GLENN: F-.
JON: F.
MEREDITH: D.
KARMEN: C.
ANDREW: B-.
MODERATOR: How would you characterize the quality of life in Los Angeles?
JEHAN: It’s not affordable. We pay for the sunshine.
MODERATOR: Surely there are other places in America that are more affordable and have sunshine?
JEHAN: Apartments in Des Moines, Iowa—where I don’t imagine anyone wants to live—are $2,000 or $3,000. It’s gotten to the point where you can’t even afford to move. And I voted for these officials, so why should I have to move to get a better quality of life? Based on what they promised, I’m going to hold them to it.
AYAN: If you’re living in L.A. and not making a good income, it’s really hard to get by. Salaries are higher in other places. Here, they’ve been stagnant, and there aren’t as many jobs. It feels like there were more opportunities when I first moved here.
NATE: We need lower taxes. Property tax, sales tax, any of those.
SHADA: The sales tax, the cost of living, the gas tax—you go buy groceries, and you’re making life decisions just to put food on the table and pay your bills. No one’s making it better.
KEVIN: It’s so expensive, the taxes are high, and the roads are horrible. This is a global city, and visitors come to Santa Monica and see severely mentally ill people roaming the streets. It’s embarrassing for a city with this much money. I replaced four tires in one year because of potholes. The roads and traffic lights shouldn’t be that bad. This is basic stuff.
JON: It depends where you live. I live in Encino, and it’s lovely—very safe. I know my experience is different from someone living near Skid Row. But homelessness is a big issue.
KARMEN: I’m really happy here, though I feel like I pay for it. I’ve lived in Denver and Houston, and this is the best city by far.
SHARON: The homelessness is awful. I live in a nice neighborhood in the Valley, but L.A. is so spread out that it depends where you are. Skid Row is awful, and parts of downtown are terrible.
MODERATOR: How safe is Los Angeles?
VERONICA: There’s crime, but we’re living in a capitalistic society, so people are sometimes pushed to extremes to meet their basic needs. There’s also white-collar crime happening in front of us. We’re told to fear the person on the street, not the people creating those conditions by driving up prices so they can make more money.
SHADA: Crime is worse. It’s the little crimes, the big crimes, the white-collar crime. Where I live, you hear sirens and helicopters every day. My Citizen app is constantly alerting me. I don’t see it letting up until somebody addresses housing and the cost of living.
CAITLIN: Yes, it’s a problem. Response times are slow, and there are times I don’t feel safe walking near Venice and Centinela. Around the 7-Eleven there, I know a lot of people who’ve been followed. But I lived in Chicago, where everyone I worked with had been mugged on the L. I kind of feel like it’s one of the realities of living in a city.
JEHAN: On public transportation, it’s dark. People are smoking crack. It’s tough down there, though I don’t have a problem with the transit system overall.
BRENDA: Crime is a problem. I’ve had a couple of experiences where I’ve seen people stealing in stores. I was at WSS when two men tried to walk past the security guard without paying. It was one guard against two people, so they were obviously going to get away. They don’t even wait for the store to be empty anymore.
ANDREW: It depends where you are. I’ll walk around Burbank at 3:00 in the morning, but I wouldn’t do that in Koreatown or downtown.
RYAN: Compared with other cities, I think L.A. is just as safe. It’s a big city, so things happen. My car was burned by someone from a homeless encampment. But overall, compared to other cities, I think L.A. is safe.
MODERATOR: Does that happen in every city?
RYAN: Not to my knowledge. But there are a lot of homeless encampments here.
KEVIN: I don’t walk around in fear for my safety. But I’m from Atlanta, which is a pretty tough city, too, and it doesn’t have the massive tent cities and open-air drug use you see here. Drive 45 minutes to Orange County, and it’s not like that either. They criminalize homelessness there, which I think is the right approach.
GLENN: I’ve been shot at sitting in my living room. I’ve seen people assassinated. Detectives come to the building I manage every six months to get video because someone was killed. There are constant shootings and shootouts across the street. Every once in a while, a bullet flies past the apartment. It peaked before the 2020 riots, quieted down afterward, and then gradually picked back up.
MODERATOR: Are fraud and corruption major problems in Los Angeles?
TRISTAN: A lot of money goes into programs, but the results never follow. It feels like people take care of their own. I think that’s also why crime goes unreported. My car was broken into, and I lost $1,000 worth of tools. I thought, “What’s the point? The police aren’t going to do anything.” So I didn’t report it.
JEHAN: Older black people who’ve lived here their whole lives can’t get help paying their LADWP bills, while people who weren’t born here are getting $1,000 debit cards. Why can’t everyone win? Why can’t older black residents get fed, and why can’t my nephews-in-law, who are dodging ICE, get fed too? There’s enough to go around. Instead, officials have everybody fighting each other. I don’t understand where the money is going.
MODERATOR: Tell me about homelessness in Los Angeles. What is causing it?
AYAN: Without giving people safe environments, how are they supposed to be mentally well? If I were on the streets for a week, I don’t think I’d be mentally well, either.
JEHAN: Housing won’t eradicate mental illness, but it will alleviate some of it. If you know you have three meals and a place to sleep, you won’t be as stressed.
DYANE: The biggest issue isn’t what we’re doing; it’s how we’re doing it. Housing gets built and sits empty. Why isn’t L.A. building its own housing? Why not cut property taxes for mom-and-pop landlords—especially black and brown property owners in South L.A.—so they can build ADUs and invest in their neighborhoods instead of leaving it to outside investors?
KEVIN: If we had a mayor who wasn’t in the pocket of homeowners, NGOs, and groups getting billions to fight homelessness, we’d build more housing and public transportation. Karen Bass works for homeowners, not renters or people who want to build. L.A. isn’t building enough.
MEREDITH: It’s beyond housing. Mental health is a huge part of it, along with ongoing care—not just, “Do a program for six months, here’s an apartment, we’re out.” Without ongoing support, people end up back outside.
KARMEN: There’s science on this, and none of the policy ever reflects the science. We know UBI, health care, ongoing substance-abuse treatment, harm reduction, and more housing help reduce homelessness, and we don’t really do any of that.
SHARON: It’s mental health, drugs, affordability, health care, and services for people without families. If you get sick and have no family, support, car, or place to go, you’re f****d.
ERIK: You’re never going to solve homelessness in Los Angeles. This is paradise—a beautiful climate close to the beach. People will always migrate here, so the question is what you’re going to do about it.
MODERATOR: What is the solution?
GLENN: Hold people accountable. I was homeless for five years, from 17 to 22, so I know what it takes to get off the streets. There are plenty of services and beds, but a lot of people don’t want to follow the rules, like at the Midnight Mission. I managed a building where formerly homeless people were housed. They had housing but no rules, and they destroyed the place.
KARMEN: There aren’t enough beds. If I called every state rehab bed right now, I might find one available three months from now.
MODERATOR: Assuming enough beds were available, should treatment be mandated for people using fentanyl or meth who pose a danger to themselves or others?
KARMEN: Even with unlimited beds, I wouldn’t support a mandate. It won’t work.
NATE: Try treatment first. But if people constantly resist and remain on the street, there comes a point when you have to arrest them.
AYAN: Arresting people doesn’t help them get clean, and a criminal record can do more harm. But there should be a way to get people living on the streets into treatment. You see people passed out on fentanyl every day.
VERONICA: People who use drugs should have the right to use drugs. We can offer harm reduction, but they have to choose sobriety, or it won’t work.
MODERATOR: What about the impact on other people?
AYAN: Involuntary commitment makes sense for people who are a danger. Part of the homelessness problem is that they’ve been left on the streets. Drug use is a little different because people can have mental illness and still have the ability to consent.
MODERATOR: Ryan, someone burned your car. What should happen to that person?
RYAN: Open the mental hospitals so people go there instead of jail and get the help and medication they need. If they are a harm to someone else, they should be arrested and taken to a mental hospital.
KEVIN: Yes. It’s not a personal liberty issue if you’re a danger to yourself or the public. You should be required to get treatment and taken off the street. It’s like a drunk driver saying, “It’s my right.” No—you’re a danger to the public.
JON: If you’re a threat to someone else, you should be institutionalized or in prison. What about the civil liberties of the person you’re threatening?
GLENN: A lot of people who are completely gone need to be institutionalized. I’ve been sober for 37 years and have seen hundreds of people pick themselves up and lead productive lives. I’ve also seen many people die. Nobody wants to do what needs to be done. A concerted effort could save lives and improve people’s quality of life.
MEREDITH: I’m in favor of treatment, but you can’t say, “Treatment is done, now you’re on your own.” Without ongoing support, that policy won’t work.
ANDREW: Jail alone won’t work. You need education, mental health care, institutions, jail when necessary, and economic resources so people have an opportunity to turn their lives around.
KARMEN: We already have a system to mandate treatment. It’s a slippery slope to push it further. The better solution is to build ladders people actually want to climb.
MODERATOR: What do you think Los Angeles will look like in ten years?
TRISTAN: Much the same. Things are so entrenched that I don’t see major change happening.
SHADA: I don’t see it getting better anytime soon. Look at where it is now.
BRENDA: I don’t see it getting better.
AYAN: Spencer Pratt getting so much traction may wake people up to what’s frustrating them—the fires, housing, and all of that. And seeing New York elect a mayor who’s doing a lot of good creates hope. It’s a lot more progressive.
VERONICA: I’m more interested in what L.A. will look like after the Olympics. We’re preparing for something that may be anticlimactic, and we could suffer afterward. I joke that in ten years L.A. will be on fire.
CAITLIN: It will be chaotic—highs and lows. Amazing things could happen around the Olympics, but we don’t know what today’s problems will reveal ten years from now. I have a friend who’s a teacher, and she says kids are still wildly behind developmentally because of the pandemic—and that was only five years ago.
ALEX: Dirty. Still homelessness.
SHARON: Probably warmer.
RYAN: I think it’ll be more developed. Built up.
ANDREW: Gentrified. Expensive developments will keep pushing people farther out.
GLENN: It’s always gotten worse. It’s always just gotten worse.
JON: Really bad.
MEREDITH: The affluent areas will be more prosperous. The struggling communities will be worse off.
[Asked to Democrats] MODERATOR: Given everything we have discussed, why do you continue to vote Democratic?
DYANE: I don’t feel inspired by these people. If there were real options, I’d vote more independently. But you don’t want what’s happening in the White House at the state level. So you hedge: at least we know what the status quo looks like.
JEHAN: Neither party cares about black people. Sometimes I think, maybe vote Republican because at least they’re racist to your face, while Democrats pretend not to be. But I can’t bring myself to vote for Republicans when I feel like they’re openly trying to destroy our lives.
TRISTAN: It feels like damage control. I don’t want to reward the status quo, and in California the status quo is always a Democrat. But I don’t see a future with Republicans right now.
MODERATOR: What kind of person would you like to see run for office?
TRISTAN: Rick Caruso has tried to separate himself, but he’s friends with Trump and he’s in real estate. At that point, he’s nobody’s friend.
DYANE: I feel like Rick Caruso—and even Spencer Pratt—are just talking the game. When you look at who’s funding them and who they represent, you know what’s really going on. If somebody’s getting AIPAC money, you kind of know what that means.
NATE: The Rock might be a good option.
CAITLIN: My friends and I talk about wanting a Mamdani for L.A.—someone who can organize and act quickly, like he did with the snow. Even if the full agenda doesn’t pass, I want someone who can improve everyday people’s lives, not just the wealthy.
SHADA: Someone with empathy.
JEHAN: I’d be more inclined to vote Libertarian or Independent if that were a real option. Right now, we’re voting for whichever devil is least likely to destroy our lives.
VERONICA: I’d love a grassroots candidate outside the two-party system. It would show we can break out of this silly cycle.
JON: Someone like Tom Steyer or Elon Musk—somebody with enough money that they can’t be controlled—who is kind of crazy and willing to do whatever they want.
ALEX: The kind of person well suited to enter politics isn’t necessarily well suited to solve these problems. Going into politics is already a mark against you.
RYAN: Someone pragmatic.
SHARON: Somebody who can work with both parties and bring people together—someone who isn’t owned by money or corporations. Probably a woman.
GLENN: A military man who demands the best of people. A man.
KEVIN: A socialist like Zohran Mamdani. I’m a military veteran myself, and I’d like people to have health care without joining the military or going to war just to get an education or see a doctor, like I had to.
MODERATOR: Why does a Mamdani-style figure seem like the solution?
KEVIN: Because he’s actually delivering, and he seems to be on the side of working people.
MODERATOR: Who do you plan to vote for in L.A.’s mayoral general election?
NATE: Undecided.
CAITLIN: Undecided but leaning Nithya. Just because I could be ready for change.
AYAN: I’m leaning toward Raman because we’ve given Karen Bass a chance. The fires were heartbreaking, and everyone let the people of L.A. down. Nobody met the moment. I also think it led to disaster capitalism, where so many people were exploited. L.A. needs a change, for morale if nothing else.
VERONICA: Raman.
JEHAN: Raman. I voted for Bass last time, but we need a morale shift. The fires are a dark cloud over Bass, and she hasn’t done enough to address them. Her time is up.
DYANE: Probably Raman. Just something new.
BRENDA: I voted for Karen Bass last time, but this time I’m going to give Raman a chance.
SHADA: Raman, not Bass. It’s time for a change.
TRISTAN: I’ll take a look at Bass’s platform, but I don’t want to reward the status quo, so I’m leaning toward Raman.
KARMEN: Raman. But if Bass were more engaged and I saw her doing things, she’d win my vote back.
ANDREW: Raman. Bass was okay. I’m interested in seeing somebody else there.
ERIK: Bass.
ALEX: Undecided.
SHARON: Karen Bass. She’s built a good foundation, and I regret voting for Raman for city council.
KEVIN: Raman again.
GLENN: I don’t care about the mayoral race.
JON: Bass.
MEREDITH: Most likely Bass.
RYAN: Bass. I can deal with the status quo as long as they aren’t making things worse.