Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass is trailing challenger Nithya Raman by 11 points in the largest public poll of the mayoral race so far, according to survey results released Wednesday. But the number itself may be less telling than the pattern it completes: for the third time this election cycle, polling has created a challenge for the Bass campaign, forcing the campaign to respond to unfavorable or unreliable numbers.
Strike one: the fake poll
In mid August, a survey from a firm calling itself Median Strategies showed Bass leading Raman by nearly 12 percentage points, with claims that the poll surveyed 560 Los Angeles voters and carried a 4.1 percent margin of error. Bass’s campaign shared the results on social media, with the mayor calling it evidence of “momentum.”
Days later, Median Strategies admitted the poll was fabricated. The firm said it had created the survey as a “short-term social experiment” to examine how purported polling information could spread through the political information ecosystem without independent verification. The firm later withdrew the results.
The Bass campaign deleted its post promoting the numbers. But the campaign defended its decision to share the poll, saying the survey “was reported on by multiple news outlets.” Bass campaign spokesman Alex Stack also said, “Any bad faith attempts to influence elections should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
That is an important part of the campaign’s response. Bass’s team did not claim that it had independently verified Median Strategies. Instead, its stated justification was that the poll had already been reported by multiple news organizations. The campaign also called for any bad faith attempts to influence elections to be investigated and prosecuted.
Raman’s campaign took a different view, criticizing Bass’s team for failing to vet the source before promoting the numbers. A Raman spokesman called it another example of what the campaign described as an administration that “struggles to get the basics right.”
Strike two: the silent treatment
In early September, Raman’s campaign released its own internal poll, conducted by Hart Research Associates, showing her leading Bass 44 percent to 39 percent among 600 likely voters.
Bass’s campaign did not respond with polling of its own. Instead, an outside group backing the mayor pointed reporters to an older survey from early August that had shown Bass ahead, 41 percent to 35 percent, before support for both candidates was tested against fuller descriptions of who they are.
The contrast was notable. While Raman’s campaign was promoting fresh internal numbers, Bass’s allies were pointing to an earlier survey.
That does not necessarily mean the Bass campaign lacked more recent internal data. Campaigns routinely keep internal polling private, particularly when the numbers are unfavorable. But publicly, the campaign was relying on an older poll while Raman’s campaign was putting newer numbers into circulation.
Strike three: the big one
Now comes the Berkeley IGS/Los Angeles Times poll, released Wednesday and the largest public survey of the race to date, with 2,150 likely voters surveyed between Sept. 15 and 20. It shows Raman ahead 39 percent to 28 percent, with 33 percent still undecided.
Berkeley IGS Poll director Mark DiCamillo said, “Raman clearly has the advantage,” while noting that a third of likely voters remain undecided.
The Bass campaign pushed back, pointing to previous polls that have shown the mayor ahead of Raman. The campaign also questioned the reliability of online only surveys, arguing that they consistently struggle to recruit a sample that accurately reflects Los Angeles’ electorate.
In its statement, the campaign said online only surveys undercount working-class families, seniors, and non-English-speaking communities that turn out on Election Day. The mayor’s campaign also argued that many news organizations misread voters before the primary, “and undercounted Karen Bass’ support while estimating that progressive candidate Rae Huang would get triple the support she ultimately did.”
That is the Bass campaign’s central argument against reading too much into the latest numbers: that methodological limitations and past polling errors make some surveys less reliable than they appear.
The Berkeley IGS and Los Angeles Times survey is substantially larger than the earlier campaign polls cited by Bass, however, with 2,150 likely voters included in the sample. Whether its methodology adequately captures the voters Bass identifies as underrepresented is ultimately a question for polling experts and the underlying survey data.
The result leaves two competing narratives. The latest public polling shows Raman with a sizable lead, while the Bass campaign argues that some online polling methodologies fail to capture important segments of the Los Angeles electorate and points to previous surveys that placed Bass ahead.
A pattern, not a conspiracy
Three episodes, three moments in which polling became a problem for Bass.
First, her campaign promoted a survey that turned out to be fabricated. Second, it did not publicly counter Raman’s internal poll with new numbers of its own. Third, the largest public poll of the race so far shows Raman with an 11-point lead.
But it is important to distinguish those episodes.
There is no evidence that the Bass campaign fabricated the August poll. Median Strategies did that independently and later acknowledged that the results were fake. The Bass campaign’s documented defense was that the poll had been reported by multiple news outlets, while Stack called for any bad-faith attempts to influence an election to be investigated and prosecuted.
Likewise, a campaign’s decision not to release unfavorable internal polling is not, by itself, evidence of dishonesty. Campaigns routinely keep internal research private.
The more defensible conclusion is narrower. The Bass campaign has repeatedly been forced to respond to polling developments rather than publicly setting the terms of the polling conversation. The reasons for that are less clear from the public record. It could reflect communications strategy, differences between internal and public polling, concerns about methodology, or simply the normal reluctance of campaigns to release their internal numbers.
The campaign’s latest response adds another element to the debate. Bass’s team is not simply dismissing the Berkeley poll. It is arguing that the way some surveys are conducted may systematically miss voters who are important to the Los Angeles electorate, particularly working-class families, seniors, and non-English-speaking communities.
That argument can be evaluated against the methodology and track record of the individual polls rather than simply accepting or rejecting the campaign’s characterization.
For now, the clearest public snapshot is the Berkeley IGS survey: Raman at 39 percent, Bass at 28 percent, and 33 percent of likely voters still undecided.
The polling picture is therefore unsettled in two different ways. Raman has a substantial lead in the latest large public survey, but a significant share of the electorate has not made a choice, and the Bass campaign is challenging whether existing polling methods are adequately capturing the voters who will ultimately decide the runoff.
