by Edward Ring
Spencer Pratt’s LA mayoral bid surged on Election Day, only to be reversed as California’s entrenched political machine reshaped the final count after the vote.
Bill de Blasio appeared on NewsNation on June 2 and was asked to
comment on Spencer Pratt’s campaign. De Blasio smugly described Pratt’s
ads as “inappropriate” and wondered, “Who is behind them?”
If de Blasio hadn’t actively participated in the decline of New York
City during his disastrous eight years as its mayor, his arrogance might
just be dismissed as unwarranted and clueless. But de Blasio is part of
a machine that profits from urban decline. Behind his arrogance is a
grasping, cynical hypocrite delighted that the machine on the West Coast
is as potent as the one that elevated his own mayoral tenure and now
supports Zohran Mamdani.
And so way out west, the machine has struck again. In the run-up to
California’s June 2 primary, Spencer Pratt, running for mayor of Los
Angeles, gave us a moment of hope. But as it turns out, he will not
appear on the November ballot. Angelenos will choose between a
democratic socialist extremist in the form of Nithya Raman and the
“moderate” option, the ex-communist, incompetent incumbent, Karen Bass.
Calling Spencer Pratt’s ads “inappropriate” is a grotesque inversion
of truth. Policy failures in Los Angeles have been so intellectualized
and contextualized that only crude descriptions of reality on the
streets of that beleaguered city had any chance to wake voters up from
their brainwashed acquiescence.
Moreover, Pratt’s ads have heralded a new era in campaign messaging.
His campaign was pitch-perfect and inspired. It wasn’t merely the use of
AI to produce videos at negligible cost, videos that altogether would
have cost millions only a few years ago. It was the extraordinary
creativity of these videos and their uncanny ability to cut to the heart
of issues that by now should have every resident of Los Angeles
marching on City Hall with torches and pitchforks.
A few examples should suffice. Have a look at these:
“Entering the illusion,”
where two parents confront a child, telling him that “Pratt is MAGA,”
wherein the child asks why getting homeless drug addicts help and
rebuilding homes is MAGA.
“Catching the Pratt,”
where a mother wheels her young adult daughter into the emergency room
because she is “thinking for herself,” wanting to “stop addicts from
injecting drugs around kids,” etc.
“You are not alone,” where a group of women in a yoga studio realize, to their astonishment, that all of them secretly support Pratt’s candidacy.
“What Spencer Pratt Has in Mind for LA,”
a satirical anti-Pratt ad where, for example, a father and daughter
chastise Pratt for wanting change “when everything is fine,” while
speaking against a backdrop of homes in flames.
And the classic “LA is worth saving,”
depicting, among other things, Karen Bass and assorted prominent
Democrats dressed in Louis XIV’s Baroque attire, swigging champagne and
eating cake, while laughing derisively at a mother trying to protect her
children from LA’s dangerous streets.
This was a brilliant campaign. It gave Pratt, who lost his own home
in the January 2025 wildfires, instant momentum. So much so, in fact,
that his opponents were worried enough to see to it that a second mayoral debate was canceled.
And on the day after the election, Pratt had reason for optimism. Early
returns reported, “With 63 percent of the votes counted by early
Wednesday morning, Bass had 35 percent, Pratt 30 percent, and Raman 22
percent.” Pratt had an 8 percent advantage over Raman. So far, so good.
That was before what members of the machine dismiss as the “red
mirage” began to dissipate. It didn’t take long. By Thursday afternoon,
Pratt’s lead over third-place Raman had shrunk to 33,076, i.e., from an
8.0 percent advantage to 6.0 percent.
By Friday, the trend was unmistakable. Pratt’s lead was down to 20,672, only a 3.3 percent edge. After the Saturday update, the Los Angeles Times, whose veteran reporters knew better, published an article, “Pratt holds off Raman for now,” as if his lead over Raman, by then down to 7,494 votes or 1.1 percent, left any possibility he would stay in front.
Sunday’s update made it official. Pratt was behind Raman by 4,381
votes. With weeks of counting still ahead, the chances that Pratt will
recover his lead are zero. Why? What is the nature of this machine that
delivers a red mirage on election night, invariably blown away by a blue
wind? How is this possible?
And here it is that accusations of fraud are almost irrelevant. Yes,
California’s election laws make voter fraud possible, even easy. With
poorly maintained voter rolls, 29 days of “early voting,” provisional
ballots, same-day voter registration, automatic motor-voter
registration, universal mail-in ballots, a seven-day post-election grace
period for mailed ballots to still be counted, ballot harvesting, and
county elections offices under oversight by Democrat politicians and
staffed by Democrat-leaning bureaucrats, there are means, motives, and
opportunities for fraud.
But these laws governing elections in California are tools—all of
them completely legal—that turbocharge California’s ruling political
machine. To rig an election in California, fraud isn’t necessary. To
focus on fraud, without also critiquing the system itself, is a
fruitless distraction.
There is a reason that ballot counts in the days after the election
skewed two-to-one in favor of Raman, when Pratt led Raman by 8 percent
in the early returns, and it doesn’t require fraud. What happens in elections in California today, as noted political observer Chris Rufo stated in a recent interview, is “no less nefarious but much more sophisticated.”
Rufo goes on to describe how California’s system works. “Institutions
that have large ground games: unions, DSA, activist groups, homeless
shelters—all of these people within the liberal NGO Borg—to go chase
ballots, harvest ballots, solicit, and grab all of these ballots, which
are technically legal in a way that the opposition cannot do.”
This is what happened to Pratt. This is what dissolved his red
mirage. A political machine of extraordinary reach dispatched its
operatives to every precinct in the City of Los Angeles wherever voters
could be found who were low-information, dependent on government
assistance, innately conditioned to oppose a Republican, inclined to
have a Pavlovian aversion to any candidate tagged with a “MAGA”
affiliation, or unlikely to vote without active assistance, or some
combination of all of the above. These votes for Raman were the result
of selective vote harvesting from precisely targeted groups.
This is why GOP candidates lose in California. If a race is close, it
isn’t enough to wage a brilliant campaign. The endgame is rigged in
favor of the party that can field a permanent army to
exploit California’s current election laws. That army is populated by
operatives from public sector unions that are overwhelmingly partisan
Democrats, along with thousands of workers at partisan NGOs. This
perennial political machine is fed by taxpayers and tax deductions; the
election work they do is often technically “nonpartisan,” and the public
programs they provide when they are not harvesting votes are “social
welfare” programs that get more funding from failure than from success.
This is California’s self-reinforcing cycle of political dysfunction.
Spencer Pratt tried to disrupt the system, and his surge in the polls
surprised a lot of people. But the machine won. Again.
Photo: NEW YORK, NEW YORK - JANUARY 28: TV
personality and Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt visits "Fox
& Friends" at Fox News Channel Studios on January 28, 2026 in New
York City. (Photo by Roy Rochlin/Getty Images)
Edward Ring
Source: https://amgreatness.com/2026/06/10/how-the-machine-buried-spencer-pratt/
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
