Heres

In the race for Los Angeles mayor, incumbent Karen Bass and City Councilmember Nithya Raman will need to win over a substantial portion of the 218,000 Angelenos who voted for Spencer Pratt in the primary and who are concentrated in certain neighborhoods.

In the June 2 primary, Bass earned more than a third of the vote, while Raman was close with 29%. Reality television personality Pratt finished third with 25.5%. The votes for him are nearly five times the 44,800-vote gap between Bass and Raman. This voting bloc could be key to either candidate securing the mayoral race.

Pratt carried 20% of the city’s 739 precincts, mainly in the West Valley — Woodland Hills, Encino, Granada Hills, West Hills, Chatsworth, Northridge and Tarzana — along with Brentwood, Pacific Palisades and San Pedro, according to a Times analysis of certified election results. In comparison, Bass had the most votes in 49% of the precincts, while Raman had 30%.

According to the latest Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies/Los Angeles Times poll, Raman and Bass are in a dead heat, each with the support of 40% of likely voters. Polls show 45% of Pratt voters are undecided.

In the primary, Pratt had the most votes in 24 of the city’s 113 neighborhoods. All but three of those 24 neighborhoods heavily favored developer Rick Caruso over Bass in the 2022 mayoral race.

This week, Caruso said he will vote for Bass.

Voters in precincts that voted heavily for Pratt also turned out more than others. Turnout there was 46%, compared with 37% in the rest of the city, more than in past mayoral primaries.

There is a large pool of potential voters for Bass and Raman to cast ballots through Election Day Tuesday. Pratt’s support stretched well beyond the places he won. About 125,000 of his votes came from precincts that Bass or Raman won.

Pratt had his weakest showing in the city’s 43 majority-Latino neighborhoods, where he got 22% of the vote. Bass did well in 35 of them. The only one Pratt did well in was San Pedro, where Latinos make up just over half the population.

Pratt’s stronghold neighborhoods

Pratt’s largest base stretched across the west and north San Fernando Valley, from Chatsworth and Porter Ranch in the northwest corner through Woodland Hills, Tarzana and Encino. He was the leader in 76 precincts there, which together cast about 120,000 votes.

Pratt got 40.5% of the vote in those precincts. Bass finished second in all but one of those areas. Raman got 19%.

This month, Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath endorsed Raman, giving her a strong ally on the Westside and in the Valley and possibly new inroads in those areas.

On the Westside, Pratt swept the wealthy neighborhoods of Pacific Palisades, Brentwood and Bel-Air. Pratt’s home in the Palisades was destroyed in the January 2025 fire. His strongest showings were in the Palisades and Bel-Air, where he got about 50% of the vote.

Raman ran ahead of Bass in some of Pratt’s precincts, including ones in Pico-Robertson, Brentwood and Beverly Grove.

In the northeast Valley, Pratt did well in the foothill communities of Sunland, Tujunga and Shadow Hills. It’s a small part of the city’s electorate, with 38,000 registered voters. He got 44% of the vote, Bass 28% and Raman 18%.

At the city’s southern tip, Pratt did well in 11 precincts in San Pedro and parts of Harbor City with 42% of the vote. Raman had her weakest showing, with 16%.

Raman came within 5 percentage points of Pratt in only a handful of his precincts, including ones in Valley Village, Pico-Robertson and West Los Angeles.

They hit you hardest if your income is close to one of the tax thresholds, but anyone who gets a pay rise is affected, as long as you earn enough to pay tax. Only people earning under £12,570 – the personal allowance threshold – pay no income tax.

By 2031 an extra 6.8 million people will be paying tax who wouldn’t have if the personal allowance had not been frozen, the OBR calculates.

The state pension is currently just below the personal allowance threshold, and pensioners looked set to be drawn into paying tax from next April, when the basic state pension rises to £13,036.

However, the chancellor is putting in place a new separate Pension Tax Allowance, which will ensure that low-income pensioners, with income up to the value of the full new state pension, will not pay income tax.

The personal allowance threshold is set for the whole UK, so people in Scotland will also be affected, although other tax bands there vary, external.

National Insurance Contributions (Nics) are levied according to the same thresholds.

A spectacular run that included back-to-back World Series championships and delivered unforgettable memories ended with a whimper for the Los Angeles Dodgers on Thursday.

The Milwaukee Brewers, humiliated by the Dodgers last year in a four-game sweep, returned the favor at Chavez Ravine, defeating L.A., 6-4, in the National League Championship Series. The loss eliminated the Dodgers and ended their run at a vaunted three-peat, or three consecutive titles.

No North American sports franchise can claim such an accomplishment since the Shaq- and Kobe Bryant-led Lakers from 2000 to 2002.

How did a team of All-Stars fall short? Our sports team delivered tremendous coverage that answers that question and many more.

Columnist Bill Plaschke wrote how a team with seemingly every advantage fell short, beat writer Maddie Lee documented what led to the demise, while columnist Bill Shaikin provided updates to several questions on the team’s future. The devoted fans of the Boys in Blue have also had a chance to react.

Let’s sample some of their in-depth reporting.

Shohei Ohtani’s declining health was too much to overcome

Plaschke wrote that the single biggest reason the Dodgers didn’t three-peat centered on the health of designated hitter and pitcher Shohei Ohtani.

The owner of four MVP trophies, Ohtani began the season with a goal of also winning the Cy Young Award. So he focused on pitching, and he pitched well, going 8-2 with a 1.79 ERA in 14 starts.

Then he injured his knee, but he still pitched, long past when he should have been pitching, said Plaschke. He was finally pulled off the mound in early July, but by then he had also injured his elbow and his offense suffered because he was so worried about the pitching. It was at this point the Dodgers should have shut him down entirely, given him a month off to ensure he would be ready for October, according to Plaschke.

But no. Ohtani insisted he was fine even though his plummeting batting numbers said otherwise. When he was finally placed on the injured list in early September, Plaschke said it was too late, and he entered the playoffs as a shell of his former great self.

An autopsy reveals much

Lee agreed with third baseman Max Muncy when he said, “The train finally ran out of steam, I guess.”

A major aspect of the challenge of winning three straight is simply workload. The Dodgers not only have played more games than any other team the last two years, but their schedule has included grueling travel.

The Dodgers started both the 2024 and 2025 seasons early and overseas, playing in the Seoul Series and Tokyo Series in consecutive years. And both years ended with coast-to-coast travel for the World Series, as the Dodgers won titles over the New York Yankees and Toronto Blue Jays.

The team’s collective age — the oldest lineup in the majors this year, according to Baseball Reference, weighted by at-bats and games played — may not have helped.

Cap concerns

Shaikin wrote about a lockout expected this winter as Major League Baseball owners attempt to implement a salary cap, which limits the amount of money a team can spend on player salaries.

The owners initially proposed a salary cap of $245 million for next year. The Dodgers already have $347 million committed to 14 players next year, according to Cot’s Baseball Contracts.

Under a cap, the owners have promised a transition period to account for existing commitments, and an actual negotiated cap could be higher, said Shaikin.

Even if the players do not agree to a cap — and they insist they won’t — whatever economic system emerges from collective bargaining would likely make it painful for the Dodgers to spend so freely, according to Shaikin.

What some Dodgers fans are saying

Most baseball teams create a now well-anticipated “thank you fans” social media post after the conclusion of a season.

Passionate fans use the post as a sounding board for everything that ails them about their favorite teams. Just look at the “thank you fans” X posts from the New York Yankees and Philadelphia Phillies laced with profanities and vitriol fiercer than any East Coast nor’easter.

But on Friday, Dodgers fans were gracious and supportive on the fan appreciation post on X.

“Thank you for the great run over the last three years. Let’s come back stronger,” wrote one user.

“Thank you for the ride,” another tweet noted. “We’ll be back next year!”

The week’s biggest stories

A house burns off Calle Miramar in San Juan Capistrano during the Norte fire on Friday.

(Sandy Huffaker/For The Times)

Southern California wildfires

Olympics and sports news

Crime, courts and protests

More news

Editor’s pick

More picks

Things to do

(Ariana Drehsler / For The Times)

• 🎭The world premiere play “Bobby Robotowitz” brings AI questions into your living room — literally — with performances on the Eastside and Westside.
• 👀 The 10 biggest revelations of Nathan Fielder’s new Elizabeth Holmes documentary, ‘You Can See Everything.’
• 🍽️ For many, like the preservationists pushing to save Santa Monica’s Mel’s Drive-In, the mere thought of demolishing the iconic restaurant is offensive. Eating there was certainly on the bingo card for columnist LZ Granderson when he and his son first drove across the Southwest decades ago, and it continues to be a favorite breakfast spot of theirs.

Today’s recipe

(Stephanie Breijo / Los Angeles Times)

Many meatballs are made with a panade, often a mixture of white bread soaked in milk, which lends moisture to the final meatballs. For these lamb meatballs, cooking editor Cody Reiss decided to make his panade out of ingredients that felt more in-line with the mutabbal he was serving them with. He ended up using a mixture of leftover pita bread and labneh (drained yogurt). The resulting meatballs were moist, herby, spiced, seasoned, spicy and just a joy to eat.

Photo of the day

Volunteers led by guerrilla activist Jonathan Hale paint over the faded crosswalks of an intersection near USC on Sept. 19.

(Etienne Laurent/For the Times)

Games

Here’s today’s mini crossword, plus our other free, daily crossword puzzle, sudoku, word search and jigsaw games.

Have a great day, from the Essential California team

Jack Dolan, investigative reporter
Hugo Martín, assistant editor, Fast Break desk
Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor
Andrew J. Campa, weekend writer
Karim Doumar, head of newsletters

How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@latimes.com. Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on latimes.com.

You don’t want to hear from me. You want to hear from Dave Roberts, the Dodgers’ manager.

The Dodgers are one loss from an abrupt ending to their season, and from a National League Championship Series sweep by the Milwaukee Brewers.

Let’s take you through the critical decisions Roberts made Wednesday night, the ones you second-guessed at home. They all pretty much backfired on him.

Situation: In the third inning, and again in the fifth inning, Tommy Edman comes to bat with Miguel Rojas on first base, none out, and the Dodgers trailing, 1-0. By the end of the fifth, the Dodgers had gone nine consecutive innings without scoring, and with a game plan of getting ahead before the Brewers’ vaunted bullpen could take over. Roberts does not ask Edman, one of the team’s most accomplished bunters, to sacrifice the runner into scoring position.

Roberts: “I just didn’t feel like giving up an out right there. … We could have bunted, but I felt I wanted to give Tommy an opportunity to drive in a run. … We haven’t been getting hits with runners in scoring position (3 for 32 in the postseason). To give up an out, to bank on getting a hit with runners in scoring position, I’d rather just try to maybe slug, hit a double.”

Result: Edman flied out both times. The Dodgers did not score in either inning.

———

Situation: In the sixth inning, with the Dodgers still trailing, 1-0, the Brewers turn to Abner Uribe, who had faced 26 batters and walked two in the postseason. Uribe walks the first two batters, and Roberts deploys his primary left-handed bench threat, Max Muncy. That takes right-handed Andy Pages out of the game; the only Dodgers with more hits than Pages this October are Kyle Tucker and Mookie Betts.

Roberts: “Abner is death on righties. You’re trying to guard against — you want to keep the inning going, and you don’t want a double play ball. Muncy’s not starting, and you want to fire that bullet in a leverage spot. First and second base, nobody out, it gives us the best chance to keep the inning going, in my opinion, and it gets Shohei up, and you have a chance to build an inning.”

Result: Muncy struck out.

———

Josue DePaula’s presence was wasted in Game 3.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

Situation: After Muncy, Ohtani walks to load the bases, and Will Smith follows with a two-run double to give the Dodgers a 2-1 lead. With the right-handed Rojas due up, Roberts opts for the left-handed Josue De Paula as a pinch-hitter. Brewers manager Pat Murphy promptly replaces Uribe with left-hander DL Hall, who had been warming up. Roberts counters with the right-handed Kiké Hernández.

Roberts: “It’s a decision: Do I want Uribe facing Rojas? Then I chose De Paula, and they made the move. At that point in time, I felt we had the matchup advantage with Kiké. … For me, all the experience that Kiké’s had, I feel very confident with Kiké taking a bat with a guy on second and third, infield in.”

Result: Hernandez struck out, and so did Edman. The inning was over, and the Dodgers would not advance another man past first base the rest of the evening. The Dodgers could have used De Paula to bat against right-handed closer Trevor Megill in the ninth inning, but Roberts had already burned him.

Murphy said Uribe was coming out after Smith’s double no matter what — at that point, Uribe had thrown six strikes and 14 balls — so Roberts could have saved De Paula had he waited to see what Murphy would do.

———

Situation: Blake Snell has retired 14 consecutive batters entering the seventh inning, with the Dodgers leading, 2-1. It’s the first time the left-handed Snell has pitched beyond the sixth inning this season, with the right-handed Andrew Vaughn leading off and the left-handed Jake Bauers and Garrett Mitchell to follow. Evan Phillips is warming up in the Dodgers bullpen.

Roberts: “His stuff was really good. I don’t think they were seeing him well. I was trying to get him three more hitters. We had Evan for that fourth hitter.”

Result: Vaughn walks, on six pitches. Bauers homers, on 11 pitches. The Brewers have the lead, 3-2.

Roberts: “Hasn’t given up a homer all year, but it just — it’s baseball. For me, I felt good with where Blake’s stuff was at. You’ve got to give Bauers credit.”

Situation: By that time, Snell is at 99 pitches, two shy of his season high, after the exhausting battles with Vaughn and Bauers. Roberts sticks to his plan: Snell for Mitchell, then Phillips for the right-handed Cooper Pratt.

Result: Mitchell homers, giving the Brewers a 4-2 lead. Hall and Megill combine for 3 1/3 innings of scoreless relief, and the Dodgers are one defeat from winter vacation.

With not-terrible odds heading into the 2028 Democratic primaries, Gov. Gavin Newsom is getting one shared warning whispered in his ear by roughly 3,729 political consultants right now: Do not mess with the murderers.

Do not, under any circumstance, follow that inner voice that may be telling you to commute the death sentences of the 563 killers on California’s death row to life without parole, as Newsom recently admitted he was considering. Doing so would be a stupid move for an Oval Office wannabe, one already hobbled by the progressive persona of the Golden State.

“I’m getting all those people in my ear,” Newsom said during a podcast conversation with Bryan Stevenson, one of the preeminent death penalty lawyers in the country. “Don’t do it. Politics.”

Newsom already dismantled San Quentin’s execution chamber a few years ago, so the state can’t kill people even if it wanted to. But the governor has made it clear that he opposes the death penalty in principle because every year the evidence mounts that its implementation is flawed and racially biased. As he put it, the decision on commuting the largest death row in the Western Hemisphere may be his “rocking chair test,” a measure of whether he will have lived up to his own ideals when he looks back on his life.

Most other western countries have already banned the death penalty, leaving the U.S. in the company of places including North Korea and Libya when it comes to this punishment. Twenty-three states have abolished it, and three besides California have a moratorium. Nine governors over the years have commuted their entire death row, including one Republican. In 2024, on his way out of office, President Biden commuted the death sentences of 37 federal prisoners, in part, Stevenson said, to prevent the Trump administration from using executions as theater.

But none of that is why Newsom should do it.

He should do it because we, the voters, are exhausted by the venality of politicians whose every move is controlled by politics and self-dealing. We need to believe that conscience is not a relic of America’s past, and roll reality back to a time when, occasionally, leaders acted because they believed in something, even if it wasn’t popular.

He should do it because our president glorifies violence and death (more on that in a moment) and people need a reminder that the America of hope and dreams, the America that always strives to be better, may be down, but she’s not out.

He should do it simply because he thinks it’s right.

“A lot of people in this country want a leader who is not trying to promote themselves, who’s not trying to advance themselves, is not always scheming for the angles and the corners,” Stevenson told me. “That’s not trying to just do what makes them get the most votes.”

Showing mercy to murderers historically has not been popular with voters. The tale of Willie Horton, the convicted murderer whose subsequent felonies tanked the 1988 presidential ambitions of then-Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, is still invoked like a Biblical lesson about the sin of soft-on-crime.

Horton’s warning happened during what now seems like the benign and civilized days of the President George H.W. Bush era, though. This moment is different, and all the advice about dodging this dodgy issue is now wrong.

America is increasingly in the death business, to steal a phrase from the late Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun — or at least our leaders are. Under the Trump administration, brutality, cruelty, corruption and even killings are being used as misguided and ugly proxies for strength and power. Fear is a weapon, death the point — the state can kill you if you make its leaders mad.

“It’s a handful of people whose view of the social order is very violent. It uses power. It abuses power. They think death is good for demonstrating strength,” Stevenson said.

Think that sounds overblown?

Just ask the family of Renee Good. Or Alex Pretti. Both Americans were killed by masked federal officers only 10 months ago. But so many other deaths have happened since then, they’re just ghosts in our collective psyche — haunting reminders that faceless, nameless agents are now empowered to roam our streets.

Most of us can no longer place the name Nurul Amin Shah Alam, the near-blind Rohingya refugee dumped by federal agents in the freezing cold on a February night. He was found dead five days later, his passing ruled a homicide.

Do you remember Lorenzo Salgado Araujo? Or Johan Sebastián Duran Guerrero? That’s what the business of death does, normalizes killings until they blend and fade in significance.

What about the 120 Iranian children, many of them little girls, who were killed when the U.S. bombed their school?

Then there are the roughly 238 people who have been executed by U.S. bombings of boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, allegedly while transporting drugs, though the killings took place with no arrests, no trials and no real evidence. Four of those killings happened in October, though they barely made news.

And there is the profiteering from death — the talk of resorts on the shores of Gaza, the government money saved by Elon Musk cutting off aid to starving children.

Now, if Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has his way, a year that began with televised footage of the death of Good and Pretti will end with the live-streamed execution of Nidal Hasan, the paralyzed, wheelchair-using former Army psychiatrist who 17 years ago killed 13 and wounded 32 at Fort Hood in Texas. If the grotesque spectacle happens, it will be a throwback to the days of the Roman Colosseum when the business of state-sponsored death was at an apex, combining public violence with propaganda, politics and social control.

Stevenson warns that “we’re in the midst of a narrative struggle, and this struggle is for the soul of America.”

Newsom has the chance to, if not change that narrative, offer an alternative one — an America that rejects killing as the ultimate display of power. An America that seeks justice with dignity and wisdom, not arrogance and gore. An America that feels safe because our leaders act with integrity and honor, not with a slavish, intemperate ego.

Though there is a political risk inherent in striking out in a solitary direction, there can also be reward. As Stevenson told Newsom, that’s the “beauty of struggling for things that are right, struggling for things that are moral, struggling for things that are just — all kinds of people will come along, and when you feel like you just can’t take another step, there’ll be something there. There’ll be somebody there.”

My mercy isn’t for those on our death row, many of whom are guilty of gut-churning crimes. I’m not arguing that they are victims themselves, or even that some may have been unfairly tried, or even innocent, though that may be true. I acknowledge some families of victims may be angry if Newsom commutes sentences, though some will not.

My mercy is reserved for America, and those who are exhausted by the business of death, this business Trump wants us to believe is just American business — necessary and unavoidable.

A commutation of California’s death row sentences would be a rejection of Trump’s manic desire to pull us ever lower; a rejection of our growing cynicism that there is no such thing — Republican or Democrat — as a leader who acts from conscience. An assurance, instead, that it is still possible to heed an internal moral compass that is more powerful than the need for power.

Would voters really reject the leader who offered that?

Would you?

Karen Bass and Nithya Raman faced off Tuesday night in a debate hosted by NBC4 and Telemundo52 in Universal City. It was the L.A. mayoral candidates’ last head-to-head before the Nov. 3 election.

Times columnists Lorraine Ali, Gustavo Arellano and Steve Lopez weigh in on the highlights and lowlights.

Arellano: Raman had the line of the night at the very beginning, channeling — of all politicians — Ronald Reagan, one of the last people you’d think of as an Angeleno, even though he absolutely was.

“Are you better off than you were four years ago?” she asked while looking directly into the camera.

For the vast majority of L.A. residents, the answer is a resounding no.

Up until tonight, Raman has done a good job of communicating a message of hope and change, while Bass, as the incumbent, has repeatedly tripped on her record over the biblically bad four years of her first term.

But I didn’t hear that Raman tonight — partly because Bass made her play defense, from her first answer to her closing statement.

The mayor won the debate, if we’re judging by forensics. She rarely looked down at her notepad, unlike Raman. It’s something I’ve never noticed about Raman before — either a new nervous tic, or an indication that the city councilmember can’t seem to speak with conviction, which has been a frequent critique against her.

Bass’ barrages got to Raman more than a few times, leading her to talk over the NBC and Telemundo moderators or even shush them. A whining Raman is not a good Raman, which her advisors need to drill into her sooner rather than later.

But Raman’s answers never meandered and weren’t too elliptical, even when she was pressed by the able moderators. Since she’s ahead in most reputable polls, Raman’s job for the night was not failing — and she cleared that low, low hurdle.

Bass, meanwhile, needed to deliver a knockout punch. Instead, as a politico friend who cares for neither candidate texted me after the debate, she won one round. There are only so many more rounds before Election Day for her to catch up — and Bass can’t rely on just winning on points anymore, especially with an opponent who’s now running like she’s ahead.

During closing remarks, Raman hearkened back to her Reagan shout-out, stating, “We cannot afford another four years of decline, of mismanagement, of excuses.” She then pivoted to her positivity message, smiling while proclaiming, “We can be joyful and ambitious again.” The more she sticks to that upbeat vibe, the better she comes off to a voter base tired of the doom and gloom that has fallen over L.A. under Bass.

Bass, meanwhile, came off as funereal, beginning with, “It has been the honor of a lifetime to serve in the city that I was born and raised.” That’s how you start a retirement announcement, not another four-year term. Let’s see what the voters say on Election Day.

Incumbent Karen Bass during a mayoral debate against City Councilmember Nithya Raman Tuesday night.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

City Councilmember Nithya Raman during Tuesday night’s debate against Mayor Karen Bass.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

Lopez: After watching the debate, I don’t think this thing is over.

Yes, Raman has been ahead in polling, and Bass is saddled with high negativity ratings, the baggage of the Palisades fire and the continued challenge of homelessness.

But this debate could have been a knockout punch for Raman, and instead, I think Bass won the night, not just by touting her achievements and responding sharply to criticism, but by seeming to have a better command of the moment.

My colleague Lorraine Ali made a good point — how many people were actually watching this debate? Probably not many, so it’s not like this one-hour back-and-forth tips the scale.

But as has been noted, a huge percentage of likely voters remain undecided. Maybe that’s because they’re not in love with either candidate. Or maybe they’re ready to move on from Bass but aren’t sure about who Raman really is. If they watched tonight, looking for an answer, I’m not sure they got one.

Raman came into elected office as a darling of the Democratic Socialists of America and was a high-profile member of that wing on the City Council. But even the council’s DSA members didn’t endorse her bid for mayor. In fact, Bass has gotten support from 13 of the 15 council members.

So how will Raman build a coalition in a city where mayoral power is shared with the council, and matters like homelessness are the joint responsibility of the city and the county, and any progress is stymied without strong mayoral relationships in Sacramento and D.C.?

It’s possible that the council will come around to her if she’s elected, because just as the mayor needs the council to get much done, the council needs the mayor.

But I’d like to know more about who Raman is and why she’s flip-flopped so much (on support for the LAPD, on the mansion tax, on the Inside Safe homeless initiative, etc., etc.), as my colleague David Zahniser reported just the other day.

Learning and evolving can be a good thing. But voters need to know who Raman is, what her vision is for the city and how she expects to lead.

I didn’t get that in this debate. Bass, whose first term works against her as much as for her, is still hanging on and hanging in.

It may come down to whether older voters, who are likely to favor Bass, turn out in greater numbers than younger voters, who are likely to favor Raman.

But from where I sit, it ain’t over. Except maybe for the Dodgers.

Ali: Raman was ahead in the polls headed into tonight’s mayoral debate, so her job wasn’t quite as hard as Bass’, who is fighting for her political life. Raman just needed to knock the mayor off balance — then keep her there for an hour. But that didn’t happen.

Bass came off composed, confident and in command of the conversation, while Raman appeared less sure of herself, frequently looking down to check her notes while defending her work on key concerns such as homelessness (until recently, she was chair of the city’s housing and homelessness committee) and attacking Bass for leaving the city “leaderless” during crises such as the Palisades and Lineage fires.

The overall tone of the debate was less heated than when the two candidates met in August to battle it out sans Spencer Pratt, the former reality TV personality and Republican contender who lost in the primary.

But there were moments Tuesday when the women’s history as colleagues — and onetime allies — informed their attacks on one another.

Bass said Raman was “not ready for prime time” and that she had a “contemptuous” relationship with her constituents. Raman continually pointed out that Bass had failed to remedy L.A.’s homelessness crisis, and did so from the perspective of someone who had worked closely with the mayor.

There’s still a question around how many folks actually watched the debate, and if the candidates’ points will resonate in subsequent clips or memes. Neither contender has the charm or spark of, say, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and as vapid as it may sound, charisma matters.

Three weeks out from the election and there still isn’t a lot of excitement over the mayoral choices on the ballot. This debate didn’t help that cause, or juice the race.

Lucky for Bass, she has the presence of a leader, and that gave her the edge over Raman tonight. But was anyone watching beyond my fellow columnists Gustavo Arellano and Steve Lopez?

SACRAMENTO — Over the last week, gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton has created the exact kind of media kerfuffle he loves best by attacking his rival Xavier Becerra for Becerra’s description of his parents as “immigrants.”

Although Becerra’s mother, Maria, was born in Mexico, his father, Manuel, came into the world in Sacramento, in 1928. Soon after, Becerra’s grandparents moved their young family back to Mexico, where Manuel was raised until he returned to the U.S. as a young man to work.

As my colleague Gustavo Arellano said in a must-read column, this border back-and-forth has been more the norm than the exception for California’s Mexican American population for decades, if not centuries. Manuel Becerra’s luck at being born on U.S. soil may have given him an advantage, but it didn’t make him any less of an immigrant, Arellano explained, especially in an era when Sacramento’s Mexican population was below 2,500 and racism remained openly practiced and disturbingly accepted.

Hilton, however, has seized on Manuel Becerra’s U.S. citizenship to brand the younger Becerra a liar, allegedly falsely framing himself as the son of immigrants to gain identity-politics points in a state of immigrants. Whether one or both of Becerra’s parents qualifies as an immigrant might seem like minutiae to most voters, but Hilton’s accusation has thumped on the nerves on both the left and right — including my own, as the daughter of a South Asian immigrant.

Dog-whistle politics

Scratch the surface of Hilton’s attack and it becomes about something far more than Manuel Becerra’s citizenship — it’s a thinly veiled dog whistle about how a “good” immigrant behaves and how we should handle the “bad” ones. Here’s where all that gets messy for me: I agree with Hilton that being born in the U.S. is a big deal, and being a citizen is a point of pride. It does matter. I also agree with Arellano that Hilton’s attack is despicable.

Somewhere between those points are truths about immigration in America at this fraught and ugly moment, and just how different California is from the rest of the country when it comes to understanding the issue — and why that matters.

California’s Latinos, through numbers, history and hard work, have built political and social power on a scale that few, if any, other immigrant groups anywhere in the U.S. have managed. That unique position in the Golden State has allowed for what I call the magical realism of immigration myths to flourish, a wonderful gift to generations past and present that does not have the same widespread acceptance in other parts of this great country.

I firmly believe there is no such thing as a “true” immigration story.

Many, if not most, immigrants are leaving something painful behind — maybe it’s family, maybe it’s war or abuse. But carrying that burden forward with nothing more than hope to balance it, passing it on to future generations, explaining it to strangers, is too much. So immigration stories get softened over time, with trauma turning into adventure and hard facts blurred into entertaining myths.

That doesn’t make the tellers liars. It makes them human.

In the case of my father’s myth, he would have told you that his journey to America started with Humphrey Bogart. As a teen, he’d cut school to watch black-and-white movies like “Casablanca” in a theater in Ahmedabad in northern India, so long ago that there was an intermission to change the film reels. Enamored of white tuxedos and cool blondes, he started applying to scholarships for college in America — eventually winning a full-ride at a Utah school for his skiing acumen, a sport for which he claimed great skill but in reality had never tried.

My aunts and uncles variously dispute or embrace this tale, which my father loved to tell. I don’t know how true it is, but I do know this. My father’s journey to the U.S. did not begin with Bogart. It began in the city of Karachi, which was in India until the British drew a line on the map and created Pakistan. War broke out, with Hindus killing Muslims and Muslims killing Hindus. My father, a kid, got lost in a crowd with his grandfather. He watched as a mob killed his grandpa, then escaped by himself walking hundreds of miles to safety. He was eventually reunited with his family in a refugee camp, but his India was gone forever.

In its place, he dreamed of Bogart’s America. And when he finally got here, he buried his past under the Utah snow, became such a good skier he was on ski patrol, and didn’t mention his grandpa for nearly 35 years.

Like nearly every child of an immigrant, I love both the truth and the myth of my dad because combined they are the story of my family and of America. But my father was Indian and eventually settled in Ohio, much different than California. There was no larger Indian community back then (though it’s grown significantly, including dozens of family members who followed my father), and little tolerance for anything but assimilation. That was fine by my father. He wanted nothing more than to be American — though he would remain a green card holder for decades, until fear under the first Trump administration pushed him to get citizenship.

Hilton’s audience

Just like for Becerra’s dad, being an immigrant was a state of mind for mine, an experience, not an official status. Had my dad been in California, maybe he would have kept more of his Indian identity. Had Becerra’s dad been in Ohio, maybe he would have kept less of his past.

Neither viewpoint made either man more or less American — but the different myths these two men told about who they were define the difference between California and the rest of the country.

Hilton’s attack on Becerra’s dad was never meant for a California audience, where the Latino experience of fluidity in geography and identity holds center stage. It was always meant for places such as Ohio, and Fox News, where the expectation of assimilation still reigns supreme (just ask the Haitians of Springfield) and where Hilton’s media audience — and his future — resides after he loses in November, which he almost certainly will. Hilton, after all, was the host of his own conservative television show for years.

What seems like an out-of-touch attack by Hilton on brown immigrants in California is actually thoughtful pandering to his people — the right-wing Americans who prefer “good,” deferential, grateful immigrants (like Hilton himself) over the confident California Latinos who take pride in every part of their identity.

Sorry, California Latinos, but this MAGA moment in immigration has nothing to do with criminal records or even legal status. It’s all about attitude, and MAGA hates that you have so much of it. Hilton’s attack hits the target with his right-wing crowd because, to them, not centering his father’s U.S. citizenship is a rejection of the United States, a treachery they not-so-secretly fear all immigrants share.

And here’s the twist — MAGA is right, immigrants are complicated.

My dad may have been one of the “good” immigrants, embracing all things American and quiet about his past. But he always held deep pride in his family and his origins, and he passed that on — as do so many of the other “good” immigrants.

It’s possible, common even, to fully embrace being American while also valuing the myths and truths of immigration. It’s possible to to love this country while also keeping another one in your heart, loudly or quietly. There is no one immigrant experience, no one way to be a real American. Hilton, an immigrant and the son of immigrants, surely knows this.

But where immigrants see complexity, MAGA followers see only perfidy, disloyalty, and that makes them afraid and angry — and ripe for the exploitation of those emotions by someone who can sugarcoat it, twist it, just enough to seem reasonable.

And Hilton is excellent at seeming reasonable.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: California wine glut sends premium bottles to Costco, Aldi and Kroger at bargain prices
The California angle: Denise Brown recalls her sister Nicole’s abuse by O.J. Simpson: ‘We were there’
The L.A. Times Special: The LAPD busted a secret network of brothels — but hasn’t arrested the owner
Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Both NFL most valuable players. Both bound for Canton. Both surgically precise with their passes.

Matthew Stafford and Josh Allen are two of the best liars in football.

Peyton Manning sat in the studio and cued the video. Stafford looked off a Philadelphia safety last Sunday to hold him in place. He froze a cornerback with a glance. Then he threw an out-and-up to Puka Nacua, absorbing a big hit as he released the ball.

“That’s a lot of looking off,” Manning said.

Hall of Fame linebacker Luke Kuechly, watching from his own home studio, agreed.

“The quarterback will lie to you,” Kuechly said. “He’s going to look you off. He’s going to pump you. But the one thing that never lies to you is the route.”

Welcome to “The Breakdown,” the ESPN2 show in which Manning and Kuechly provide different perspectives from opposite sides of the ball, discussing strategy, preparation and key storylines heading into marquee NFL matchups.

This show airs on Friday at 12:30 p.m. PDT, and this week’s episode focuses on Monday night’s game between the Rams and Buffalo Bills at SoFi Stadium. The show is in its second season, and Kuechly replaces Bill Belichick, who played the defensive counterpart to Manning in Season 1.

“I’ve had lots of college coaches and pro players and high school coaches that watch this show that love it,” Manning said. “Because they want the details, but also for the casual fan to be able to understand and follow the game and maybe be entertained at the same time. It’s a delicate balance.”

Elements that Manning and Kuechly identified as critical to Monday’s game:

1. Stafford’s eyes. The Rams quarterback will try to move Buffalo defenders with his looks, a flick of his shoulders, a tiny pump fake. Kuechly advises defenders to watch the route.
2. Greg Rousseau. Kuechly identifies Buffalo’s edge rusher as the scariest player on tape, especially with his long arms that almost seem telescopic.
3. Allen’s ability to throw outside the numbers. The Bills quarterback has the arm strength to get the ball to any of his receivers at any time. “I would need a cutoff man to complete some of the throws he makes,” Manning said.
4. Quick snaps. Stafford is a master of catching the defense off guard and before it has set. It’s a look, Manning said, that some teams call “cheetah.” Kuechly said the rule for the defense should be that the play starts when the center touches the ball.
5. The last possession. Manning believes the last team that has the ball will be the team to win, and that the game will be back and forth the whole way.

Manning credits Kobe Bryant as the inspiration for “The Breakdown.” The late Lakers legend created a film-analysis series called “Detail,” which was designed to show the public how a professional basketball player studies game tape. It debuted in 2018 during the NBA playoffs.

Bryant then called Manning.

“He said, ‘Hey, I want you to do ‘Detail’ for football,’” Manning said. “He wanted me to take people behind the ropes in football, so that’s what I did.”

Manning did it alone at first, using only his voice to break down quarterbacks. Eventually, he brought in a defensive specialist for another perspective and they both appeared on camera.

Bryant’s concept of franchising the show across different sports gave Manning the idea to do the same with “Peyton’s Places,” thereby creating spinoffs with his brother, Eli, John McEnroe, Sue Bird and others.

Mum of two Hannah Britt shares her top tips for family road trip success, from choosing the right sized rental car to arming yourself with equipment-free games. Bon voyage!

Planning a successful road trip with children requires smart packing, strategic timing, and easy entertainment to keep everyone happy. And as a mum of two young children, I’ve got it down to a fine art. This summer we hired a car with Sixt and drove through the south of France, often for long periods at a time. But armed with a bit of knowhow, it was child’s play for all the family. Here’s how it’s done…

Pack the essentials

• Mess-free snacks: Pack dry foods like crackers or popcorn in separate plastic containers or use silicone cupcake liners for easy, spill-proof portions.
• Plenty of wipes: Bring an abundance of antibacterial wipes and tissues for sticky fingers and unexpected juice spills.
• Comfortable clothes: Dress children in soft, loose, and easy-to-wash clothes or let them travel in pyjamas if you leave early or late.
• First-aid and emergency gear: Keep sickness bags, a small first-aid kit with child-friendly medicine like Calpol, and bin bags for daily rubbish within easy reach.

Keep kids entertained

• Activity bags: Give each child a small bag filled with rotating toys, colouring books, or magnetic games, and allow them to explore each one at a time.
• Audio and music: Create a shared family playlist or queue up engaging audiobooks and children’s podcasts to pass the hours.
• Screens with headphones: Download movies or games onto tablets ahead of time and pack backup chargers and headphones for each child.

Manage the journey

• Time drives with sleep: Depart right before nap times or early in the evening so young children sleep through a major portion of the drive.
• Plan active stops: Stop every two to three hours at parks, playgrounds, or open fields so kids can run around and burn off extra energy.
• Pre-emptive breaks: Pull over for a toilet break whenever you approach a service station, even if nobody asks yet.

Game time

• 20 Questions: One person thinks of a secret person, place, or thing. Everyone else takes turns asking up to 20 yes-or-no questions to guess the answer.
• I Spy: One player says, “I spy with my little eye something beginning with…” and names a letter of an object seen inside or outside the car. The others guess the object.
• The Animal Name Game: The first player names an animal. The next player names a new animal that starts with the last letter of the previous animal (for example: lion ends in N, so the next player says newt).
• I’m Going on a Picnic: The leader states an item they are bringing on a picnic based on a secret rule (like starting with the letters of the alphabet in order, or items that spell their name). Other players guess items to figure out the rule.
• Rainbow Cars: Players look out the windows and spot cars matching the colours of the rainbow in order—from red and orange through pink.
• The Alphabet Game: Passengers look at roadside signs, billboards, and license plates to find every letter of the alphabet in order from A to Z.
• License Plate Game: Work together or compete to spot license plates from different regions, states, or countries.

Choose the right car for the family

Choosing the right hire car depends on matching vehicle categories to your passenger count, luggage volume, and driving environment. Because rental companies assign vehicle classes rather than exact makes or models, focus on size segments and practical constraints. For our road trip through France, I chose a BMW X5, which was roomy enough for all of us – plus a mountain of luggage. And snacks.

Small and economy cars

• Best for: Solo travellers or couples on city breaks with light luggage.
• Capacity: 1–2 adults, 1 small cabin bag.
• Pros: Highly fuel-efficient and simple to park on narrow streets.
• Cons: Very limited boot space and minimal highway power.

Compact and intermediate (hatchbacks etc)

• Best for: Small families or longer road trips balancing comfort and versatility.
• Capacity: 2–4 adults, 2–3 medium bags.
• Pros: Better highway stability and easier fuel economy than large vehicles.
• Cons: Tight rear seating for three adults on extended journeys.

SUVs & full-size estates

• Best for: Rural touring, mountainous terrain, or bulky gear.
• Capacity: 4–5 adults, robust luggage capacity.
• Pros: Elevated driving position and generous cargo room.
• Cons: Difficult navigation and parking in tight historic European garages.

People carriers & MPVs

• Best for: Large families or groups travelling together.
• Capacity: 6–9 passengers.
• Pros: Maximum seating flexibility and vast interior volume.
• Cons: Height restrictions in underground parking and high fuel consumption; note that using all seats in a 7-seater often eliminates boot space.

*For more information about Sixt, see HERE

When Zoe Kazan learned she was going to adapt “East of Eden,” she knew it meant she’d be destroying a copy of John Steinbeck’s 1952 novel with scribbled notes in different colors, highlights and earmarked edges. So she ordered a used one from Powell’s Books — it has somebody else’s last name written on it, she points out.

“It’s a treasure to me,” she said during a recent video call from London.

Steinbeck’s Cain and Abel-inspired novel follows two families across decades as a way to explore good and evil, legacy, free will and what makes a person. Driving many of the biblical parallels are two sets of siblings — half-brothers, Charles and Adam Trask, and later, Adam’s fraternal twin sons Cal and Aron — each competing for their father’s attention and love. Disrupting their lives is an enigmatic woman named Cathy Ames, who Adam marries and who gives birth to Cal and Aron.

The book-to-screen adaptation has been Kazan’s passion project. And for a tale of familial legacy, she had her own to confront — in 1955, her grandfather Elia Kazan directed a film version that starred James Dean and covered the last third of the book, which focused on Cal and Aron. Zoe Kazan’s interest in the story took shape decades later when, as a teenager, she discovered the book.

She found herself drawn to Cathy, its famous antagonist.

“I felt repelled by her, attracted by her, curious about her. I felt empathy. I felt hared. I felt love. I felt all these things,” Kazan said. “I had never read anybody like her. I just remember, every few pages, wanting to stop and read aloud to someone the things that she was doing or [the things] that someone was saying about her.”

She also felt the pull of the story’s examination of intergenerational cycles and familial legacy.

“It feels a little bit like a chicken-and-egg situation. Which came first: Was I drawn to this book because of its intergenerational aspects or did this book teach me to think about intergenerational aspects?”

Now streaming on Netflix, the seven-part adaptation Kazan shepherded — alongside co-showrunner Jeb Stuart — covers more ground of the multigenerational saga than her grandfather’s film. This new version also centers Cathy.

Here’s what Kazan told us about her vision.