result

When it comes to romantic comedies, it’s not where it’s going — that’s a foregone conclusion — but how it gets there. The way the central couple navigates the twists, turns, roadblocks and unforced errors that entangle their budding relationship is the beating heart of these films. It’s what sets each one apart and delivers its entertainment value. That’s the test: pass or fail.

Which brings us to “Finding Emily,” a sweet new entry from Working Title Films, the producer of such gold-standard rom-coms as “Four Weddings and a Funeral,” “Notting Hill” and “Love Actually.” It may not be destined for a place alongside those favorites, but “Emily” has a wonky charisma all its own that just might satisfy fans of those British charmers.

Or not.

That’s because the film’s journey, which follows Owen, a struggling musician (Spike Fearn) searching for his vanished dream girl with a hand from a cynical psychology student (Angourie Rice), may not feel quite captivating or propulsive enough to carry its pie-in-the-sky story to its inevitable finale. As someone behind me at the end of the film’s screening said, “Well, that plane took a while to land.” I can’t fully disagree.

Fortunately, the movie, inventively directed by first-time feature helmer Alicia MacDonald, is anchored by a pair of winning performances by Fearn (“Alien: Romulus,” “Ella McCay”) and Rice (2024’s “Mean Girls” musical). Their quirky, endearing moments and oddball chemistry often patch over — or at least divert us from — the contrivances and bits of filler in Rachel Hirons’ busy script.

Owen, who works as a sound engineer at the Manchester City University student union, falls headfirst for an enchanting redhead (wearing fairy wings, no less) named Emily (Sadie Soverall), whom he meets at a party. But when he tries to text her the next day, he realizes the number she gave him is missing a digit. Was that on purpose or an accident?

No matter, Owen is obsessed with finding her, even if he doesn’t know her last name and there are 318 Emilys in the campus directory. A false lead misdirects him to one of those women, Emily Raine (Rice), a psych major writing her thesis on the “self-sabotaging madness” of romance. It’s a theory clearly waiting to be blown to smithereens.

Their meet-cute develops into an offbeat friendship when the “wrong Emily” (is she really?) offers to help lovestruck Owen track down the “right Emily” (is she really?), secretly using him as a real-life case study to nail her dissertation. If she succeeds, the Iowa transplant will be able to secure the work visa she needs to stay in her adopted England.

It’s a device that adds to the character’s urgency, if not her likability. Though in true rom-com fashion, this Emily is appealing in other required ways — and is also adorable. The plot kicks into high gear when, again to fuel her thesis, she deviously provides Owen with a contact list of every Emily in the college database and suggests he mass-email them to locate the elusive, fairy-winged Emily.

This goes all kinds of wrong, setting off a viral brouhaha and turning the hapless Owen into an unwitting pariah. The loud-and-proud gang of Emilys brands him a stalker and a “toxic incel” (as well as the jauntier “Email Guy”). The mania is compounded by Owen’s stab at damage control when he appears on a campus podcast hosted by a savvy button-pusher (Nadia Parkes, pitch-perfect), unaware the show is going out live on video. Oh, and none of this results in a response from his desired Emily.

Amusing and brightly satirical as this turn of events is, it begins to feel more like a tempest in a teapot than the sustainable story engine Hirons was aiming for.

The film hits its predictable highs and lows as the mismatched Owen and Emily get closer and romantic complications mount. The search for “Fairy Emily” yields some anticlimactic results.

Still, there’s a kind of hip, comfort food aspect to the entire enterprise that keeps it an easy, if slightly cluttered and overlong watch. (See plane-landing comment.) MacDonald makes superb use of the story’s Manchester backdrop. The city’s vibrant neighborhoods and residents, along with its dynamic music scene, practically form their own character.

The vivid, at times overly kinetic supporting cast includes Prasanna Puwanarajah as Emily’s egotistical psych professor, Timothy Innes as her oblivious crush and Cora Kirk as her supportive, strong-willed flatmate; Jack Riddiford and Isabella Laughland as Owen’s brother and his better half; and Kat Ronney as a take-no-prisoners student body president — also named Emily. Minnie Driver is sadly underused as the school’s detached dean.

So does “Finding Emily” pass the aforementioned rom-com test? Flaws aside, it’s ultimately a pleasant enough way to beat the heat, grab a few laughs, take in a fine soundtrack and find yourself in some good company. But even if your name happens to be Emily, you won’t be fully swept away.

WASHINGTON — As the year’s midterm primaries draw to a close, Tuesday’s results in Florida, Wyoming and Alaska continued to underscore an unpredictable election season marked by unreliable polls, intra-party divides and surprise showings by political outsiders.

In one high-profile surprise, democratic socialist state Rep. Angie Nixon’s easily defeated former Army intelligence officer Alexander Vindman in Florida’s U.S. Senate primary, despite Vindman having raised 16 times as much money as the new Democratic nominee, according to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit that tracks campaign finance.

According to Florida Politics, a digital media outlet, a now-deleted Change Research poll showed Vindman leading Nixon by 10 points. At that time, 41% of Democrats polled were still undecided.

In the race for a Senate seat Democrats hope to flip, former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola outpolled incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, with another Republican Dan Sullivan — this one a retired teacher — also making the cut for the four-person, ranked-choice general election in November.

The results from Tuesday night also show that President Trump’s influence on his party’s base may be dwindling. Three of his endorsed candidates in Wyoming and Florida, both safe red states, were defeated.

Here are four takeaways from Tuesday’s results:

Democratic socialist overcame a huge cash disadvantage

Nixon, who recently joined the Democratic Socialists of America and the Working Families Party, won in a massive upset against Vindman, a moderate selected to run by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Nixon will face Republican incumbent Sen. Ashley Moody in November in a special election to serve the final two years of former Sen. Marco Rubio’s term. Moody was appointed to the seat by Gov. Ron DeSantis when Rubio became secretary of State.

Through a highly coordinated grassroots campaign, Nixon overcame a $15-million fundraising deficit against Vindman in a state where affordability, high property insurance costs and public infrastructure strain were top concerns for many voters.

Although Vindman had the support of the Democratic establishment his lack of profile in Florida — where he has lived for just three years — was a clear detriment, said Susan MacManus, a political analyst at the University of South Florida.

“Angie Nixon was extremely well known in Democratic circles,” MacManus said. “There’s a battle here in Florida: Do you want a Democratic candidate who’s a fighter, or do you want someone more in line with the establishment? … Nixon had no money, but she had a presence.”

But Nixon still faces a steep battle against Moody, MacManus said. According to state data, Florida has 1.5 million more Republicans than Democrats, meaning that Nixon will have to win over most of the independents — and perhaps convert a few Republicans — to have a shot in the general election.

Florida redistricting had a big effect on House races

In May, DeSantis’ office rearranged districts for the second time this decade to secure more safe-Republican seats in the House of Representatives, shortly after the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the Voting Rights Act.

In Florida’s 25th District, a newly drawn coastal area north of Miami, incumbent Rep. Jared Moskowitz defeated democratic socialist and activist Oliver Larkin.

The redistricting increased the number of Jewish voters in the district, which likely hurt Larkin’s candidacy because of his openly anti-Israel stance, said Jonathan Cervas, an assistant professor at the Carnegie Mellon Institute for Strategy and Technology.

Moskowitz will face the former mayor of Boca Raton, Scott Singer, in the general election.

In Florida’s Black-majority 20th District, which was redrawn this year, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz finished ahead of four Black rivals in a crowded field, and will face Brent Andersen, an insurance broker, in November. Black leaders criticized Wasserman Schultz, a white 11-term congresswoman, for running in the district.

“She won against a crowded field, but she didn’t win with 50% of the vote,” said Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center’s Washington office. “The open question remains: Is she the preferred candidate of African Americans? We’ll see in the general.”

Although these two districts lean slightly blue, data suggest that Republicans will be more competitive in these areas than they were in the 2024 congressional races, Cervas said. He added that this shows Florida’s redistricting efforts were mostly a success, likely adding at least one or two seats in the general election.

Alaska was more competitive than Democrats thought

Some Democratic Party leaders had initially ranked Alaska behind other states with the potential to flip a Senate seat. But they likely will make the Alaska race a higher priority after a strong showing Tuesday by former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola, who topped the field in the primary against incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan. It has been 11 years since Alaska last had a Democratic senator.

According to the New York Times, the Alaska Survey Research poll shows Peltola with a two-point lead heading to the general election.

Peltola has run as a centrist Democrat, attacking the Trump administration’s cuts to the federal workforce and lack of resource development in Alaska, which is likely to have wide appeal in a state that Trump won in 2016, 2020 and 2024, but that has suffered in recent months from rising costs and job losses.

Three Trump endorsements fell short

Trump-endorsed incumbent Rep. Cory Mills — the subject of a House Committee Ethics probe stemming from accusations of assault by two women — lost his primary race in Florida’s 7th District to former television reporter Ryan Elijah, making him the 10th Trump-backed candidate to lose in a primary this year.

After the results were known, the president wrote in a Truth Social post: “I told Congressman Cory Mills of Florida, a friend of mine, to get out of the Race, but he wouldn’t listen. He thought he could win, so who can blame him?”

Trump had picked Catalina Lauf to replace Republican Rep. Byron Donalds, only to see her lose to Jim Schwartzel, a businessman-turned-politician. Donalds is the Republican nominee for governor, where he will face Democrat David Jolly, a former Republican House member.

Trump’s pick for Wyoming governor, Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan Degenfelder, was defeated handily by Republican state Sen. Eric Barlow.

When Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass amplified the results last week of a favorable political poll that turned out to be fake, she was inadvertently following in the footsteps of conservative Detroit singer Kid Rock.

In 2017, as Rock — real name Robert Ritchie — publicly contemplated a run for U.S. Senate is his home state of Michigan, he posted on social media the results of a poll conducted by a firm calling itself Delphi Analytica that showed him leading Democratic incumbent Debbie Stabenow.

But those results were bogus. The people behind Delphi Analytica took down their website and refused to be identified, telling a local reporter: “Thanks again and go kid rock.”

Little is known about who was responsible for a poll supposedly conducted by an outfit calling itself Median Strategies showing Bass with a wide lead in the L.A. mayoral race over Councilmember Nithya Raman.

The group told The Times on Monday that its results were also fake.

But the episode has revived questions about whether political polling can be trusted, particularly in light of several recent high-profile primary races in which the polls seemed to have gotten the results wrong.

In the Michigan Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, a number of preelection polls showed progressive Abdul El-Sayed holding a commanding, double-digit lead over Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.), but on election night, El-Sayed eked out a one-point victory.

In Wisconsin, numerous polls showed progressive state Rep. Francesca Hong leading Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley in the Democratic primary for governor. Crowley narrowly defeated Hong in the primary.

Median Strategies — the entity behind the fake Los Angeles poll — claimed on social media that it had also conducted polling in the Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial race and that it had also gotten it wrong about Hong.

Polling in primary elections can be particularly difficult, because it can be hard to know who will actually show up on election day, said Christian Grose, a USC political science professor. Both Michigan and Wisconsin also hold open primaries, meaning that any voter can cast a ballot in a race, regardless of party affiliation, making it harder for pollsters to predict exactly who will cast a ballot on election day.

Experts say fake polls are exceedingly rare but that these recent election results highlight the differences between high- and low-quality polls and how much easier it has become to conduct less rigorous polling.

“The barriers to entry are a lot lower now than they were 20 to 30 years ago,” said Charles Franklin, a professor of law and public policy at Marquette Law School who conducts the Marquette Law School Poll.

Put simply, a poll is a series of questions asked of a sample of people in a given locality, state or country whose opinions are supposed to represent the attitudes of everyone in the coverage area of the poll. Pollsters typically weigh the responses they receive — sometimes amplifying the voices of respondents from a particular ethnic group, for example — to ensure that the results are representative of the population they are surveying.

For decades, survey respondents were typically contacted by phone.

That work was expensive, Franklin said.

“You needed a call center, you needed to hire interviewers and you needed some sort of data processing,” he said.

But now as modes of communication have changed — many people have ditched landlines and are hesitant to answer calls from unknown numbers on their cellphone — polling operations have adopted a wide variety of methods to try to contact survey respondents, including e-mail, text-messages and online surveys, which sometimes offer incentives to encourage participation.

Online polls can be conducted much more cheaply than polling using other modes of communication, but the quality can also vary widely.

Historically, most polls randomly contacted survey respondents, backed by research showing that a random sample of the population — adjusted appropriately by demographics and other factors — would give a more accurate picture of the public’s attitude on a particular question.

But not all online polling relies on a randomly selected group of respondents, and when respondents are offered an incentive — such as cash — to complete an online survey, it can lead to inaccurate results.

The Pew Research Center released a report in 2024 showing that these so-called opt-in surveys did a particularly bad job of capturing the attitudes of adults under 30 and Latino adults. Researchers at Pew, for example, asked respondents in one survey if they were licensed to operate a type of nuclear submarine. In the survey, 12% of respondents under 30 said yes. In reality, the share of people under 30 holding such a license “rounds to zero,” the report said.

While even legitimate pollsters can get election results wrong — a poll represents public opinion at the time it was taken, and that can change — experts say there are a few key things to look out for when vetting the quality of a survey.

“The more transparent a poll is — in terms of its data and methods — the more you should believe it,” said Grose, who also conducts the California Elections and Policy Poll.

Franklin said that pollsters with a track record are typically more trustworthy, as their future business and reputation relies on their accuracy.

He said that polling conducted by upstart organizations is not necessarily bad, but that the people conducting it don’t necessarily have the training or expertise of more established outfits.

Inaccurate polling can misinform voters and lead to election night surprises, but it can also have a corrosive effect on elections themselves.

“Polling can drive outcomes,” Grose said. “Favorable polls lead to more fundraising. There’s a bandwagon effect.”

Los Angeles County election officials are examining steps ahead of the November midterms to respond to the rising popularity of election trading via prediction markets, including a possible ban on wagering for county election workers.

The discussions follow a fracas during the June ballot count, when a handful of influencers suggested fraud could be occurring in L.A.’s mayoral primary because the results began diverging from the market’s prediction.

That incident, the most prominent interaction of prediction markets and a U.S. election to date, revealed a new dynamic in the battle for public trust in elections. Now, election administrators around the country are considering the possible implications of the markets’ forecasts, including whether they have the power to affect voter confidence in election results.

“We’re … trying to find our way in this,” L.A. County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan said in an interview. “It’s opened up a lot of questions that we’re grappling with.”

Three months before the midterms, with much of the American public concerned about democracy and trust in elections dropping, officials are paying attention to anything that could create further uncertainty around how elections are run.

The midterm contests are high stakes for both parties, which are battling for control of Congress amid a difficult economy, the war in Iran and low approval ratings for President Trump. And many Americans are wagering on what might happen — users have traded nearly $200 million on the midterm elections so far, a July analysis by NBC News found.

Prediction market platforms and their proponents say trading contracts on the markets is not the same as betting, likening it instead to trading on the stock market. Critics say it amounts to gambling, regardless of how the markets are set up.

The timeline for election administrators to think through the issue before November is tight, and it poses challenges for offices that already are stretched thin preparing for other possible election-day scenarios. What happened during the L.A. mayoral primary, however, has prompted discussions around the country, said Carolina Lopez, executive director of the Partnership for Large Election Jurisdictions, or PLEJ, a nonpartisan organization that represents election administrators.

“The potential effect on confidence [in elections] is significant,” Lopez said.

A spokesperson for Kalshi, one of the leading trading platforms, said the platform bans insider trading and welcomes any policy measures doing the same. The company takes “seriously our responsibility to be a responsible actor in this space,” spokesperson Jacki McGavick said.

Los Angeles could become one of the first major election jurisdictions to implement guidance or policy related to prediction markets. Delaware County, Pa., in suburban Philadelphia, already has taken such a step — adding prediction markets to an oath poll workers already were required to sign affirming that they have not wagered on the election.

Last month, Maryland’s top election official asked the state prosecutor to open an investigation into the legality of prediction markets. In late July, Wisconsin’s election administrator warned voters that it is illegal under state law to both vote in and bet on an election. That drew swift attacks from executives at Kalshi, one of whom claimed the state would “disenfranchise voters who use Kalshi.”

In L.A. County, Logan said his office is in the research stage for an insider-trading policy for staff. His office also is creating public messaging to deploy in various scenarios and factoring the potential dynamics around prediction markets into security planning.

Any potential for unrest or protests related to people’s monitoring of market forecasts is likely to come in the days following the election, while ballots still are being counted, Logan said.

Elections staff also is preparing FAQ documents about prediction markets and discussing how to talk about the issue with reporters, gaming out different scenarios, he said.

Orange County Registrar of Voters Bob Page said he advised his office’s staff before the primary, and plans to do so again before November, that participating in election markets could create a conflict of interest prohibited by county code. Staff betting could been seen by the public “as improper,” Page said he told his staff, “ which would undermine trust in the integrity of the election.”

Thirty-nine percent of likely midterm voters in a recent survey commissioned by PLEJ said their confidence in an election outcome would be reduced if the official result differed from prediction market odds. Three-quarters of those surveyed said they believed prediction markets create confusion around elections.

A majority was unable to correctly identify what prediction market odds represent, according to the survey results, with more than a third believing they showed the current number of votes for each candidate or an official projection from election officials.

The rise of the exchanges, which allow users to stake money on the chance that a given event will happen in the future, has provided a way to create predictions that some experts say are more accurate than political polling.

Leaders of the platforms have suggested they can help combat election misinformation by providing predictive insights and help decision-makers understand public sentiment. Kalshi launched what it termed a “midterms hub” late last month, which it said would contain not only market forecasts but also news, polling and fundraising data.

“Election markets have been my dream since the start of Kalshi,” Luana Lopes Lara, a co-founder of the platform, said on social media upon the hub launch. “The holy grail of prediction markets, they shed light on some of the most consequential, decentralized and human processes in the world, where good data is crucial and hard to find.”

She added: “It’s changed the way I interacted with the electoral process and made me smarter — I hope it does the same to you.”

McGavick, the spokesperson, said about 75% of Kalshi visitors view the odds without buying anything in order to understand what “the crowd forecasts.”

“Kalshi has become a leading indicator of where elections are headed,” she said.

As users trade contracts — each one representing a bet for or against a given event, such as a certain candidate winning an election — the market generates odds. On Tuesday, for instance, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass had a 61% chance of winning in November on Kalshi, while City Council member Nithya Raman had a 39% chance.

Either Bass or Raman could win, but if the public’s understanding of the markets is murky, experts say, voters may confuse their speculation for certainty.

In June, the market odds appeared to drive some public belief about what the results would be, Logan told reporters at a briefing last month — in this case, that Republican Spencer Pratt would be one of the top-two vote-getters, which ultimately did not happen.

“That put us in a position as election officials of having to respond to a whole new layer of misinformation,” Logan said. “Not only were we being asked how were the polls wrong … but [people were saying], ‘We saw numbers’ or ‘We saw odds.’”

Experts worry it could become more common for market odds to be cited by people who are dissatisfied with an election result as a new way to attempt to discredit a ballot count, adding a new quiver in the bow of election deniers and potentially confusing the public.

The existence of prediction markets “provides one more source of information” that could be used by bad actors to stir up confusion or distrust in election results, said Mindy Romero, executive director of the California-based nonpartisan Center for Inclusive Democracy.

“People might think … prediction markets are a good thing or a bad thing,” Romero said, “but you can’t deny that it is one more thing that could potentially be manipulated.”

Separately, prediction markets have drawn the attention of lawmakers in Congress for various reasons, including fears of insider trading. Members of both parties have proposed guardrail legislation this year. Several states are locked in legal battles with the federal government over whether they can regulate the markets under state anti-gambling laws.

Last week, as destructive wildfires raged in Washington, Oregon, California and elsewhere, California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla joined with other Democratic senators from western states to urge the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to restrict the markets from offering betting on wildfires. They cited concerns that people could be tempted to influence fires or commit arson in order to “make sure their bets are successful.”

Schiff introduced a bill to prohibit such trading in March. Kalshi has a ban on markets tied directly to death and war. Kalshi and the other leading platform, Polymarket, also regularly report suspected insider trading to the federal government for investigation. Last month, federal investigators alleged that Trump’s teleprompter operator had used inside knowledge to win more than $100,000 after Kalshi spotted his activity.

In Los Angeles, Logan said his office may issue guidance by November, but the task will extend beyond the next election day.

“What we want to do is defend against anything that would devalue the elections process,” Logan said. “We don’t want voters to be discouraged from participating.”

The day after the state’s Senate primary, I was at a gym in Michigan when I overheard a brief exchange about the results of the close race.

The small group of voters were all elderly and white. Most of them expressed disappointment that Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens lost. Most of them questioned victor Abdul El-Sayed’s ability to win in November against a Republican. One of them called El-Sayed — a born and raised Michigander who attended the University of Michigan and ran the Department of Health, Human and Veteran Services for the largest county in the state — “a radical.”

For a few seconds, the group went quiet.

The only sound heard was the echo from the dog whistle that was just blown.

The prejudicial rot at the heart of that comment is just one of the challenges facing El-Sayed in November, however it is the most significant.

MAGA Republicans may complain about identity politics, but they aren’t afraid to use them. During the primary campaign, both Republican gubernatorial candidates in the state continuously ran ads characterizing immigrants as violent criminals. That will likely continue. El-Sayed’s opponent, Mike Rogers, is endorsed by President Trump, who has been making racially offensive statements for more than half a century.

That’s documented as far back as the 1973 lawsuit the Nixon administration filed against him and his family for racial discrimination, and it’s documented as recently as the octogenarian’s latest social posts about people from Somalia and Haiti. Not to be outdone by his boss, Vice President JD Vance started his fearmongering during a supposed anti-fraud event this week. The 2028 presidential hopeful quipped “God forbid, you’re going to have President El-Sayed in three years” — a thought I had not considered until he said it.

Many of us hadn’t given El-Sayed much consideration at all until recent months. When Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) announced he was not seeking reelection in January 2025, El-Sayed was not considered a strong contender to replace him. Many establishment Democrats believed former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who quietly moved to Michigan after running for the White House in 2020, or Stevens, were the party’s best shot of holding on to the seat and helping Michigan do its part to flip the Senate.

They discounted El-Sayed’s chances in large part because they misread the moment we are in. The days of performative campaign endorsements, huge war chests and strongly worded posts started fading noticeably in 2016 — after Jeb Bush dropped out of the race early despite having north of $100 million at his disposal. Yet over the last decade, establishment Democrats have continued to replay the same playbook with mixed results. And in totality, Tuesday’s primaries in Michigan, Kansas, Missouri, Virginia and Washington are a mixed bag with no clear message beyond whatever you read into these facts: El-Sayed is a Muslim who has criticized the government of Israel, and yet he won a Democratic primary. Even so, the chatter before and after the vote is more revealing than the primary outcome. (On Tuesday, roughly 2 out of 10 eligible voters in the state cast a ballot in Michigan. Sweeping interpretations of El-Sayed’s narrow victory are rather bold when 80% of voters didn’t participate.)

Questions about his electability have little to do with his résumé — the Rhodes scholar led Columbia University’s research on global population health — and more to do with him being the son of Egyptian immigrants who prays five times a day. The president takes photos holding an upside-down Bible and has a 22-foot gold statue of himself, but it is El-Sayed’s faith that should worry good Christian folks?

Over the weeks leading to Tuesday, we saw entire interviews with El-Sayed — an epidemiologist — that dwelled solely on his thoughts about Israel, while voters in his state were dealing with a cyclosporiasis outbreak. He has plenty to say on other topics. Getting “money out of politics” is not only central to his campaign messaging, but also is an actual grassroots ballot initiative in Michigan. Yet the talk about El-Sayed mostly orbits around one foreign policy topic.

To be clear: The issue for establishment Democrats isn’t that something like “Medicare for all” is too radical of an idea to champion. Both President Obama and President Clinton campaigned heavily on healthcare, and history views them both as centrist. No, the concern is how easy it is for Trump, Rogers and other Republicans to “other” El-Sayed, so when he does question our spending priorities it can be painted as un-American or antisemitic. As a result, election analysis is indirectly being dictated by his identity, all but ignoring he’s one of the top healthcare experts in a state still reeling from a foodborne illness.

What El-Sayed and his supporters are questioning isn’t Israel’s right to exist. They’re wondering why the United States, the richest of all the developed democracies, is still the only one that does not guarantee healthcare to its citizens? The list of nations that do guarantee access includes Israel, which receives billions in U.S. aid. For a doctor who has written a book on healthcare access and co-authored about 100 scholarly articles on health, that line of questioning doesn’t seem radical at all.

It is who is doing the asking that unnerves some.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Paramount Skydance must wait until March to defend its proposed $111-billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery — a blockbuster deal that would reshape Hollywood by uniting two storied studios.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín scheduled a March 2 trial to decide the merits of an antitrust challenge brought by 12 state attorneys general, led by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta. The states are teaming up to try to derail Paramount’s merger, and have snared preliminary victories — prompting a concession from Paramount to put the merger on hold until after the trial.

Paramount had asked for a Nov. 4 trial date.

Tech scion David Ellison wants to add HBO, CNN, HGTV, Food Network and the Warner Bros. studio to his smaller stable of Paramount properties. The trial will span 12 days and conclude March 19, the judge wrote in her order.

“We will continue to vigorously defend the transaction and remain committed to closing as soon as possible so its benefits for the creative community and consumers can be realized,” Paramount said in a statement.

The Writers Guild of America has separately sued to block the merger.

Friday marks the one-year anniversary of Ellison’s purchase of Paramount.

“Looking back on the past twelve months, I’m incredibly proud of how our team has turned those priorities into measurable progress, reflecting their talent, hard work, and dedication,” Ellison wrote in a Tuesday letter to shareholders as the company released its second-quarter earnings.

Results were mixed.

Revenue inched up 1% to $6.91 billion compared to the year-ago period, when Paramount was controlled by media heiress Shari Redstone.

The company’s studios and streaming divisions turned in stronger performances but costs, including $153 million in merger-related expenses, weighed on the corporate entity.

Profit declined 28% to $41 million, or 4 cents a share, compared to $57 million in the year-earlier period.

Paramount said it now has 81.6 million streaming customers, an increase of 2 million from the first quarter.

Streaming operations produced $2.5 billion in revenue, a 9% boost from the same quarter a year ago. Paramount+, which boasts the Taylor Sheridan-produced “Landman” and “Dutton Ranch,” also televised President Trump’s birthday extravaganza, the UFC Freedom 250 fights in June from the White House lawn.

Coverage of the FIFA World Cup in some Latin American countries assisted the streaming results. (Fox and Telemundo broadcast the highly rated soccer matches in the U.S.)

Studios revenue increased 16% to $1.3 billion, boosted by Paramount’s television studios and its licensing deals as well as the ability to consolidate revenue from Skydance properties. During the quarter, the Melrose Avenue film studio released “Scary Movie,” which brought in $231 million in global ticket sales, surpassing expectations.

Television media, which includes the CBS network, TV stations and the company’s struggling cable channels, declined 9% to $3.1 billion. Advertising revenue fell 14% and the company felt the loss of South American television operations, Telefe and Chilevision, which it divested after the Ellison takeover.

The company revenue during the current quarter should come in around $7 billion. It also released its full-year guidance, saying it expects $30 billion in revenue, up 4% over 2025.

Paramount released the earnings after markets closed Tuesday. During regular trading, shares gained nearly 2% to close at $8.38.

Verstappen was unhappy with his car for much of the race, but Red Bull pulled a masterstroke when they fitted soft tyres to his car at his second pit stop.

The aim was to challenge Hamilton in the later laps after the seven-time champion made an early second stop with 40 laps still to go.

It was heading towards a tense climax when Piastri’s retirement brought out the VSC.

That prompted a late round of pit stops, Ferrari bringing in both their drivers and putting them behind Verstappen.

Hamilton came out of the pits and passed Antonelli into the first corner, after the Italian stayed out under the VSC, but had to give the place back after the restart because the Mercedes driver had just passed the key line on the track in front.

Antonelli and Hamilton started chasing back towards Verstappen, but they were delayed while lapping Audi’s Gabriel Bortoleto.

That looked as if it might be decisive, but in the end Verstappen was comfortably able to keep Antonelli at bay, crossing the line 3.6 seconds ahead.

Another key point in Verstappen’s race had been his re-passing of Hamilton after the Ferrari had got briefly ahead following the first pit stops.

That gave him clear air and enabled the Dutchman to consolidate his race position in third place behind the McLarens, laying the foundations for Red Bull’s late strategy call.

Hamilton will leave Hungary ruing another penalty – the one for speeding in the pit lane was his second in two days after behind penalised for blocking Piastri in qualifying, and follows two other penalties at the previous two races in Belgium and Britain.

Behind him, Red Bull’s Isack Hadjar was sixth, ahead of Russell, who dropped to 21st place on the first lap after his anti-stall kicked in at the start, and fought back strongly.

At Aston Martin, Lance Stroll finished in 13th, ahead of team-mate Fernando Alonso, their positions dictated to a degree by luck under the VSC and their divergent strategies.

But the key point was that Alonso, in particular, was able to fight with other cars for the first time, and he ran a long first stint on the soft tyres, before switching to the mediums, which was a bold strategy.

The long-awaited upgrade to their car, which was new apart from the front suspension, engine and gearbox, has reduced their lap times by about two seconds.

A Honda engine upgrade is due for the Dutch Grand Prix, the next race in four weeks’ time after the summer break, which the team hope will elevate them further and potentially bring the possibility of the occasional points finish into the picture.

Democrat Xavier Becerra holds a commanding lead in the California governor’s race in a new poll, which also shows broad voter support for a ballot proposition to reform the state’s landmark environmental law to speed up housing and infrastructure.

The survey by the Public Policy Institute of California, released Wednesday night, focused primarily on questions related to climate change and environmental policies.

The results show Californians have a strong distaste for building data centers for artificial intelligence technology, and largely favor the state’s efforts to protect the environment and cut emissions — with some exceptions.

The survey showed Becerra with a big lead over Republican Steve Hilton in the race to replace term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom. Becerra, a longtime Democratic officeholder, received support from 61% of likely voters, compared with 36% for Hilton, a populist conservative who once advised a British prime minister.

Gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton speaks at the National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference in L.A. on Wednesday.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

The results are not surprising in a state where Democratic voters significantly outnumber Republicans. The GOP has not won a statewide election since 2008.

Just 2% of likely voters said they were unsure which candidate to support in the November election. The poll results skewed heavily partisan, with more than 9 in 10 Democratic and Republican voters picking their party’s respective candidate. Most independent voters leaned toward Becerra, 60%, over Hilton, 34%.

The results are similar to data from a poll conducted just before the June 2 primary election that asked voters to pick between the two candidates. In that survey, 52% said they supported Becerra and 31% were for Hilton.

In a statement Wednesday, Hilton characterized the race as “wide open,” contending that Becerra’s support was weaker than the poll’s headline figures would indicate.

“Instead of a 36-year career politician, we need a positive, energetic problem-solver with business experience and plans to make our state ‘Califordable’ — that’s me,” Hilton said.

Becerra spokesman Jonathan Underland said in a statement that “Californians got to know Xavier Becerra during the primary, and they’re ready to make him their next governor. We’re keeping our eyes on the prize — hitting the trail every day ’til November to turn that support into votes.”

Support for CEQA reform

A ballot measure aimed at reforming the California Environmental Quality Act to speed up construction notched a strong showing in the poll.

Nearly three-quarters of likely voters, including majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents, said that they would vote for Proposition 45. The measure would shorten windows for environmental review, public comment and legal challenges for certain housing, transportation, water infrastructure and other projects.

“At this early stage in the campaign, California voters are feeling more aligned with Democratic candidates on the environment, and it shows in the polling,” said PPIC survey director Mark Baldassare. “But strong support for Proposition 45 reveals their desire to balance environmental priorities with housing and infrastructure needs.”

Strong data center opposition

The poll found large majorities of Californians do not want new data centers to support the AI boom built in their area; 44% of adults say they “strongly oppose” such projects, and 29% “somewhat oppose” them.

The majority opposition holds across political parties, geographic regions, gender, race and income. It’s especially pronounced in the Inland Empire, where plans for a 950,000-square-foot data center came to a halt after fierce resident pushback. Three-quarters of people surveyed in that region said they oppose building new data centers.

“Every day, we are hearing about how local communities across the nation are responding to plans for data centers,” Baldassare said. “Californians have weighed in and they share this growing concern.”

Support for environmental policies — except if they cost more

The poll also shows strong, if somewhat qualified, support for California’s efforts to reduce climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions and protect the environment.

Three-quarters of adults said policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have been a good thing overall, and 65% said they support California leaders’ efforts to make their own environmental policies separate from the federal government.

While most respondents — 62% — said they favor a law requiring 100% of the state’s electricity to come from renewable energy sources within the next two decades, just 38% said they were willing to pay more for electricity sourced from renewables.

“With energy prices spiking and affordability a growing concern, Californians are just not willing to pay more for renewable energy,” Baldassare said. A near-unanimous majority, 96%, said the cost of energy — including gasoline, natural gas and electricity — is a problem.

Newsom’s move to ban the sale of new gas-powered vehicles in the state by 2035 also appears to have fallen out of favor. Two-thirds of Californians oppose the policy, a significant slip in approval from 2021, when a PPIC survey showed 49% supported the move.

Still, majorities of likely voters — 53% and 51%, respectively — said they approve of Newsom’s and the state Legislature’s handling of environmental issues.

At 28%, President Trump’s approval rating on the environment was much lower. In his second term, Trump has moved to slash environmental regulations, including easing pollution regulations on coal-fired power plants and pushing for oil drilling off California’s coast.

“Given this ratings gap, it’s not surprising that Californians want to see the state take the lead on climate change policy,” Baldassare said.

The survey polled 1,578 California adults, 1,003 of whom were likely voters, in English and Spanish from June 29 to July 6 and had a margin of error of 3.8 percentage points in either direction.

MAFS UK bride Amy Kenyon looked bloodied, bandaged and bruised after her painful face surgery as she showed off the result of her operation in Turkey.

The TV personality had an endoscopic brow lift which elevates eyebrows and smooths out forehead lines.

Amy, who was on MAFS in 2024, has been documenting the whole process by filming herself both before and after the surgery.

On Day 2 of her recovery, Amy took to TikTok and exclaimed: “OMG, I’ve woke up this morning and I literally can’t go for breakfast looking like this. What am I gonna do guys?”

In the video, Amy jokingly tried on various disguises as she tried to limit how bad she looked.

Then with her hoodie and dark sunglasses hiding some of her face, she made her way down to breakfast.

MAFS HELL

I was sexually harassed on MAFS but what happened off camera was worse, says star

SEX FACTOR

I ended my year of celibacy – how I guarantee red hot sex, says Diana Vickers

“I can’t believe I’m going for breakfast like this, this is absolute hell,” she exclaimed in the lift.

Minutes later she appeared back in her room and explained that she had bottled out of going for breakfast because it was so busy.

“I just said to the lady can I get some food and leave and she said no problem so I got a slice of cheese, 3 walnuts and an apricot.”

Fans flocked to comment and one said: “What did you get done?”

“Endoscopic brow lift and orbital brow shave,” replied Amy.

Another wrote: “Don’t know why some people stare init they can see you’ve had surgery,hope your ok.”

A third said: “I would defo stay in the room.”

While a fourth added: “Got this girly. It will all be worth it.”

Amy’s surgery comes after she recently underwent a hair transplant.

The star spent £5000 on getting 1,300 scalp grafts to fix her hairline, admitting at the time that she was left “traumatised” straight after surgery as she compared herself to ‘Megamind’.

Amy – who was working in sales when she applied for MAFS – was partnered with Luke Debono in 2024.

But within minutes, the 29-year-old knew she was embarking on anything but a fairytale romance.

What followed, said Amy, was weeks of being sexually degraded on camera, and she revealed to The Sun what went on when shooting ended for the day.

Leclerc now looked locked in for victory, but there was great doubt over second place.

Hamilton, who earlier had a five-second penalty for moving before the lights went out at the start, was 20 seconds back from his team-mate, but Verstappen was closing in and Russell was going with the Dutchman, having dropped back with a pit stop on lap 34 forced by a slow puncture.

But on lap 48, Verstappen spun off at Stowe. Red Bull team principal Laurent Mekies said the rear wing did not close properly, meaning Verstappen had less downforce as he turned in, causing his loss of control.

Verstappen’s off brought out the safety car, and initially it looked as if there would be a short blast to the finish with the Ferrari drivers contesting victory on fresh tyres.

But Russell did not pit, so he would have taken any restart between them, which would have delayed Hamilton’s charge, even by a few seconds.

But Verstappen had crashed with only four laps to go, and there was doubt about whether the incident would be cleared in time.

As the cars came around to approach the start of the final lap, the timing screen initially said the safety car would pull in, but a few seconds later that message was replaced by another saying it would stay out.

The full post-race FIA statement said: “The safety-car period regulation states that one lap must be completed following the unlapping procedure.

“This process was followed by race operations. The ‘safety car in this lap’ message was displayed erroneously due to a software error.”

The safety-car finish guaranteed Leclerc’s first win since the 2024 US Grand Prix in Austin.

Russell’s podium was his first at his home race and he said: “Really pleased to be standing here, even though it was a very lucky race. I had the puncture but I was lucky to get the safety car at the end.”

Hamilton said: “I just didn’t have it today. I jumped the start, got a five-second penalty but Charles had the pace on me today. I struggled with the balance of the car. I gave it everything and I am grateful to be up here.”

Lando Norris took fourth for McLaren after a solid but quiet race as the world champions wait for upgrades due at the Hungarian Grand Prix this month.

Red Bull’s Isack Hadjar was fifth, followed by the Racing Bulls of Liam Lawson and 18-year-old British rookie Arvid Lindblad.

Norris’ team-mate Oscar Piastri dropped to the back after being involved in a first-lap incident and recovered to 11th, behind the Audi of Gabriel Bortoleto and Alpine’s Franco Colapinto and Pierre Gasly.

GUADALAJARA, Mexico — Spain, ranked second in the FIFA rankings and the favorite to win the World Cup, did not play its best game, but did enough late Friday to defeat Uruguay 1-0 and eliminate the South American team in one of the most anticipated matches of the first round.

Spain finished first in Group H, while first-time participant Cape Verde advanced in second place with just three points, the result of three draws. Uruguay was eliminated from the tournament with only two points, following two draws and one loss.

For much of the match on Friday, Spain lacked better offensive coordination ahead of facing more dangerous opponents in the upcoming do-or-die rounds.

Alex Baena scored a goal in the 42nd minute by connecting with the ball after a cross from the right. The ball slipped past goalkeeper Fernando Muslera, who at first seemed to have no trouble blocking the shot, but the ball found the back of the net, making all the difference on Friday night in Guadalajara in front of 45,065 fans — most of whom were rooting for Spain. Muslera did not return for the second half and was replaced by Sergio Rochet.

“We have to celebrate because, honestly, it’s hard to finish first in a group like this,” said Baena, a midfielder for Atlético Madrid.

“It was a physically demanding match — extremely intense — and we rose to the occasion,” said Spain coach Luis de la Fuente, who emphasized that winning the World Cup requires winning tough matches against tough teams like Uruguay.

“I’m proud of this team because they want to keep growing. I have complete faith in this team. We’re where we are, and that’s exactly where we wanted to be,” added De la Fuente, who noted that the team needed to improve its fluidity of play.

Uruguay failed to beat Saudi Arabia or Cape Verde — two teams that, on paper, seemed inferior at the start of the tournament. Coach Marcelo Bielsa’s team couldn’t find its rhythm or play at its best.

“I wasn’t able to bring out the full potential of Uruguay’s players,” Bielsa said, visibly shaken by his failure with the Uruguayan national team. “What I’m leaving behind for Uruguayan soccer is nothing, because any contribution a coach might make to the soccer of a country where he worked for three years never takes root if results aren’t achieved.”

At the end of the match, Uruguay’s Agustín Canobbio was sent off after committing a hard foul on Spanish defender Pau Cubarsí in the 95th minute, prompting several Uruguayan players to protest the decision by U.S. referee Ismail Elfath.

For Bielsa and Uruguay, this marks the end of an era in which many believe the Argentine coach lost control of the locker room and his relationship with the media became strained because of his eccentric and explosive personality, but, above all, a lack of wins.

Cape Verde will face Argentina in the round of 32 on Friday in Miami. Spain will face the second-place finisher in Group J, which will be determined late Saturday by the match between Algeria and Austria. The game will be played at SoFi Stadium.

The match was the fourth and final World Cup game played in Guadalajara. Before the game began, a minute of silence was observed in memory of the victims of the earthquakes in Venezuela. So far, Venezuelan authorities have reported that more than 900 people have died and that thousands are missing.

Los Angeles property owners voted against an increase in an assessment for maintaining streetlights that would have collected an additional $80 million a year, as the city faces a backlog of broken streetlights due to stagnant funding and a rise in vandalism.

The assessment has not changed since 1996. Property owners had until June 2 to submit their votes, which were weighted by the amount of their parcel’s proposed assessment. According to results released Thursday, nearly 80% of the weighted vote went against raising the assessment, which currently generates about $45 million a year.

For the average single-family home, which make up the majority of parcels, the current payment is $58 annually, or about $5 a month, according to Miguel Sangalang, executive director and general manager of the Bureau of Street Lighting. The increase would have brought the average annual bill to $117, or about $10 a month.

The proposed increase would have brought the total amount collected by the assessment to $125 million a year.

In a joint statement Thursday, Mayor Karen Bass, Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson and City Councilmembers Eunisses Hernandez and Katy Yaroslavsky said that despite the result, the “critical work will continue” to address the broken streetlights that have plunged neighborhoods into darkness across the city.

“Despite this outcome, the City remains committed to improving streetlight reliability, repairing outages faster, and building a sustainable funding path for streetlight operations and maintenance,” the group statement said. “Every Angeleno deserves to feel safe walking their dogs, returning home from work, and parking their cars at night, and the City is committed to delivering the reliable street lighting that makes that a reality.”

The Bureau of Street Lighting owns and operates nearly 225,000 streetlights across the city, which have historically been covered by the assessment. The average repair time for a streetlight was one year, bureau officials said in February.

Without more revenue from the assessment, city officials have been looking for alternative funding. The City Council has said it will finance $65 million for solar-powered streetlights.

Bass recently announced an initiative to repair and replace 60,000 streetlights over the next two years, and several council members have turned to their district’s discretionary funding to fix broken streetlights in their districts.

Hernandez, who chairs the council’s Public Works Committee, said in a statement that the result doesn’t change the fact that the city is trying to maintain a 21st century lighting system with an outdated funding model.

“If this assessment isn’t the path forward, then it’s our responsibility to build one through better leveraging City assets like light poles, exploring new revenue opportunities, and pursuing reforms to outdated state laws like Proposition 218 that make it extraordinarily difficult for cities as large as Los Angeles to maintain basic public infrastructure,” she said.

Broken streetlights have emerged as an issue in the mayoral election, with Councilmember Nithya Raman citing broken lights as an example of how the city “can’t seem to manage the basics.” Raman is facing Bass in a Nov. 2 runoff.

In February, city council members announced a plan to replace streetlights with solar-powered versions, in an attempt to deter copper wire theft. About 1 in 10 streetlights are out of service because of disrepair or copper wire theft, according to the city.

A well-known example is the Sixth Street Bridge, where thieves stole seven miles’ worth of wire.

WASHINGTON — California’s two Democratic senators on Thursday criticized the Trump administration after it requested $87.6 billion from Congress to address some of the nation’s most “urgent needs” but omitted funding for victims of last year’s Los Angeles wildfires.

“Donald Trump’s desire to punish Los Angeles and the state of California for not voting for him, means once again that thousands of Angelinos are left watching this administration fight for anything but them, their businesses, and their communities,” Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff said in a joint statement.

“These fires did not discriminate based on party or political preference. Neither should this administration,” they added.

The omission is the latest strain in a yearlong standoff between California leaders and the Trump administration over federal disaster aid, and it comes after Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger met with President Trump at the Oval Office in April to request the funding.

At the meeting, Trump signaled his commitment to working with local officials to help with disaster recovery efforts. The officials asked for $16 billion that would be split between the city and county. The money would consist primarily of disbursements from the Federal Emergency Management Agency flagged for communities hit by the fires, part of a $33.9-billion wildfire relief funding request made by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Two months later, those talks have yet to yield results sought by local leaders.

The budget request, submitted by the Office of Management and Budget on Wednesday, mostly seeks funding for the Pentagon to address costs related to the Iran war. It also includes $11.1 billion in economic assistance for American farmers, $1.4 billion to address the Ebola virus outbreak in Central Africa, $500 million to support “ongoing efforts to complete restorations and construction projects” across the nation’s capital and $1 billion to boost the pensions of workers at General Motors that were cut as a result of the automaker’s bankruptcy.

“I urge the Congress to take action on these important and urgent requests as soon as possible,” White House budget director Russell Vought wrote in a letter addressed to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).

Vought said the administration was open to discussing “additional relief for other urgent matters.” The White House did not immediately respond when asked why the budget request did not mention the Eaton and Palisades disaster relief funds.

State leaders, including Newsom, have repeatedly accused the Trump administration of stonewalling billions in wildfire aid. The governor visited Washington in December to meet with lawmakers, including three who serve on the Senate and House appropriations committees, to push for the funding.

The governor also attempted to meet with FEMA about the matter, but said his request was denied. Newsom, a political foe of Trump’s, would not say whether he had attempted to meet with Trump to talk about the recovery efforts.

Russell’s case was complicated because his fall down the order was precipitated by a cascading series of events.

He was given the penalty for pit-lane speeding – by just 0.1km/h – before a safety-car period caused by a crash for Aston Martin’s Lance Stroll.

Russell pitted to change tyres under the safety car but in the confusion, failed to serve the penalty.

When the safety car pulled in, Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc crashed, which led to the race being suspended under a red flag.

During the race stoppage, it was announced that Russell had been given a drive-through penalty for not serving the five-second penalty correctly. He pleaded with officials not to make him serve that penalty when the race resumed and to discuss it afterwards, because the number of penalties suggested something was wrong.

They rejected his argument, and when the race restarted, Russell came in again to serve the drive-through penalty, which is what dropped him out of third place.

Under F1’s rules, Mercedes were able to ask only for a review of the five-second penalty, which they did not actually serve, regardless of whether it was incorrectly awarded.

The drive-through penalty was correctly awarded – on the basis he did fail to serve a penalty. Mercedes have looked into the legal complications around this and concluded there is no remedy for that available to them.

The initial right of review request, lodged at last weekend’s Barcelona-Catalunya Grand Prix, was made to buy Mercedes time to analyse the situation, as the FIA rules dictate a limited time period for teams to make right of review requests.

There is then a longer period during which a party can decide whether to continue with them.

A Mercedes spokesperson said: “It was important for us to explore all available options to address the impact of George’s pit-lane speeding penalty on his race result.

“We had a limited time window in which to apply for the right of review during the race weekend in Barcelona, and did so in order to reserve our position in this regard.

”Our subsequent collaborative discussion with FIA and Formula 1 has shown their determination to review the unique circumstances arising from the Monaco Grand Prix and to proactively address the factors that caused them.

“In the face of this clear determination, we have concluded that further pursuit of our right of review application will not serve our team or the sport and thus we have withdrawn our submission.”

Before long, what had been a soporific race turned into a surreal one.

First, Stroll crashed his Aston Martin at the final corner, causing a first safety car.

As the cars prepared to get going again, Leclerc crashed at the same place in the same way even before the race had restarted.

That led to a red flag as officials took a look at the track surface at the crumbling final corner, known as Antony Noghes.

And that meant another restart that Antonelli had to negotiate, this time with the fast-starting Ferrari alongside him.

But again he was perfect and the race surrendered to him.

Hadjar drove an excellent race battling power-unit problems and was helped by a masterstroke from Red Bull in not stopping under the first safety car, which gained him positions on Russell and Piastri.

Racing Bulls had a good day with Arvid Lindblad taking the best result of his rookie season with sixth place behind team-mate Liam Lawson.

Gasly was seventh ahead of the Williams of Alex Albon and Esteban Ocon’s Haas.

And Sergio Perez took 10th for what could be the first point for the new Cadillac team, although he faces an investigation for being incorrectly positioned on the restart after the red flag.

If he is penalised, the final point will mark the first of the season for Aston Martin, for whom Fernando Alonso finished 11th.

And there may be questions as to why so many drivers – more than a quarter of the grid – ended up speeding in the pit lane.

Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman cut deeper into the lead of reality television personality Spencer Pratt on Saturday, as his lead slimmed to just a single percentage point.

Pratt fell to just over 27% of the vote while Raman jumped up to slightly over 26%, according to the results from the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder. Pratt now leads Raman by just 7,494 votes.

“We’ve seen Nithya Raman catching up on every update and the last two in particular she’s accelerated,” said Paul Mitchell, vice president of the bipartisan voter data firm Political Data Inc. “She’s continued to gain at a rate that means she will eventually catch up unless Pratt starts getting some ballots coming in that are either geographically or demographically better for him.”

Democratic consultant Michael Trujillo, who doesn’t represent anyone in the mayoral race, said the results suggest Raman will surpass Pratt as more votes are counted.

“I think it’s over,” Trujillo said. “It appears Nithya will be in the runoff. Pratt doesn’t appear to be growing much more.”

The second-place finisher in the mayoral primary will face Mayor Karen Bass in a Nov. 3 runoff. On election night Tuesday, the Associated Press determined that Bass had secured enough votes to qualify for the runoff.

Pratt has been in second place since then, but Raman has gradually eroded his lead as mail-in ballots have been counted. The updated vote tally released Thursday showed Pratt with 29% of the vote and Raman with 23%.

With Friday’s update, Raman’s share had risen to 25% and Pratt’s shrank to 28%, for a 3 percentage point gap.

In the most recent batch of mail-in ballots counted, Raman received 23,514 votes, while Pratt gained 10,336.

Election analysts expected Raman to gain ground as the mail-in ballots were tallied, reasoning that many left-of-center voters — Raman’s base — held onto their mail-in ballots until the last minute as they waited to choose between Democratic gubernatorial candidates. They also say younger, more progressive voters tend to hold onto their ballots longer generally.

Although the mayor’s race is nonpartisan, Pratt is a Republican in a city that is overwhelmingly dominated by Democratic voters and elected officials.

A poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, which was co-sponsored by The Times, had Pratt running in third place behind Bass and Raman.

The poll of 1,351 likely voters conducted May 19-24 had Bass with 26% support, Raman with 25% support and Pratt with 22% support, with a 3% margin of error.

Los Angeles voters have become accustomed to seeing election results change as late-arriving ballots are tabulated. In the 2022 mayoral primary, real estate developer Rick Caruso led the pack for about a week before Bass pulled ahead.

Pratt was favored in many of the same neighborhoods that voted for Caruso, according to a Times analysis of precinct-level returns provided by the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder on Wednesday, when an estimated 62% of the projected vote had been counted. Raman, by comparison, made inroads in progressive areas dominated by Bass four years ago.

Pratt, whose Pacific Palisades fire home burned in the January 2025 fire, was strong there and on the Westside, as well as in the San Fernando Valley communities of Encino, Woodland Hills, Chatsworth and Sunland-Tujunga.

Raman dominated precincts known for their progressive politics, particularly those with younger people in renter-heavy neighborhoods stretching from Hollywood to Highland Park, including her home base of Silver Lake.

Mail-in ballots with an election day postmark will continue to be accepted by county election officials through Tuesday.