In Los Angeles, everyone knew the Latino vote could define the primary for mayor. According to data from UCLA’s Latino Policy and Politics Institute, Latinos make up more than 40% of L.A.’s electorate. In a fragmented race, with a vulnerable incumbent mayor, a progressive councilmember trying to expand beyond her base, and a media outsider capitalizing on anger toward City Hall, no one could afford to ignore them.
But knowing you need the Latino vote is one thing. Building a strategy to win it is another.
The Los Angeles primary left an important lesson about the Latino vote: one event, one ad, one phrase in Spanish, one coalition announced in a press release, or one viral video is not enough. Language matters when trying to connect with a population in which 65% of Hispanic voters are bilingual and 14% speak only Spanish. But language does not replace the message, and the message is what matters most.
Karen Bass, Nithya Raman, and Spencer Pratt tried to reach Latino voters from very different places. Bass appealed to protection from ICE, experience, and institutional trust. Raman spoke about the high cost of housing and rent, city services, and the defense of immigrants. Pratt leaned into anger toward City Hall, anti-Bass sentiment, and a strategy of AI-generated videos in Spanish that, for the most part, were not produced by his official campaign.
And when you look at preliminary precinct-level results in municipal districts with a high Latino presence, the picture confirms something more interesting than a simple fight for “the Latino vote”: the Latino vote did not move as a monolith.
Everyone wanted the Latino vote. No one built a truly bilingual campaign.
The first thing that stands out is the most basic: none of the three candidates had an official campaign website in Spanish.
There was also no official, sustained digital infrastructure designed to speak to Latinos as an electoral segment. Bass did formally announce a coalition called “Latinos Con Bass,” but that coalition appears to have functioned more as a campaign event, a list of endorsements, and a political signal than as its own communications operation. I did not find an independent website, official social media accounts, or recurring content specifically produced under that brand.
Raman held events aimed at Latino communities and had at least one ad in which she spoke Spanish, but she also did not build her own Latino digital ecosystem. Pratt was the only one with a specifically Latino universe visible online, but that universe, “Latinos Por Pratt” and the “Saca La Bassura” videos, was not official campaign material.
This matters because it reveals a central contradiction: everyone understood Latinos were decisive, but none of the campaigns designed a bilingual operation from the core architecture of their campaign. Spanish appeared as a tactic: in an event, in an ad, in a meme. Not as an integrated strategy.
That does not mean they all did the same thing, or that they all failed in the same way. In fact, the difference between them was less about language and more about message.
Bass: protection, experience, and trust
Bass was the candidate who reached Latino voters with the most credible message.
Not necessarily because she had the best campaign specifically aimed at Latinos, but because her pitch was clear: I have defended immigrants, I stood up to ICE, I know this community, and I am the safest option in the face of chaos.
Her campaign emphasized her stance against ICE and immigration raids, sought support from Latino leaders and organizations, and appeared at events with figures from the Latino Democratic establishment. Her bet was institutional.
That helps explain why Bass led among Latino voters in the polls and why, in preliminary precinct-level results, she appeared strong in several districts with a high Latino presence, including CD9, CD6, and CD14.
The explanation for Bass’s stronger performance with Latino voters, then, is not that she had the best Spanish-language operation. It is that she had a credible message for the average Latino voter in this primary: immigration protection, experience, and incumbency.
Raman: housing, renters, services, and immigration
Raman did not have Bass’s Latino structure or Pratt’s digital noise. Her entry point into the Latino vote was more issue-based: housing, rent, services, homelessness, immigration, and opposition to ICE.
That message made sense for certain Latino sectors in Los Angeles, especially where Latino voters overlap with renters, young people, progressives, and urban communities affected by the housing crisis.
The best example is CD1. In the preliminary results, Raman and Bass were practically tied.
Raman did not win the Latino vote as a bloc. But she does appear to have found an entry point with a type of urban, progressive Latino voter that Bass could not take for granted.
Pratt: anti-Bass anger translated into Spanish
Pratt’s case is the most striking because he generated the most visible “Latino” content online, but not necessarily the strongest Latino strategy.
His message to Latinos was not a robust Latino agenda. It was more of a translation of anti-Bass anger: the city is broken, City Hall failed, Karen Bass is the problem. In Spanish, that became “Karen Bassura” and “Saca La Bassura.”
Pratt’s approach to Latinos did not come through his official campaign. It came through “Latinos Por Pratt,” an initiative not officially affiliated with the campaign that produced interesting viral videos and songs in Spanish, but that did not necessarily connect with Los Angeles Latino voter, a topic for a future article 😉.
But I cannot say Pratt failed to connect with anyone. He did find space, especially in the Valley.
In CD7, a heavily Latino district in the Northeast Valley, Pratt led in the preliminary results. Pratt did not have a citywide wave of Latino support, but he did find a real entry point in a Latino area where an outsider, anti-Bass, anti-City Hall message may have resonated.
He was also competitive in CD6, though Bass beat him there.
The question is whether that was the result of effective Latino outreach or something broader: frustration with the city, dissatisfaction with Bass, a protest vote, and a candidacy that turned discontent into content.
Preliminary data suggests that Pratt had a strategy of anger that found some Latino voters, especially in the Valley.
The Latino vote was not one thing
When preliminary precinct-level results are cross-referenced with municipal districts with a high Latino presence, the pattern is mixed:
- In CD1, Raman and Bass were practically tied, with Pratt far behind.
· In CD6, Bass led, but Pratt was competitive.
· In CD7, Pratt led, with Bass close behind.
· In CD9, Bass dominated.
· In CD14, Bass led, Raman was competitive, and Pratt finished third.
Bass was strongest where her message of protection, experience, and institutional trust could generate confidence. Raman competed better where the Latino conversation intersected with housing, rent, services, and urban progressivism. Pratt found space where anger toward the status quo mattered more than anything else.
The lesson: winning the Latino vote is not easy
The Los Angeles primary should be a case study for any campaign that wants to speak to Latino voters.
Because the most common mistake is assuming that “Latino outreach” means translating campaign materials, using Latin music, holding a cultural event, or saying a phrase in Spanish. The Latino vote is not a uniform audience. In Los Angeles, different Latino communities hear different messages depending on their neighborhood, their generation, and their most immediate concerns.
Bass understood credibility better. Raman understood certain immediate concerns better. Pratt understood virality as a tool to spread messages. But none of them built a robust bilingual campaign from the center of their operation.
That leaves an uncomfortable lesson: even in a city where the Latino vote can decide an election, campaigns still treat Latinos as an additional outreach layer rather than as a priority audience from the beginning.
The question for November will not be whether Bass and Raman will speak to Latinos. They will. The question is: how will they do it?
Elisa Totaro
IG : @Totaro.Elisa
