Why would someone choose Karen Bass over Raman Nithya?
When I see people making comparisons between Bass and Raman, I often see people saying "Raman is just Bass-lite" or some variant on "Theyre almost the same"
If we take at face value that they are essentially the same, with a few differences. Why would anyone choose Bass over Raman? I feel like the "consistency" of Bass seems to be one of coming up short. Im not really sure what she's really pushed for thats benefitted my experience as a lower middle class individual. And the few things she /is/ pushing for seem to be things she could have already done? Which to me highlights a frightful inability to weild the power she already has effectively.
I'm not sure Raman is really pushing for anything the excites me /personally/ but I guess the fact that she seems more professional and rigid make me feel like she's someone who would take the job more seriously. Case in point: She has shown up to every available event to debate Bass. Why has Bass consistently back out of events? Purely to preserve power? That does not read as serious of a candidate for the people.
I guess a question for anyone pro Bass over Raman, what does Bass do or not do that convinces you she's the better choice over Raman.
Is it purely name recognition/incumbent bias? Considering the current state of Los Angeles, incumbency seems like it should be more of a liability than an asset.