Drew Carey took to Threads this week to tell Los Angeles voters to think twice before the June primaries, bluntly attacking reality star Spencer Pratt’s mayoral bid and urging residents to back someone he called competent. "Anyone who votes for, or endorses Spencer Pratt for Mayor of LA needs to get their head out of their a--," Carey wrote, adding that he understood anger but warned against rallying behind "some serial scammer without a soul or moral compass."
The post lands as Pratt, 42, presses a campaign launched in January that has centered on anger over the city’s handling of recent wildfires and a promise to oust incumbent Mayor Karen Bass. Pratt has sought to turn his own loss into political momentum: he lost his home in the deadly 2025 Palisades wildfire and became a public champion for residents who say the city failed them. Earlier this year, Pratt, Heidi Montag and more than a dozen additional property owners filed a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, alleging LADWP consciously operated the water supply system "with the reservoir drained and unusable as a cost-saving measure."
Pratt has amplified that grievance on social media. On Sunday he urged residents to "think bigger for LA," declaring "We don’t have to accept the filth and the decline" and writing, "We have the greatest slice of heaven on Earth with our city, and we deserve better." He closed the post with a series of campaign lines — "Vote for Pratt," "Vote for LA," "Vote TODAY," and "Let’s clean this city together."
The clash highlights a simple arithmetic that will matter in the coming weeks: whether anti-establishment anger that propelled Pratt into the race converts into votes in the June primaries, or whether established voices and celebrity rebukes persuade enough undecided voters to look elsewhere. Carey’s intervention is notable for its bluntness; celebrity commentary rarely names a local candidate so sharply and so publicly before a primary.
But the campaign carries its own complicating facts. Pratt’s message of grievance and cleanup sits beside questions about his political alignments — his campaign has drawn criticism for his registered Republican status and a recent nod from President Donald Trump — which risks alienating some Los Angeles voters even as it energizes others. That tension is the clearest fault line in Pratt’s bid: he is pitching himself as a community champion after losing his home in 2025, yet he is also attracting national partisan attention that could undercut his local appeal.
The lawsuit alleging failures by LADWP and the city gives Pratt a tangible grievance to campaign on; it also forces voters to separate personal loss and advocacy from the more practical demands of running a city. Carey framed the choice differently, pressing voters to value competence over anger. "I understand being angry/unsatisfied, but at least get behind someone competent and not some serial scammer without a soul or moral compass," he wrote, turning the debate into a simple test: virtue and ability versus grievance and celebrity.
Carey and Pratt’s representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment. What happens next is concrete and fast: the June primaries will sort the field and determine whether Pratt’s message of outrage and recovery can survive scrutiny and opposition. If Carey’s public rebuke persuades even a small share of undecided voters to back another candidate, it could blunt Pratt’s momentum; if not, Pratt’s combination of personal story, litigation and national attention could carry him forward.
The clearest conclusion after Carey’s post is this: his intervention sharpens the choice for Los Angeles voters but probably will not by itself stop Pratt. The primary will show whether anger born of wildfire and litigation translates into a mandate — or whether voters heed Carey’s call for someone they believe is simply more competent to run a complex city.
