Karen Bass and Nithya Raman faced off Tuesday evening for their last debate of the election. For Bass, the incumbent, it was a chance to reinforce doubts about her socialist challenger.

For Raman, it was a chance to attack Bass’s record, and sell her promise of change.

The moderators from NBC4 and Telemundo 52, for their part, made their choice clear: They attacked Raman all night.

Was it fair? No.

Was it informative? Oh, yes.

They began with a neutral enough question: Voters say they don’t trust either of you. What’s the best case for your candidacy?

Bass emphasized improvements in public safety during her term. Nithya Raman quoted Ronald Reagan: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

It was her best moment. But things went downhill from there for the challenger.

During an exchange on homelessness, one of the moderators asked Raman whether, as chair of the city council’s homelessness committee, she bore any responsibility for the citywide problem.

Raman dodged. When the moderator pursued the point, Raman dodged again.

In a follow-up question, Raman was asked if she would repeal an ordinance that banned homeless encampments near schools (which she opposed). She took a long time to admit that she would not.

Bass then hammered Raman over her alleged mismanagement of the committee.

Raman, unable to defend that point, accused the mayor of “personal attacks.”

The moderators then asked Raman about her infamous “fascist” video, broken first by the California Post, which her campaign made with a social media influencer, Ed Choi.

In the video, which her campaign posted and then deleted, Raman appeared to call Bass and LA Police Department Chief Jim McDonnell “fascists.”

Raman tried to argue that she believed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was racist, not the city or the mayor itself.

The moderators were not convinced. They asked Raman why no one at the campaign had vetted Choi’s views. She had no answer.

Bass then accused Raman of dishonesty, suggesting that Raman had, in fact, meant to call her a fascist. “It made me wonder whether you understood what the word ‘fascist’ meant,” Bass said. “But it also showed that you are not ready for prime time.”

The moderators followed up by asking Raman about her apparent flip-flop on Chief McDonnell’s future, noting that Raman had told the California Post she would fire him, but said elsewhere that she would retain him until 2030.

At first, Raman appeared to confirm that she would replace McDonnell before the 2028 Olympics. But she rambled on, confusingly, and when moderators asked her to clarify, she said the decision wasn’t the mayor’s to make, and would depend on “other factors.”

Bass responded by saying that Raman had “no idea” what she was talking about. The mayor had the power to fire the police chief. That was the easy part: The hard part would be replacing him so soon before the Olympics.

Raman, she said, was out of her depth. “The problem is that you have a tendency to take different positions on different days of the week,” she added.

Next, the debate turned to the Palisades Fire — Bass’s weakest point. Bass apologized for being out of the country during the blaze.

Raman promised that she, unlike Bass, would be on the “front lines” during emergencies. But she also promised a “Palisades czar” to handle the rebuilding effort — something Bass had already tried, with failure and embarrassment all around.

Later, the moderators focused on Raman again, posing a sharp question about Measure ULA, the so-called “mansion tax,” which backfired by slowing housing construction. Raman voted for it, then said it needed reform. Why didn’t she see the problem with Measure ULA ahead of time?

Raman answered by claiming that the “data” had supported Measure ULA before it passed, but that the “data” changed after it had entered into force. It was a curious defense, since there had been plenty of public arguments available against the tax at the time.

Bass pressed home the advantage. In an exchange about hazardous, abandoned buildings, Bass called Raman “contemptuous” of her own constituents, and claimed that Raman had asked her, four years ago, to take care of her city council district, because she could not.

Raman denied making that agreement, not entirely convincingly.

For the most part, the debate was a reminder of how weak each of the candidates is.

Neither had much to say of interest in response to questions about traffic safety, for example, or about restoring jobs to Hollywood.

But the moderators seem to have agreed with Bass. They cast Raman as radical, and inconsistent, throughout the debate, and hit her with follow-up questions.

Raman’s campaign would have cause to complain. It was not a fair fight.

But it was brutally honest about her shortcomings.

Joel Pollak is Opinion editor of the California Post.