I think LA may have shot themselves in the foot by using almost exclusively existing venues. I would like to see how the Olympics are going to change the city, London had the Stratford regeneration and Rio first city in South America and creation of new sports complexes. LA will just use a bunch of venues to host an Olympics who can shout loud and proud "we are the cheapest, pick us".
What is the legacy of that? What impact would the 2024 Olympics actually have on the city?
By opting for the cheapest option, they may not have created the most inspirational or significant bid. This potentially leaves the door open to the European cities, Paris can shout about existing venues, but they are investing in new venues and taking advantage of iconic landmarks with temporary venues. Rome is the balance of new venues, history and existing infrastructure, the historical elements are more likely to inspire IOC members than LA's bid. Finally, Budapest, the complete opposite, but you can see the strong legacy and appeal, first Olympics in the region, smaller sized city, a strong zone and cluster masterplan and good use of the limited existing venues.
Like Bach said, all the cities embraced agenda 2020, but LA have gone too far that they have lost the inspirational part of their bid, which may cost them when push comes to shove.