Of all the democratic socialists who piled into a Manhattan church on Wednesday evening, none had the cachet of the man handed a microphone toward the meeting’s close.
Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani offered some pleasantries — “Hello friends, Zohran, he/him, Queens D.S.A.” — before launching into his mission: torpedoing the candidacy of a left-leaning ally, Councilman Chi Ossé, who is attempting to unseat Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the top House Democrat.
The remarkable scene was both a reflection of the tricky political calculuses Mr. Mamdani confronts as he prepares to take office next year and the egalitarian nature of a group that served as the grass-roots organizing machine of his political success.
To all the commenters here that are piling up on Mamdani without actually doing the minimum amount of research. Doesn’t it seem odd to you that he would advise Ossé not to run and try to convince others not to support him? Instead of reacting with your guts and defeatism, use your head. That’s what I did because it was tickling me.
This source was shared in another comment: https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2025/11/chi-osse-congress/409723/
In an online vote, roughly 52% of eligible members of NYC-DSA’s Electoral Working Group voted against endorsing Ossé’s congressional campaign. In total, 1,205 DSA members voted, with 626 voting against the endorsement and only 555 voting in favor, with 24 abstaining.
Clearly Ossé’s bid for Jeffreys sit is not that widely supported. Those are NYC-DSA members voting!
Mamdani argued that DSA should focus on achieving the affordability agenda that he and DSA had successfully campaigned on during the mayoral race, instead of focusing on launching a likely doomed primary campaign against the most powerful Democrat in the House.
OK, that makes sense to me.
But some within DSA questioned Ossé’s commitment to socialist organization – which he only recently joined – and were reluctant to back him when he seemed to have no realistic path to victory
I don’t follow NY politics closely so that’s an interesting bit of info.
The whole article is well worth reading rather than commenting on the headline of a newspaper that never quite liked Mamdani to start with.
What I get out of this, Jeffreys needs to go but Ossé is not quite the candidate to unseat him and the focus should be on delivering results for NY rather than running expensive doomed campaigns. That’s a far cry from the defeatism of seeing a treasonous Mamdani. It’s either simple thinking or an agenda to split support before he’s even in the Mayor sit.
Mamdani argued that DSA should focus on achieving the affordability agenda that he and DSA had successfully campaigned on during the mayoral race, instead of focusing on launching a likely doomed primary campaign against the most powerful Democrat in the House.
OK, that makes sense to me.
Why? Why does it make sense to you? Does Mamdani just need to say the words “affordibility for New Yorkers” and everything makes sense? Hakeem Jeffries is one of the most corrupt and worst Democrats. And right now he’s incredibly unpopular. Getting him out would be a massive win for the entire US. And this is probably the best timing window ever. Zohran doesn’t have to endorse chi, but using his own political capital against Chi is complete betrayal.
Clearly Ossé’s bid for Jeffreys sit is not that widely supported. Those are NYC-DSA members voting!
You mean by Mamdani clearly pushing them over the edge to support Jeffries?
Article reads like a NY Times hit piece aimed at dividing leftists and DSA members. DSA members held a meeting, discussed endorsements of candidates for upcoming political races, and now will vote on whether to endorse. Now, if they vote to endorse Osse and then Mamdani declines to get on board with that, then there would be a story. This is just some NYTs bullshit which is what it does best.
Geneva has a massive hate-boner for Mamdani. If there’s a negative post about him, you can usually bet it’s posted by Geneva.
only real sane comment here really. DSA voted not to endorse. https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2025/11/chi-osse-congress/409723/
After Mamdani’s speech, which is exactly what the NYT article says. And yours too (published on Saturday):
The outcome of the vote will likely come as welcome news to New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who has tried to discourage Ossé from running and even attended Wednesday’s DSA candidate forum to appeal to comrades in person not to recommend endorsing Ossé’s congressional bid
Fair point actually.
I don’t see where it implies that Mamdani defied orders to endorse. All the other commenters here are interpreting the headline accurately and treating it as a story.
No the article is accurate. Mamdani is dividing himself out of the left and into the DNC establishment.
Endorsements are non-binding. Voters will vote for whomever they see fit. Lest we forget that Mamdani wasn’t exactly reeling in the endorsements for his own campaign.
I’d like to see AIPAC Shakur cycled out.
Mamdani clutched it, the DSA voted 52% in favor of Hakeem Jeffries.
DSA literally establishment Democrats now.
It’s a vote over resources and the the fact that Chi is an opportunist.
DSA does not have infinite time and money and volunteers. They need to pick and choose what they support and where they spend their energy. Chi only re-joined because he saw them win with Mamdani, after having joined and quit 2 years ago, with rumours about him talking shit about DSA.
Mamdani should not be endorsing Jeffries, he should be doing what Jeffries did and be talking about “having conversations”. But that doesn’t mean DSA needs to back Osse.
Chi is a DSA member. If the DSA let him join then they should have screened him. Also Chi has a pretty good track record. Funny how joining the DSA is “opportunistic” now as if Chi is a literal top AIPAC recipient with a track record of selling our and corruption.
No wait that would be Jeffries.
Mamdani shutting up would be one thing but he actively works for Jeffries against the DSA and Chi Osse.
Funny how joining the DSA is “opportunistic” now. As if Chi is a literal top AIPAC recipient with a track record of selling our and corruption.
Again, Chi literally already joined and quit 2 years ago, and has literally stated he only re-joined because he thought they could win. Do you think as DSA gets wins like Mamdani there wouldn’t be opportunists looking to benefit off the back of DSA helping a campaign? It’s already happened. There have been people that got into office off of the work of DSA then shit on them in office. People need to prove themselves. not just just join an org then immediately expect everyone to get on board on their personal campaign straight away. Do you understand how building trust works, especially when you’ve already broken that trust previously?
He left 5 years ago, shortly after joining and not quite knowing what he was getting into. That’s quite some time, especially given his acquaintance and involvement with Mamdani and his campaign before rejoining. I also wouldn’t be surprised if the DSA was, five years ago, different than what we know now and Mamdani promoted
https://socialisttribune.substack.com/p/why-we-should-not-endorse-chi-osse
We in NYC-DSA endorse, with great success, candidates who are socialists and who champion our project of democratic socialism. After joining NYC-DSA in October of 2020, Chi left only a month later because he, as someone “on the left side of the political spectrum,” did not “align” with our organization. Socialists are proud of being socialists and express and practice our socialism by being in a socialist organization. We can look at Zohran serving on the Electoral Working Group Organizing Committee as an example of what a socialist cadre-to-candidate looks like. Our most recent slate of endorsees, moreover, shows that we are precisely not lacking in possible candidates.
“Not knowing what he was getting into” is absolute horseshit.
That’s quite some time, especially given his acquaintance and involvement with Mamdani
Having connections higher up is not a good basis for endorsing and devoting resources to someone who only rejoined for explicitly opportunist purposes (free labour for my personal campaign).
I also wouldn’t be surprised if the DSA was, five years ago, different than what we know now and Mamdani promoted
It’s no different, and Mamdani was a member and active part of DSA five years ago, and remained such, hence why he was able to get far more backing.
But it’s wild to use Mamdani as reason to back Osse whilst criticising and attacking Mamdani, who has more of a background working in and with DSA than Osse, who has literally rejoined for opportunist purposes by his own admission.
I don’t see how your quote contradicts “not knowing what he was getting into”. Leaving so soon after joining for non-alignment sounds like he thought the DSA was something that aligned when he first joined.
Having connections higher up
Sorry, that’s not what I meant. I meant more “life experiences that influence beliefs at a personal level”.
and Mamdani was a member and active part of DSA five years ago
That could either mean what you’re inferring or that the DSA allows quality pluralism in its members’ beliefs. Mamdani back then did not have the influence within the DSA he has now.
You would notice from my other reply that I only hold one of these contrary beliefs.
There is no screening to join the DSA. As long as you pay the membership dues, you’re a member. I think it’s fair that they solicit all the monetary contributions they can in the Citizens United climate that is US campaigning. IIRC, in the US you cannot expel someone’s party registration, only deny them from the ballot line. Though “DSA is not a political party, but a non-profit activist organization.”, this seems emblematic of how in general party discipline is lax in the United States, perhaps due to the shadow of Tammany Hall.
I definitely agree on Osse having a good track record, though. He
is a friend of Mamdani anddoes not seem like an opportunist even if the timing is indeed suspect. Still, I feel like any replacement for Jeffries as Minority Leader would be much worse than he is.Edit: I swear I saw somewhere that he was a friend of Mamdani. I can’t find that info anymore.
I’m not entirely against his campaign but he is most definitely an opportunist. He was elected into city council from the profile he built from BLM protests where he used social media to broadcast videos.
A lot of change happened under BLM.
There’s hardly any screening process to join DSA.
Goddammit Mamdani all you had to do is shut fucking mouth, he already caving to the DNC. Again we can’t have true progressive candidates under the Democratic Party.
The logic of ruling within the system is irrefutable. Change will require sympathetic leaders within it, but it will not originate from within, no matter how many outsiders we put in power.
Frankly, this was quite predictable from that framework and the correct response is fairly obvious. There is no need to villainize Mamdani but neither should his voice be weighed highly. The DSA should ignore his advice and do as they see fit to execute their political agenda.
The solution is to remove the power from leaders. We have the infrastructure to support digital liquid democracy systems. Give people the option of direct democracy or pledging their voting power to a leader or party, but give the people the power to remove that pledge at any time. No kore leaving corrupt leaders in power until the next election.
For a people who have mastered near instant communication, we remain too committed to representative democracy.
I like this idea but I definitely have concerns about cybersecurity with it.
Sure. That’s a challenge. But so is securing our current elections. I think we need government funded secure vote devices provided to every citizen, with optional voting systems set up at libraries and other government buildings. Smart phone style devices connecting to a secure government network, with no other mixed functionality and tamper resistant.
Not a popular opinion, but I think we need to consider getting rid of anonymous voting to ensure the most auditable voting. But it must be paired with strict laws further outlawing voter intimidation & retaliation.
No way, anonymous ballots are important for a reason. The temptation for those in power to intimidate people is way too strong.
Which is why I said it needs to be paired with strict enforcement to prevent that. The temptation is too strong for those in power to rig elections.
But who is enforcing it? Those in power. They will simply choose not to when it’s convenient for them.
So far elections have proven difficult to rig as long as there is a clear and transparent counting and recounting process with paper ballots. This is another reason I’m skeptical of online voting ideas since there is no paper trail.
Christ did you guys even make it a month?
