Spot on. I have talked to neighbors, who are generally intelligent and well read and they shake their heads in confusion when I try to explain the MPLS DFL caucuses and endorsing conventions. Too many then decide there are better ways to spend their time. Maybe they will go to the polls this November, maybe not. The other unfortunate consequence is that this dynamic is hurting the DFL brand beyond the MPLS borders. Many of the far left are understandably outraged at the Governor and Legislative DFL leaders recent compromise regarding undocumented adult residents to no longer receive state subsidized health care, without looking inward to see how their ideological purity test turned off many state wide moderate and independent voters last fall: Hence resulting in a divided legislature.
Great read, Terry. When the DFL stands for everything, it stands for nothing. The questions are, what are the most viable pathways to fix the mess, and who can/should drive the changes? Can the leadership at the DFL right the ship? Can the mayor and a better city council fix the system? Is a referendum required? Do we need at least one additional party to compete with the DFL? Who can change the hot mess we call caucuses, and what would it take?
As you allude to, at the core of confusion is lack of transparency/visibility, and the Strib's abdication of local coverage has made the situation all that much worse. I've complained about it to both a reporter (Jeff Day) and also the publisher (Steve Grove). I'm not naive enough to think my complaints will effect change, but maybe if enough voices are heard...
Unfortunately, since the DFL is a political and not a governmental entity, a referendum or other legislative action can remedy the dysfunctional system. The change would have to come within the party. As a long time DFLer, I'd like to see the DFL endorsement process go away for non partisan races, or at least significantly modified so it doesn't have the winner take all aspect of it but it would take the majority of delegates for MPLS DFL to vote for such change. Currently, the ones who are proponents of the status quo are in the majority.
Unfortunately the DFL has become the party of self interests, oddly enough by calling the opposing party selfish, greedy and evil. In fairness the GOP seems to be spewing the same and no one is encouraged to do proper research.
Since the GOP managed to squeeze some power back at the state the DFL is now touting they are the party of accountability. Funny how that works. All the confusion, secrecy and diversity are very likely intentional and meant to keep us so busy screaming at each other we will not see what they are really up to. I know this sounds a bit conspiratorial but it really is a pattern that fits most money scams so it does deserve attention.
We need to relearn how to listen and redevelop the skill of compromise. Stop the all or none philosophy that has been infecting our community lately. Most of what we want is really the same with a few variables so why are we encouraged to dismiss an opponents opinion without even hearing them out.
A current illustration of this dynamic is the fact that there are two different petitions floating around. One of which advocates the separation of dfl and DSA endorsements. The other of which if I recall correctly is advocating that if somebody has previously donated to Republicans, then they should not be allowed to be dfl delegates.
Another really good one Terry! This is off topic a bit, but in the Strib article about the 7th ward endorsement convention -- a topic I'll leave alone for now -- Shaffer's comments compared to Cashman's were a good indicator of the differences between the two of them, but also the great divide in our city.
"She (Shaffer) has said Minneapolis is at a critical inflection point, and she will prioritize core city services and public safety, fiscal responsibility, responsiveness to local concerns, and pragmatic policies promoting economic development."
Cashman said that despite corporate and special interests “buying an endorsement” through political action committees like All of Mpls and We Love Minneapolis, she will continue her campaign with the support of grassroots organizers and small-dollar donors.My coalition is made up of working-class people, young and old, from all walks of life,” she said. “I will continue to put people first in my campaign — not wealthy and corporate interests.”
Not a word about core city services or safety, or what she stands for, just labeling all who oppose her as corporate fat cats.
Cashman's response is just that worn out, to the bone, Wonsley aggrieved party speak. Of course Wonsley has, not doubt, taken Cashman under her wing. Even the DSA had admitted, after the election in 2023, that Cashman was one of their own/ claiming her.
"And the balance of power has shifted. 2024’s Council will have four democratic socialists (Wonsley, Chavez, Chughtai, and Chowdhury), and where it currently has two allied progressives, it will now have three (Elliott Payne (W1), Jeremiah Ellison (W5), and newly elected Katie Cashman (W7)."
Thankfully things can improve substantially in Mpls, with enough people doing their research, and encouraging others, across all the 13 wards, to be present and SHOW UP this fall to vote for their city. The City of Mpls deserves a remade City Council.
Much appreciation extended to Mayor Frey, Police Chief O'Hara, and our three strong encumbents on the Council, Palmisano, Vetaw, and Rainville, who have worked hard to hold the city together.
*What many people are saying, or at least thinking, around the country, which feels like it directly relates to Mpls and our current City Council situation..below.
Only a minority of voters follow local politics closely. Most just want basic competence: public safety, clean streets, working infrastructure. These voters are often dismissed as “low-information,” but their expectations are reasonable—and unmet
Had to repost this portion of your article although all of it is wonderfully well written as usual! Thank you for continuing to write about these important details about the state of our city politics.
I definitely fall under the category of "Low information" and want our basic needs like public safety, clean streets, adequate parking and working infrastructure.
Terry, you're not wrong in anything you say here. But you DO make it read as though it's more complicated than it actually is - and that doesn't help the voters you are most interested in helping.
What we are seeing is, I think, a natural consequence of one-party rule, which we have had for several decades now. I'm setting aside the random self-proclaimed Independent (such as the long-departed Steve Minn of Ward 13), the Green Party's Cam Gordon, and Robin Wonsley, who is the only one of the current batch of DSA-affiliated CMs who eschews carrying the DFL label as well. This COUNTRY has two major parties, and the other one, the Republicans, have not had a Minneapolis CM among the 13 in a very, very long time.
While one can make it look like there are a lot of factions today, there were more, say, 20-30 years ago. We just didn't think of them as "factions", because they were groups of two or, at most, three. And they also weren't all that stable as the Council moved from issue to issue. We had a Council that was made up, most of the time, of either 12 or 13 DFLers, and, to the extent they disagreed with one another on policies and issues, they did so mostly as independent actors. This is, in my opinion, the "best case scenario" for one-party rule. We had that, and we lost it. How that happened and/or whose fault it was would be a good topic for another article some day...
(And, as an aside, being the least left-wing among 12 or 13 DFLers, does not make one either "conservative" or Republican - it makes one a less left-wing, or more moderate, DFLer...)
What we have today is two major factions. TWO. Anyone reading at home: Count with me! There are the DSA members, plus their allies and voting companions who are endorsed by "Minneapolis for the Many". That's one. And there are those who are supported by "All of Minneapolis", and/or - new this year (!) - "We Love Minneapolis", plus their allies and voting companions. That's two. And now, we have accounted for almost all 13. Yes it can be argued that there are a few exceptions... until you look at their voting patterns. Then you find that, as a practical matter, all 13 are aligned the vast majority of the time with one or the other of these two factions. In 2024-25, Emily Koski (W11), formerly a member in good standing of the more moderate faction, seems to have tried very, VERY hard to split the difference and vote with each faction as close to half the time as she could. On several issues - where there was a final Council vote, and then a Veto Override vote - she managed to vote once with EACH of the two factions...! Then she ran for Mayor. And it turned out that just about nobody in Minneapolis who cares about what the city government is doing WANTED someone who couldn't figure out which faction they were a member of.
I don't know which of these two factions is the better fit for the voters of Minneapolis. I have my own preference for the more moderate faction, for sure. But if what we want is for ALL voters, this November, to understand what the realities are, and to select candidates "on purpose" rather than "accidentally" (as can happen when one is a "low-information voter"), the message that needs to be spread is that these are the two factions, here is what each stands for, and which candidates are members of which faction. Any candidate who doesn't CAMPAIGN that way will be guilty of campaign malpractice.
It's kinda like the choice between political parties in other places... but without the easy-to-read labels on the ballot of "D" or "R" to help the less-involved voter choose. Campaigns will just need to do that work for the voters.
Great article. I only recently moved back to Mpls and this article helped me realize how much my vote in this election actually matters. BTW I brought some of your reporting about corruption directly to Linea Palmisano's attention and she appeared to listen, acknowledging at least that the alleged double-billing was a concern.
Terry, thanks for asking. I visited periodically but was basically gone from the mid-90's to just last year, coming back to the Lynnhurst house I grew up in. Quite the rip-van-winkle situation. The good: No question that 54th and Nicollet, Lyndale, and Penn have all come up since the (esp. the first two). I think infrastructure in general in the bandshell area around Lake Harriet is better too.
The bad: so much else. Most mind-blowingly, the extended duration homeless encampments which I asked Mayor Frey about in a neighborhood meeting. The crime, unsanitary conditions, and property damage that was allowed to persist in broad daylight for months on end was and is difficult to comprehend but maybe these have been cleared out now. Relatedly, there seems to be a substantial increase in property crime in the SW but it's hard to say since Nextdoor didn't exist back in the 80s/90s. But rampant thefts and even carjackings(!) are happening now at a level that wasn't the case back then. Thirdly, bye bye Uptown. :( Haven't been back yet but as a teen you could e.g. see a late movie at the theater on West Lake St. and not really worry about safety. I don't think that's the case anymore. I would not feel comfortable with my kid there now. Lastly, what did they do to the public school system?!?! Mpls Southwest STEM has been devastated, have heard directly from parents that it has empty classrooms now and indeed I couldn't even consider it as an option. Kenny Elem. redistricted so now kids have to walk across 54th St. I'm told. Smh
Interestingly, although Councilwoman Palmisano seems to have a broad and deep knowledge of her Ward 13 generally, and was happy about an apparent city-wide drop in crime recently, when I asked her about crime trends in ward 13, she said she didn't know. Crime trends in the 5th precinct? She didn't know. I was advised to research it myself. Haven't done this yet but I wonder if this is a subject that leaders may currently prefer not to talk about, except when super high-visibility actions like copper wire theft demand it. Just a hunch for now though have not actually looked at the data.
Just a heads up that the dashboard isn’t entirely accurate. Some violent crimes are getting coded as lower-level incidents such as traffic violations, and many people don’t even bother to report thefts because it’s highly unlikely they would get any response.
Matt, if you go to the Minneapolis crime dashboard you can get information you probably are seeking. Not only is it city-wide but now you can filter by police Precinct, Ward, and neighborhood. I don't know if neighborhood is new or I just never noticed it before. I'll get the link and post it here for you. So you could look up Ward 13 for example or you could look up Lynnhurst neighborhood.
The historic problem of the Democratic/DFL party is indeed trying to stand for everything. The current problem of the Minneapolis DFL is it stands for opposite things, at the same time. The result is to confuse, among others, the media - the Strib, though its city hall coverage is far better than most daily newspapers, simply does not have a clue about what the split is all about - and most important, the voters. The root cause of this is refusal to recognize that Democrats and the DSA are in fact different parties. The DSA at least has the intellectual integrity, at least as a national party, to say as much; they say they are neither Democrats or Republicans but offer an alternative to both.
Many of those who, in good faith, support the aims of the DSA, are by habit Democrats, and regard DSA as just a high-affinity group, like a labor union. They are not a party, these people say, why, they are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.
Well of course they are. That's what they, cynically, chose to be. They know they can win elections running as Democrats, their platform notwithstanding, that they would not win otherwise. How many ordinary voters in how many wards in Minneapolis would vote for candidates who are committed by their platform to drive police head counts to zero, prison populations also to zero, and abolish capitalism? If our two de facto parties honestly characterized themselves, Minneapolis would have two, maybe three, DSA members on its city council. As they should, they do represent a lot of people. But they do not represent even close to a majority, nor should they have one on the council.
I don't know whether the egg can be unscrambled. But the DFL never should have opened its doors, let alone its endorsement processes, to another party that states explicitly that they are NOT Democrats.
Agree. I had written to the DFL/Ken Martin a few years ago about this, but they just won’t quit the DSA. Unfortunately it looks like the chickens are already coming home to roost, but many in the party don’t fully realize it yet, or are pretending not to.
From the DSA's own website below. So, of course they are a party. They simply have to USE another party, one they are mostly opposed to, to try to get their people onto City Council/s.
"And the balance of power has shifted. 2024’s Council will have four democratic socialists (Wonsley, Chavez, Chughtai, and Chowdhury), and where it currently has two allied progressives, it will now have three (Elliott Payne (W1), Jeremiah Ellison (W5), and newly elected Katie Cashman (W7)."
Spot on. I have talked to neighbors, who are generally intelligent and well read and they shake their heads in confusion when I try to explain the MPLS DFL caucuses and endorsing conventions. Too many then decide there are better ways to spend their time. Maybe they will go to the polls this November, maybe not. The other unfortunate consequence is that this dynamic is hurting the DFL brand beyond the MPLS borders. Many of the far left are understandably outraged at the Governor and Legislative DFL leaders recent compromise regarding undocumented adult residents to no longer receive state subsidized health care, without looking inward to see how their ideological purity test turned off many state wide moderate and independent voters last fall: Hence resulting in a divided legislature.
Great read, Terry. When the DFL stands for everything, it stands for nothing. The questions are, what are the most viable pathways to fix the mess, and who can/should drive the changes? Can the leadership at the DFL right the ship? Can the mayor and a better city council fix the system? Is a referendum required? Do we need at least one additional party to compete with the DFL? Who can change the hot mess we call caucuses, and what would it take?
As you allude to, at the core of confusion is lack of transparency/visibility, and the Strib's abdication of local coverage has made the situation all that much worse. I've complained about it to both a reporter (Jeff Day) and also the publisher (Steve Grove). I'm not naive enough to think my complaints will effect change, but maybe if enough voices are heard...
Unfortunately, since the DFL is a political and not a governmental entity, a referendum or other legislative action can remedy the dysfunctional system. The change would have to come within the party. As a long time DFLer, I'd like to see the DFL endorsement process go away for non partisan races, or at least significantly modified so it doesn't have the winner take all aspect of it but it would take the majority of delegates for MPLS DFL to vote for such change. Currently, the ones who are proponents of the status quo are in the majority.
Unfortunately the DFL has become the party of self interests, oddly enough by calling the opposing party selfish, greedy and evil. In fairness the GOP seems to be spewing the same and no one is encouraged to do proper research.
Since the GOP managed to squeeze some power back at the state the DFL is now touting they are the party of accountability. Funny how that works. All the confusion, secrecy and diversity are very likely intentional and meant to keep us so busy screaming at each other we will not see what they are really up to. I know this sounds a bit conspiratorial but it really is a pattern that fits most money scams so it does deserve attention.
We need to relearn how to listen and redevelop the skill of compromise. Stop the all or none philosophy that has been infecting our community lately. Most of what we want is really the same with a few variables so why are we encouraged to dismiss an opponents opinion without even hearing them out.
Thank you! Great response no more screaming and actually working together would be such a beautiful thing to see in our political world
A current illustration of this dynamic is the fact that there are two different petitions floating around. One of which advocates the separation of dfl and DSA endorsements. The other of which if I recall correctly is advocating that if somebody has previously donated to Republicans, then they should not be allowed to be dfl delegates.
Another really good one Terry! This is off topic a bit, but in the Strib article about the 7th ward endorsement convention -- a topic I'll leave alone for now -- Shaffer's comments compared to Cashman's were a good indicator of the differences between the two of them, but also the great divide in our city.
"She (Shaffer) has said Minneapolis is at a critical inflection point, and she will prioritize core city services and public safety, fiscal responsibility, responsiveness to local concerns, and pragmatic policies promoting economic development."
Cashman said that despite corporate and special interests “buying an endorsement” through political action committees like All of Mpls and We Love Minneapolis, she will continue her campaign with the support of grassroots organizers and small-dollar donors.My coalition is made up of working-class people, young and old, from all walks of life,” she said. “I will continue to put people first in my campaign — not wealthy and corporate interests.”
Not a word about core city services or safety, or what she stands for, just labeling all who oppose her as corporate fat cats.
Cashman's response is just that worn out, to the bone, Wonsley aggrieved party speak. Of course Wonsley has, not doubt, taken Cashman under her wing. Even the DSA had admitted, after the election in 2023, that Cashman was one of their own/ claiming her.
https://twincitiesdsa.org/2023/11/2023-elections-how-we-did-how-mn-did-how-the-us-did/
Excerpt..
"And the balance of power has shifted. 2024’s Council will have four democratic socialists (Wonsley, Chavez, Chughtai, and Chowdhury), and where it currently has two allied progressives, it will now have three (Elliott Payne (W1), Jeremiah Ellison (W5), and newly elected Katie Cashman (W7)."
Another great piece by Better Mpls 👏
Thankfully things can improve substantially in Mpls, with enough people doing their research, and encouraging others, across all the 13 wards, to be present and SHOW UP this fall to vote for their city. The City of Mpls deserves a remade City Council.
Much appreciation extended to Mayor Frey, Police Chief O'Hara, and our three strong encumbents on the Council, Palmisano, Vetaw, and Rainville, who have worked hard to hold the city together.
*What many people are saying, or at least thinking, around the country, which feels like it directly relates to Mpls and our current City Council situation..below.
https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/the-progressive-moment-is-still-over
I'm a big fan of Ruy Teixeira and the Liberal Patriot. Thanks for sending the link.
Teixeira is great. He hit the nail on the head about what is ailing the Democratic Party years ago.
Only a minority of voters follow local politics closely. Most just want basic competence: public safety, clean streets, working infrastructure. These voters are often dismissed as “low-information,” but their expectations are reasonable—and unmet
Had to repost this portion of your article although all of it is wonderfully well written as usual! Thank you for continuing to write about these important details about the state of our city politics.
I definitely fall under the category of "Low information" and want our basic needs like public safety, clean streets, adequate parking and working infrastructure.
Terry, you're not wrong in anything you say here. But you DO make it read as though it's more complicated than it actually is - and that doesn't help the voters you are most interested in helping.
What we are seeing is, I think, a natural consequence of one-party rule, which we have had for several decades now. I'm setting aside the random self-proclaimed Independent (such as the long-departed Steve Minn of Ward 13), the Green Party's Cam Gordon, and Robin Wonsley, who is the only one of the current batch of DSA-affiliated CMs who eschews carrying the DFL label as well. This COUNTRY has two major parties, and the other one, the Republicans, have not had a Minneapolis CM among the 13 in a very, very long time.
While one can make it look like there are a lot of factions today, there were more, say, 20-30 years ago. We just didn't think of them as "factions", because they were groups of two or, at most, three. And they also weren't all that stable as the Council moved from issue to issue. We had a Council that was made up, most of the time, of either 12 or 13 DFLers, and, to the extent they disagreed with one another on policies and issues, they did so mostly as independent actors. This is, in my opinion, the "best case scenario" for one-party rule. We had that, and we lost it. How that happened and/or whose fault it was would be a good topic for another article some day...
(And, as an aside, being the least left-wing among 12 or 13 DFLers, does not make one either "conservative" or Republican - it makes one a less left-wing, or more moderate, DFLer...)
What we have today is two major factions. TWO. Anyone reading at home: Count with me! There are the DSA members, plus their allies and voting companions who are endorsed by "Minneapolis for the Many". That's one. And there are those who are supported by "All of Minneapolis", and/or - new this year (!) - "We Love Minneapolis", plus their allies and voting companions. That's two. And now, we have accounted for almost all 13. Yes it can be argued that there are a few exceptions... until you look at their voting patterns. Then you find that, as a practical matter, all 13 are aligned the vast majority of the time with one or the other of these two factions. In 2024-25, Emily Koski (W11), formerly a member in good standing of the more moderate faction, seems to have tried very, VERY hard to split the difference and vote with each faction as close to half the time as she could. On several issues - where there was a final Council vote, and then a Veto Override vote - she managed to vote once with EACH of the two factions...! Then she ran for Mayor. And it turned out that just about nobody in Minneapolis who cares about what the city government is doing WANTED someone who couldn't figure out which faction they were a member of.
I don't know which of these two factions is the better fit for the voters of Minneapolis. I have my own preference for the more moderate faction, for sure. But if what we want is for ALL voters, this November, to understand what the realities are, and to select candidates "on purpose" rather than "accidentally" (as can happen when one is a "low-information voter"), the message that needs to be spread is that these are the two factions, here is what each stands for, and which candidates are members of which faction. Any candidate who doesn't CAMPAIGN that way will be guilty of campaign malpractice.
It's kinda like the choice between political parties in other places... but without the easy-to-read labels on the ballot of "D" or "R" to help the less-involved voter choose. Campaigns will just need to do that work for the voters.
Great article. I only recently moved back to Mpls and this article helped me realize how much my vote in this election actually matters. BTW I brought some of your reporting about corruption directly to Linea Palmisano's attention and she appeared to listen, acknowledging at least that the alleged double-billing was a concern.
Thank you, Matt. What changes have you noticed about the city since you left and returned?
Terry, thanks for asking. I visited periodically but was basically gone from the mid-90's to just last year, coming back to the Lynnhurst house I grew up in. Quite the rip-van-winkle situation. The good: No question that 54th and Nicollet, Lyndale, and Penn have all come up since the (esp. the first two). I think infrastructure in general in the bandshell area around Lake Harriet is better too.
The bad: so much else. Most mind-blowingly, the extended duration homeless encampments which I asked Mayor Frey about in a neighborhood meeting. The crime, unsanitary conditions, and property damage that was allowed to persist in broad daylight for months on end was and is difficult to comprehend but maybe these have been cleared out now. Relatedly, there seems to be a substantial increase in property crime in the SW but it's hard to say since Nextdoor didn't exist back in the 80s/90s. But rampant thefts and even carjackings(!) are happening now at a level that wasn't the case back then. Thirdly, bye bye Uptown. :( Haven't been back yet but as a teen you could e.g. see a late movie at the theater on West Lake St. and not really worry about safety. I don't think that's the case anymore. I would not feel comfortable with my kid there now. Lastly, what did they do to the public school system?!?! Mpls Southwest STEM has been devastated, have heard directly from parents that it has empty classrooms now and indeed I couldn't even consider it as an option. Kenny Elem. redistricted so now kids have to walk across 54th St. I'm told. Smh
Interestingly, although Councilwoman Palmisano seems to have a broad and deep knowledge of her Ward 13 generally, and was happy about an apparent city-wide drop in crime recently, when I asked her about crime trends in ward 13, she said she didn't know. Crime trends in the 5th precinct? She didn't know. I was advised to research it myself. Haven't done this yet but I wonder if this is a subject that leaders may currently prefer not to talk about, except when super high-visibility actions like copper wire theft demand it. Just a hunch for now though have not actually looked at the data.
Just a heads up that the dashboard isn’t entirely accurate. Some violent crimes are getting coded as lower-level incidents such as traffic violations, and many people don’t even bother to report thefts because it’s highly unlikely they would get any response.
This link should work for the dashboard. I find it to work for me personally Much better on a laptop than it does on my mobile device.
As noted, I would assume that these are under reporting at this point in time, but at least it gives you a frame of reference.
https://tableau.minneapolismn.gov/views/CrimeDashboard/Summary?%3Adisplay_count=n&%3Aembed=y&%3Aiid=5&%3Aorigin=viz_share_link&%3AshowAppBanner=false&%3AshowVizHome=n&%3Atabs=yes&%3Atoolbar=no
Matt, if you go to the Minneapolis crime dashboard you can get information you probably are seeking. Not only is it city-wide but now you can filter by police Precinct, Ward, and neighborhood. I don't know if neighborhood is new or I just never noticed it before. I'll get the link and post it here for you. So you could look up Ward 13 for example or you could look up Lynnhurst neighborhood.
Thanks I will definitely check it out.
The historic problem of the Democratic/DFL party is indeed trying to stand for everything. The current problem of the Minneapolis DFL is it stands for opposite things, at the same time. The result is to confuse, among others, the media - the Strib, though its city hall coverage is far better than most daily newspapers, simply does not have a clue about what the split is all about - and most important, the voters. The root cause of this is refusal to recognize that Democrats and the DSA are in fact different parties. The DSA at least has the intellectual integrity, at least as a national party, to say as much; they say they are neither Democrats or Republicans but offer an alternative to both.
Many of those who, in good faith, support the aims of the DSA, are by habit Democrats, and regard DSA as just a high-affinity group, like a labor union. They are not a party, these people say, why, they are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.
Well of course they are. That's what they, cynically, chose to be. They know they can win elections running as Democrats, their platform notwithstanding, that they would not win otherwise. How many ordinary voters in how many wards in Minneapolis would vote for candidates who are committed by their platform to drive police head counts to zero, prison populations also to zero, and abolish capitalism? If our two de facto parties honestly characterized themselves, Minneapolis would have two, maybe three, DSA members on its city council. As they should, they do represent a lot of people. But they do not represent even close to a majority, nor should they have one on the council.
I don't know whether the egg can be unscrambled. But the DFL never should have opened its doors, let alone its endorsement processes, to another party that states explicitly that they are NOT Democrats.
Agree. I had written to the DFL/Ken Martin a few years ago about this, but they just won’t quit the DSA. Unfortunately it looks like the chickens are already coming home to roost, but many in the party don’t fully realize it yet, or are pretending not to.
From the DSA's own website below. So, of course they are a party. They simply have to USE another party, one they are mostly opposed to, to try to get their people onto City Council/s.
"And the balance of power has shifted. 2024’s Council will have four democratic socialists (Wonsley, Chavez, Chughtai, and Chowdhury), and where it currently has two allied progressives, it will now have three (Elliott Payne (W1), Jeremiah Ellison (W5), and newly elected Katie Cashman (W7)."