Endorse Chi, Build Socialism: A Response to Comrade Grace
By NYC Groundwork
November 19th, 2025
The following is an opinion piece written by NYC Groundwork. It does not necessarily reflect the views of the national caucus. - Ed.
As we approach an endorsement vote on NY-8, we offer a comradely critique of Co-chair Grace’s argument against running Chi Ossé. We believe this argument relies on a series of assumptions that do not fit the current political reality.
Assumption 1: We should not run a race with such long odds
Let’s think our way back to October 5 of last year, when DSA comrades packed into the Church of the Village for a spirited endorsement forum on Zohran’s mayoral run. While Zohran himself maintained he had a path to victory, few comrades echoed his confidence. Instead, pro debaters made the argument that Zohran would need a miracle to win, but the race was worth running for a number of key strategic reasons:
It would bring DSA’s socialist vision to millions of New Yorkers in a way we have never done before
It would open up the opportunity to build DSA’s membership and alliances in communities that have been left behind by NYC’s political machines
It would continue and escalate the fight for Palestinian rights during a period of intense repression of the anti-genocide movement
It would massively boost recruitment into DSA by offering an accessible entry point into socialist politics for the large population of New Yorkers moving leftward.
The fact is that every one of the above strategic considerations applies to Chi primarying Jeffries. Through the highest level of media interest, the race would bring DSA’s message to millions more people both inside and outside New York when our political opportunity is at its highest ever level. It would offer a pathway to recruiting many more Black New Yorkers into DSA, a goal that has often been stated in the chapter but not aggressively pursued. It would take the fight for Palestinian rights and self-determination directly to the chief enablers of their genocide – Hakeem Jeffries and AIPAC. And it would offer an on-ramp to DSA for thousands of people who desire a profound change in this country but feel powerless to have any impact on federal politics.
All of the above is true win or lose. But we should not be so quick to dismiss the possibility that Chi could win. Yes, he faces a powerful opponent with unlimited resources. Yes, he is not yet a household name for millions of people. But Zohran’s victory should teach us not to underestimate the combination of a massive field operation, a uniquely gifted messenger, and a moment of historic political opportunity for the left. Chi actually starts out with better name recognition and more support relative to the field of voters in his district than Zohran had relative to the citywide voter pool. To win we would certainly need to climb a mountain. But we have done the impossible before. As Zohran himself likes to remind us, it’s impossible until it’s done.
Assumption 2: A Jeffries primary will distract from winning Zohran’s agenda
Comrade Grace is right to say that NYC-DSA must deliver on the promises made through the Zohran campaign, which will entail a massive effort to tax the rich and overcome the oligarchs who are already organizing to stymie free childcare, fast and free buses, and a rent freeze. However, it does not necessarily follow that endorsing Chi means we will be less able to win the reforms working class New Yorkers deserve. On the contrary, the history of our chapter tells us that we win reforms by mounting aggressive primary campaigns that threaten oligarchs and the politicians they control. We passed the 2019 rent laws on the heels of Julia Salazar’s primary of Martin Dilan and the broader anti-IDC wave, which swept out corrupt incumbents and shook the foundations of the Albany political order. We taxed the rich in 2021 on the heels of our insurgent assembly slate sweeping their races in 2020 – all of which were primary challenges. We passed BPRA in 2023 on the heels of primaries against two legislators blocking real climate progress in Albany, Kevin Cahill and Kevin Parker.
There is a reason primaries were needed to bring home these wins despite our running elaborate legislative campaigns with strong field and comms components: Forcibly removing power from the establishment is the only thing they have been shown to fear, short of total social revolt. Although Zohran’s mayoral race was not a primary, it was certainly an insurgent race, and the establishment fear created by that race is already paying dividends, from Governor Hochul signaling openness to raising the corporate tax to the New York Power Authority doubling their plan for public renewables, including many new projects in NYC that will create green union jobs, lower utility rates, and help close dangerous peaker plants.
In short, we get what we want by keeping the establishment worried, not by hoping they will cooperate. Do we really believe that if we don’t primary Hakeem Jeffries, he will cease to be an obstacle to Zohran’s agenda? The man who could barely be bothered to endorse Zohran the day before the general, even though there was nothing but political upside for him? We need to stop thinking of Jeffries in relation to coalitional politics and remember who he really reports to – oligarchs, arms manufacturers, and the state of Israel. Some friendly meetings will not shift that.
Assumption 3: Running Chi is too big of a risk to our project
NYC-DSA has built a formidable political machine that is beginning to play the role of a real left party. Part of our success stems from being highly selective in choosing which races to run to maximize our strengths and minimize our weaknesses, thereby avoiding the adventurism and opportunism that has led to so many failed left political efforts. However, our prudence has always been balanced by the need to take calculated risks to capitalize on political opportunities. Running Zohran for mayor was one of these calculated risks. At his endorsement forum we heard many of the same arguments we are now hearing against primarying Jeffries: it’s too soon, we’re not ready, we will look weak, people outside our usual membership demographics aren’t comfortable yet with a socialist message. But in the end comrades were swayed by the argument that this race and this candidate constituted a truly unusual opportunity that needed to be seized, risks and all.
The same can be said of Chi primarying Jeffries. We are in a moment of true political realignment in the US, where a wide spectrum of people from liberals to the hard left are looking to democratic socialism as a viable political alternative to the near-dead neoliberal consensus. Delivering on Zohran’s agenda is a major part of establishing democratic socialism as a durable, mass-participation pole of American politics. But so too is directly confronting the Democratic establishment that is leaving us to fend for ourselves against fascism, economic crisis, and a boiling, war-torn world. In this moment we are seeing people we never would have imagined rally to our red flag. Do we not want to take the initiative to transform into a true mass movement that can incorporate all of them? When will we get another such opportunity?
We should be asking ourselves another question about risk: What is the risk of not running this race? What is the risk to our reputation as the entire left looks to us for leadership? What is the risk to our project of hitting the brakes when the masses are looking to go further? And what is the risk to the millions of people targeted by the Trump administration, who are left defenseless by people like Hakeem Jeffries?
Yes, the campaign is a big risk–and it’s one we should be willing to take.
