Updated 07/11/2025: Protect Our Platform released a statement dropping their resolution for the City Convention. Here’s their statement:
“We are writing to let you know that we are no longer pursuing the Protect Our Platform resolution that would end dual DFL-DSA endorsements. This effort has been taken by some as an effort to purge people from our party, which is in no way our intention. Feelings are raw and running high around this issue, and could potentially lead to negative outcomes for all at the convention, which is also not our intention.
The ultimate goal is to strengthen the DFL platform and DFL endorsement, and while many of us have different ideas about what that means and how to get there, we welcome the conversation and believe that open and honest debate is a bedrock principle to a strong democracy. We hope that those actively engaged in the DFL will continue to work to strengthen the party, and hope that we will all commit to listening to one another and treating each other with dignity and respect, including those with whom we disagree.”
***
On May 3, 2025, we reported in these pages that some Minneapolis DFL volunteers had launched an effort called “Protect Our Platform”, to educate Democrats on the differences between platforms of the DFL and the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America). Their educational effort was accompanied by an action item: They wish to introduce a resolution at the July 19 Minneapolis DFL convention. The resolution proposes a modification of the Minneapolis DFL Constitution, to say that candidates competing for publicly elected Minneapolis offices cannot concurrently be endorsed by the DFL and the DSA. If it appears on the convention agenda, delegates would debate it and vote.
In this article, we review:
- The resolution, including its stated rationale
- The process, according to DFL rules, that must be followed before such a proposal could be implemented
- Opposition to the resolution, and reasons for it
- Actions taken by Minneapolis DFL leaders which may prevent the resolution from being introduced and/or discussed
“End Dual Endorsements”: The Resolution
What the Resolution Says
In early spring, 2025, several DFL volunteers, operating under the banner “Protect Our Platform”, drafted a resolution they wished to introduce at the July 19 Minneapolis DFL convention. The resolution is to amend the Minneapolis DFL Constitution, adding language that says:
“…any candidate for municipal office in Minneapolis, MN may not concurrently accept or hold an endorsement or official recommendation from the DSA and DFL.”
The word ‘concurrently’ means that in a contest for one publicly elected municipal office, in one cycle, the DFL could not endorse or recommend a candidate who had sought and received endorsement from the DSA for that same contest. For that contest, the candidate can be endorsed by one or the other political organization, but not both.
Had this proposed resolution been in effect in 2023, it would have impacted five individuals Four candidates in 2023, and two candidates in 2025, would have had to choose between their DSA and DFL endorsements. If TCDSA-endorsed candidates for Mayor and Park Board receive DFL endorsement at the July 2025 convention, they would have to choose which endorsement to accept.
What is the DSA?
“DSA” is the acronym for Democratic Socialists of America, a national political organization with approximately 90-100k members and multiple chapters across the US. The Twin Cities DSA (TCDSA) was established in 2017. There now are three other Minnesota DSA chapters: TwinPorts in Duluth, St. Cloud, and Brainerd Lakes area. The is a DSA organizing committee in Rochester.
DSA holds a national conference in August of every odd-numbered year, where delegates vote on resolutions. Those which pass form the basis of the DSA platform for the subsequent two years. Delegates also elect the 16 members to the DSA National Political Committee, which serves as the organization’s highest decision-making body between conventions. Working with the National Political Committee is the DSA National Electoral Commission. The latter conducts chapter outreach, facilitates DSA endorsement processes, and provides operational support to DSA-endorsed campaigns.
The Twin Cities chapter (TCDSA) first began endorsing candidates in 2021. From the candidate point of view, the process includes completing the TCDSA endorsement questionnaire, documenting support from TCDSA members, meeting with TCDSA leaders, and participating in a question and answer session. The 2025 TCDSA Questionnaire for Minneapolis City Council reflects the qualities the TCDSA seeks before it will endorse, including viability of the campaign, willingness to help build the DSA and positions on issues most important to the TCDSA.
Is the DSA a Political Party
Seth Ackerman, an influential DSA thought leader, developed Blueprint for a New Party in 2016. He stated that prior to breaking decisively from the Democratic Party, DSA would operate as a party-within-a-party. Ackerman says that It would be the “equivalent of a political party, given its membership-run organization, its own name, its own logo, its own identity and therefore its own platform, and its own ideology. It would act like any other political party, except it would not have its own “ballot line” (a term widely used in the DSA). It would develop and support candidates who reflect the political will of the organization
Rationales for the resolution
Resolution proponents shared its text both in print and online. The operable clause is that candidates seeking publicly elected Minneapolis municipal offices cannot concurrently be endorsed by the DFL and DSA. The materials provide two rationales:
- Conflicts between platform positions of the DFL and DSA.
The DFL and DSA platforms conflict on key issues, including public safety, economics, foreign policy. For example, the DSA website says: “Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit”. (The Democratic Party does not reject capitalism). DSA platform positions have included abolishing police, ending incarceration, replacing the US Constitution with one that instantiates socialism. (The Democratic Party does not take these positions.)
When a candidate is endorsed by political organizations which call for quite different ways to organize society, voters receive conflicting messages. They are unable to discern meaningful differences between candidates. Ending dual endorsement creates clarity, helps voters make more informed choices, where the outcome of an election more reliably reflects what voters actually want.
- The TCDSA is hostile towards the DFL.
Like the national DSA, the TCDSA is openly contemptuous of the DFL and individuals who are DFL traditionalists. From the TCDSA blog, TCDSA leaders have said:
February 2022: “The DFL establishment is hostile to … workers and progressive movements … because corporate interests have considerable influence over these politicians through donations and personal connections…”
December 2022: “… Despite their victories in Minnesota and beyond, the Democratic Party’s corporate masters are quickly moving to the right. In Minnesota conservative Democrat Kari Dziedzic was quickly elected as the caucus leader in the State Senate…”
February 2023: “The DFL cloaks itself in progressive rhetoric and talk of equity and then steam rolls over the city’s working class.”
November 2024: “As socialists, we’ve long been critical of the Democratic Party for its connections to Wall Street and the billionaire class” and “By the end of her campaign, Harris had completely succumbed to a neoliberal, pro-corporate stance and was clearly unable to offer any respite to working Americans”
December 2024: “… Liberals, the nonprofits, the Democratic party, etc. have no plan, no ability to stop any of what is coming”
On June 12, 2025, a few days before the No Kings rallies, TCDSA sent an email to its members saying: “As we build this movement against Trump, we will not be promoting the Democratic Party … [Democrats] are contributing to economic inequality, wars, deportations, the climate crisis, etc.”
Resolution proponents argue that it makes no sense for a DFL-endorsed candidate to also be endorsed by an organization that is so openly hostile towards the DFL.
Formalities of resolution introduction and debate
Proponents wish to place the resolution on the agenda of the July 19 Minneapolis DFL convention, so it can be debated and voted upon. If a majority (50% + 1) of delegates vote to accept the resolution, the Minneapolis DFL Constitution would be modified with the resolution’s language.
To place it on the agenda, at least 10% of the convention’s delegates must sign a petition stating that they support its introduction. (Support for placing it on the agenda does not necessarily mean support for the resolution – someone could want the opportunity to vote against it). Resolution proponents began collecting signatures in early spring. They introduced it to delegates and attendees at ward conventions, and also through social media. By late June, they had gathered more than 200 signatures, more than20% of the convention’s 800 delegates, on this Google form.
Opposition from DSA adherents
“It’s a purge!!!”
Those who support DSA-endorsed candidates and principles, and share DSA hostility towards Democrats, are not necessarily formal members of the DSA. We refer to them as “DSA adherents”.
Most positions on the Minneapolis DFL Executive Committee are held by DSA adherents. DSA adherents hold other DFL positions as well. Many vociferously oppose the resolution, claiming that it is a purge from the DFL of anyone who supports DSA candidates or holds DSA beliefs:
- In early May, a DSA adherent who holds DFL positions posted to a DFL Activists Facebook group provoking nearly 75 comments in response. Those included “At all the Ward conventions this year, there have been DFL leaders passing out pamphlets advocating for a DSA purge” and “The resolution wants to purge candidates from the endorsement process.”
- Jason Chavez, the Ward 9 Councilor who first won in 2021, with a dual endorsement from DFL and DSA, posted on July 8: “I am disappointed to hear about attempts to kick progressive people of color out of the Minneapolis DFL… I need people to understand that kicking people of color out of the DFL is not how we win elections…”
- A former DFL Senate District Chair said: “Banning DSA candidates from the party would have the deleterious effect of banning a lot of people of color from the party.”
- Others wrote: “… resolution that seeks to purge progressive individuals who are largely from underrepresented communities out of the party …” and “ … stripping elected democrats of their official party endorsement if they are also endorsed by the DSA—is bad, right?” and “chair of CD5 is now all-in on attempted purge of anyone they think is DSA aligned”
There is nothing in the resolution that “purges” anyone. It says that no candidate for a publicly elected Minneapolis office may concurrently hold DFL and DSA endorsement. Nor have resolution proponents done or said anything suggesting that their intent is to purge volunteers or candidates from the DFL.
Despite absence of any evidence of a “purge”, resolution opponents speak almost hysterically as if a purge is underway. Here we make a good faith attempt to understand the hysteria.
Would it “purge” volunteers?
There is a DFL rule that requires volunteers holding DFL offices to refrain from publicly supporting competitors to DFL-endorsed candidates. Violating this rule can precipitate disciplinary proceedings which could lead to the volunteer being removed from their DFL offices. If a candidate could not be concurrently endorsed by the DFL and DSA, and if a DSA-endorsed candidate competed directly against a DFL-endorsed candidate, this rule would prohibit volunteers holding DFL offices from publicly supporting the DSA candidate. Violating the rule could lead to the volunteer being stripped of their DFL roles.
This could be interpreted as a “purge”, but in 2018, the MN DFL gave DFL volunteers a way to resolve conflicts like this. If someone holding a DFL office feels that they cannot support the DFL-endorsed candidate, they can request and presumably receive a leave of absence from their position(s). While on leave, they are free to publicly support whichever candidate they wish. They can return to their DFL roles after the election, when the DFL endorsement expires. The state DFL created this mechanism to stretch its Big Tent to accommodate divergent and competing views.
Ending dual endorsement could impose temporary constraints on the public behavior of volunteers who hold DFL offices. But accepting a DFL office imposes other behavioral constraints, and this particular constraint is temporary, and only for volunteers holding DFL offices. The resolution would not impact volunteers who align with the DFL but do not hold DFL offices.
Would it “purge” candidates?
The resolution, if adopted by majority vote, would present candidates seeking publicly elected Minneapolis offices with a choice. They could seek and receive endorsement from the TCDSA, and relinquish the opportunity to be endorsed by the DFL. Or they could pursue DFL endorsement, and not seek DSA endorsement (Ward 12 Councilor Aurin Chowdhury independently made this choice in 2025). The resolution language does not address when it would take effect. If it took effect immediately, two candidates for Minneapolis City Council who now hold both DFL and DSA endorsements would have to choose which one to retain. Presumably, they would base that choice on 1) The organizational platform that best reflects their own views, and 2) Which endorsement they believe is more politically valuable.
The candidate’s choice impacts one contest. If a candidate in one contest chooses to seek and accept DSA endorsement, they still are free to seek and accept DFL endorsement for a different contest.
Parliamentary maneuverings by DSA adherents
During the last days of June, DSA adherents holding Minneapolis DFL offices took several actions that reduced the likelihood that the resolution will be introduced, debated and voted upon at the July 19 convention.
New rule about the signature form
Above we noted that resolution proponents had been collecting signatures to introduce it for debate using a Google form. In late June, DSA adherents on the Minneapolis DFL Executive Committee drafted a Constitution bylaw that required all resolutions to be submitted on forms that 1) Had been approved in advance by the Minneapolis DFL Central Committee, and 2) Be signed in ink. On June 30, 2025, the Minneapolis DFL Central Committee, dominated by DSA adherents, approved these newly introduced requirements. The newly adopted resolution support form is now posted on the Minneapolis DFL website.
Resolution proponents had been collecting signatures electronically for four months, on a form of their own design, because there had not been a required form at the time they began. This new requirement gave them two weeks to reproduce that four-month effort. On July 8, they emailed those who had signed the form electronically, saying:
“We are reaching out to provide you an update regarding the resolution to end dual endorsements specifically with the DSA and DFL. As you may remember we needed to obtain signatures from 10% of the city delegates in order to have it added to the agenda at the July 19th City Convention. The MPLS DFL Central Committee recently met and voted to require the signatures be “wet”, in other words we will need to collect your signature in person. Obviously this is an effort to try to prevent us from bringing our resolution to the convention which makes us all the more determined!
We don’t have a lot of time to collect these “wet” signatures so we are hoping that you might be able to help by meeting us at various locations around the city.”
This was the email that instigated the publicly posted remarks, some of which are cited above, including the one in which CM Jason Chavez expressed disappointment at efforts to kick progressive people of color out of the party.
New rule about using the DFL logo
At the same late June meeting of the Minneapolis DFL Executive Committee, DSA adherents drafted another new bylaw, that required anyone using the Minneapolis DFL logo to receive formal written approval from the Minneapolis DFL Central Committee. Anyone who used the logo without this written approval could be disciplined by removing them from their DFL office(s).
This bylaw also was debated at the June 30 meeting of the Minneapolis DFL Central Committee. During debate, one DSA adherent stated that the bylaw had been drafted in response to the pamphlet that resolution proponents had been circulating. The original pamphlet graphically contrasted DFL and DSA platforms by listing text from each, side by side. At the top of each text column were logos for the Minneapolis DFL and TCDSA.
Anticipating that this bylaw was going to be discussed on June 30, resolution proponents modified the pamphlet and the website, replacing the logos with the acronyms ‘DFL’ and ‘DSA’ in the same typeface but different colors.
On June 30, at 8 PM, while the meeting to discuss the bylaw was underway, a DSA adherent posted a screen shot from the old pamphlet, saying, “If you came across this pamphlet in the wild and didn’t know the backstory, which organization or group would you assume created it?” He did not inform his followers that the pamphlet he posted, with the logos, no longer was circulating.
Proposed rules and agenda for the mid-July convention
All DFL conventions have Rules Committees, which drafts rules and agenda for the convention. The Committee presents its draft to the convened body, which then votes to accept them, or not. Many DSA adherents had been elected to the Rules Committee for the July 19 city convention. As of July 10, nine days before the convention, the Minneapolis DFL had posted all the details about the upcoming convention except the Rules Committee’s proposed agenda. We heard from someone on the Committee that it was going to recommend that resolutions be the final agenda item.
If resolutions are the final agenda item, at the end of a very long day, many delegates may have left the convention by that time. If the convention loses quorum, no further business can be considered. The resolution could have been placed on the agenda, but the convention could be adjourned before it is discussed.
Conclusion
Some DFL volunteers have been concerned that dual DFL-DSA endorsement confuses voters because the DFL and DSA platforms diverge on key issues. These volunteers want to differentiate the organizations’ platforms, and clarify the differences. They believe that these distinctions are obscured when one candidate carries both DFL and DSA endorsement. Dual endorsement, they argue, confuses voters, especially when the DSA, both as an organization and its individual adherents, expresses hostility towards and contempt for the DFL.
For these reasons, these volunteers launched an effort to introduce a resolution at the July 19 city convention that would, if a majority of delegates accepted it, prohibit candidates for publicly elected Minneapolis offices from being concurrently endorsed by the DFL and DSA. If the resolution is adopted and implemented immediately, it would impact two candidates for Minneapolis City Council. They would have to choose which endorsement to retain. If, at the convention, DSA-endorsed candidates for Minneapolis Mayor and Park Board also receive DFL endorsement, they too would have to choose which endorsement to retain.
Some DSA adherents, including those who hold DFL leadership roles, fiercely oppose the resolution. They assert that it is an attempt to purge from the DFL anyone who supports DSA candidates and/or holds DSA beliefs. Ward 9 Councilor Jason Chavez publicly said that it’s an effort to oust Progressives from the party. An outspoken member of the Minneapolis DFL Executive Committee publicly accused the CD5 Chair of “going after” Chavez.
There is nothing in the resolution’s language, or in anything its proponents have done or said, which suggests that a “purge” is underway. The resolution simply says that no candidate for publicly elected Minneapolis office can concurrently hold endorsements from the DFL and DSA. As this article is being prepared, there are only two candidates who concurrently hold both endorsements. If the convened body adopts the resolution, those two candidates would need to choose which endorsement to accept.
Despite the absence of any evidence that an attempted purge is underway, the Minneapolis DFL Executive Committee recently took several parliamentary maneuvers that reduce the likelihood that 1) The resolution will be introduced at the convention, and 2) If introduced, it will be debated and voted upon. We will report on the outcome of the July 19 convention after it adjourns.
Kind of chuckling as I read through this article and the comments up to this point. What a sideshow!
OK – First, there is nothing at all in the 2018 DFL rules change, the one allowing for “leave of absence”, that results in anything like resolution of conflict. The fact is, prior to about 2022, neither the old version of the rule nor the 2018 alleged softening was actually enforced in any meaningful way in most Senate Districts. One had to really be “over the top” in supporting an opponent to a DFL-endorsed candidate to even be noticed, let alone disciplined. I know, because I have a long history of DOING it, and was never even questioned prior to 2024, let alone disciplined. So now that the DFL has a rule that it THINKS is not draconian, they are actually enforcing it. That is the opposite of resolving conflict.
As I recently told my SD Chair, the fact is that since I support candidates not only in my own districts, but throughout the Metro area and in statewide races, and because I live in Mpls with its odd-number year elections – I am almost always supporting at least one non-endorsed DFLer in the period between convention time and either Primary day or General election day, every single year – even or odd. And most of the party positions you can hold (and get a leave of absence FROM) are nothing more than unpaid volunteer labor; they amp up in the run-up to election day; AND are best filled by someone who is willing to “do the work” all year round. So, after 40 years of doing such party-building work, there is really little point in my even going through the motions any more. I would be “on leave” almost as much as I would be “in office”.
So the DFL is simply cutting off its supply of unpaid volunteer labor, because it has decided to “purge” (there’s that word again!) those who think that ALL the registered voters, in the Primary or an RCV General, should decide who best represents the DFL, not just a small handful of people who have little enough sense as to spend large amounts of their time attending caucuses, attending conventions, and calling delegates on behalf of candidates in between. And I say that as one of the people who, for 40 years, has had that little sense, and will probably continue to participate in that way… right up to the Conventions in most years.
So now many of the same DFLers who brought us that little gem of exclusionary politics want to exclude the DSA’ers just for wanting to SAY they are endorsed DSA’ers when they run as an endorsed DFLer. In spite of having been a Bernie supporter in ’16, and having certain sympathies for SOME economic ideas regarded by some as being “socialist”, I am no friend of the DSA because A) Its positions on many, many NON-economic issues are borderline insane, and B) I have this “thing” about people in office actually wanting to be effective in THAT office (i.e. – City Council members should want to actually help run a city…), not cos-playing for higher office – and our local DSA’ers are just “not that”. At all. But excluding them from the DFL because I don’t like ’em doesn’t sit well with me.
So – glad that the resolution has been withdrawn. But still, I have a better idea for my DFL brothers and sisters who want, as I do, to defeat the DSA in Mpls so we can get on with the business of dealing with the actual issues of running a city well: The DSA is several years into GREATLY out-organizing us (hats-off to them!), and even more important, exceeding us ENORMOUSLY in “owning” their positions and making sure they are not shy about letting voters know who they are and what they stand for. What they stand for is often highly problematic, it seems to me, but they do OWN it. Somebody please find me a “closet” DSAer. They do not exist! They are loud and proud.
Those candidates who wish to stand in opposition to the DSA and its stances on city issues need to STAND UP and start to make a point of TELLING the voters of their Wards who THEY are, what they believe in, and most importantly, what will be different if they are elected, instead of the DSAers. This holds true for the ones who are DFL endorsed, the ones running against a DSAer who is DFL endorsed, and the ones running in Wards with no endorsement.
If you don’t believe you can stand up and “own” your own positions, especially those that differ from those of the DSA, and still WIN, then you are admitting that you probably don’t truly best represent your Ward. Non-DSA candidates and supporters: Please stop scheming up ways to make life administratively difficult for the DSA, and start actually CAMPAIGNING forthrightly against them. “Own” what you believe in. And watch HOW they campaign, and be tactical in response. Just one example – Almost ALL of you non-DSAers, if you open your eyes, will realize that the DSAers do social media and all other forms of contemporary online campaigning much better than you do. FIX THAT.
The DSA, in 2025, is continuing with THEIR parasitic use/ abuse of the Democratic Party…
From 2018…
This article was originally published on the NY DSA website.
https://www.leftvoice.org/dsa-it-s-time-to-abandon-the-democrats/
Excerpt…
“Also, by supporting Democratic candidates, we are giving material and ideological support to an imperialist party. As socialists living in the heart of the Imperialist beast, we have a distinct responsibility to stand in solidarity with our comrades suffering Imperialist oppression. Because even the left flank of the Democratic party (people like Bernie Sanders) support imperialism, supporting such a party betrays our anti-imperialist obligation. “
I’m happy this resolution was pulled. I agree that DSA supported candidates need to explain some of DSA Platform, and DSA actions that are hostile to DFL. But that should be at candidate level, not DFL level.
Updated 07/11/2025: Protect Our Platform released a statement dropping their resolution for the City Convention. Here’s their statement:
“We are writing to let you know that we are no longer pursuing the Protect Our Platform resolution that would end dual DFL-DSA endorsements. This effort has been taken by some as an effort to purge people from our party, which is in no way our intention. Feelings are raw and running high around this issue, and could potentially lead to negative outcomes for all at the convention, which is also not our intention.
The ultimate goal is to strengthen the DFL platform and DFL endorsement, and while many of us have different ideas about what that means and how to get there, we welcome the conversation and believe that open and honest debate is a bedrock principle to a strong democracy. We hope that those actively engaged in the DFL will continue to work to strengthen the party, and hope that we will all commit to listening to one another and treating each other with dignity and respect, including those with whom we disagree.”
The DSA wants to replace capitalism with socialism.
The DSA wants to slowly but surely do away with law enforcement.
The DSA wants to decarcerate , etc
None of these are part of THE DFL platform.
Once again, there is much disinformation about DSA and Twin Cities DSA in your piece. I don’t think it was malicious but if you’re so concerned that people understand what DSA is, I think it would have been worth the time to do a little homework and get it right. DSA (the national org.) was founded in 1982 by a merger between two leftist groups in existence at that time. The two groups were DSOC (Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee) and NAM (the New American Movement.) The Twin Cities had at one time a chapter of both of these organizations but by 1982, only the DSOC local was active, so that was “grandfathered” into existence as Twin Cities DSA. In late 2015, the small, unofficial leadership cadre of TCDSA discerned that Bernie Sanders was causing a large upsurge in new members in DSA. We had never had a constitution and bylaws, so we did not have any way to have proper elections and member meetings. The group was very small and more of a casual affinity group. We had social gatherings, we marched in some anti-war, women’s rights, and gay rights actions, and we aided union locals by joining picket lines, raising money, etc.
So in September 2016, at the East Side Freedom Library, we had a “re-founding convention” to adopt a constitution and bylaws and elect a steering committee. Trump’s first inauguration brought in hundreds of new members and we managed the explosive growth as best we could. From 1982 to 2016, even though our chapter was called Twin Cities DSA, it was the only one in MN. By 2018, there were three others, now there are a few more.
The other way that I think this piece misrepresents DSA is in the discussions about its “hostility” to the DFL and Democrats. Basically, DSA, and especially Twin Cities DSA, which exists in the local political left ecosystem, with its rowdy history of anarchists, kick-ass unions, cooperatives, and third parties like the Non-Partisan League and the Farmer-Labor Party, is a big tent, at least as big in terms of ideological diversity as the DFL, just further left. In other words, the most moderate DSA members are indistinguishable from the more left-leaning DFL progressives. All the quotes are correct, but they do not and never have reflected a majority, let alone consensus, position of DSA. Not being a party, we do not practice “party discipline.” But – and this is the key thing I want to point out – the DSA members and DSA-adherent (to use your slightly imprecise term) who are volunteering in the DFL are NOT the ones who hold the position of hostility to Democrats. Those people would love your resolution, because their aim is to disqualify anyone associated with the DFL / Democrats from having DSA endorsement!
Anyway, the resolution has been withdrawn. It’s all moot.
I find this article very informative about the DSA:
https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/quit-dsa-gaza-israel/
The original draft of this article included much (not all) of the DSA history you cite. The editors requested that I break the article down into shorter chunks, which I did. This is the first. There will be another that covers DSA history in much more detail, focusing on the period after 2016, when with the influx of tens of thousands of new members, and chapters opening across the US, really became a different organization.
That piece will be based on thorough reviews of scores of articles that DSA thought leaders have published, wrestling with (in their words) the “vexing relationship” with the Democratic Party. It is vexing because they despise the Democratic Party, but at the same time need to use the Democratic Party to achieve their political goals.
If you would like to contribute remarks to that article, please let me know. If you do not wish to publish your contact information here, you can share it privately with MplsTimes publisher, and they will get it to me. If you would rather not accept this offer, I simply will say that local DSA leaders could not be reached for comment.
Also, a few corrections to your article:
-The 6 political parties in Minnesota are the DFL, Republican Party, Libertarian Party, Independence-Alliance Party of Minnesota, and the two Weed Parties. I’m not sure what it means to be “like a political party”, but seems pretty irrelevant since there are no rules against being “like” a party.
-Bylaws and Constitutional Amendments are binding. Resolutions are nonbinding advisory statements. If this Resolution had passed, it would have required absolutely nothing from the candidates. Candidates could have still kept both endorsements if they earned both.
But like I said, this discussion is irrelevant since the leader behind the resolution has chosen to withdraw it to prevent further division.
The discussion includes the blatant mischaracterization of the resolution as a “purge”, in which you, Mr. Kruse, were a major contributor. Perhaps you could comment upon your role in that.
As for the legalisms of what is and is not a formal political party in MN, I am well aware that the DSA does not meet that definition, and never said that it did. I did point out that at least since 2016, DSA thought leaders have been advocating that the DSA behave like a political party, inside the Democratic Party. I will review this literature in depth in the next piece on this topic.
I have never said it would purge volunteers (feel free to look through all my social media to confirm). I did say it would purge candidates, which is self-evidently true no matter how much you want to spin it. Preventing certain candidates from seeking the DFL Endorsement would be purging them from the Endorsement process.
Scott Graham has already confirmed that they are withdrawing their petition resolution. This potential resolution will NOT be voted on at the convention.
Yes, Dave Tinjum, Mpls Times publisher, attached a comment to that effect.