Opinion: Nithya Raman Has Not Earned the Endorsement of DSA-LA

This article is written by DSA-LA members as a reply to First New York, Now Los Angeles: DSA-LA Should Endorse Nithya Raman for Mayor published in Geese.

There is no disagreement that Nithya Raman is more progressive than Karen Bass. That is not the question at hand. The question is whether endorsing Raman advances our roadmap for a socialist Los Angeles that centers the multiracial working-class. Many of our 6,000 members joined DSA because they were sick of settling for a Democratic Party influenced by developers, corporations, and the ultrawealthy who flip-flop on issues and betray the base. The authors of “First New York, Now Los Angeles: DSA-LA Should Endorse Nithya Raman for Mayor” argue that our endorsement of a flawed, progressive candidate can orient the working class towards the Left in future cycles. Yet they miss the key driver behind DSA’s recent electoral victories: insisting, unequivocally, that working people deserve more.

Disappointment with the status quo does not automatically create socialists when a socialist executive does not have a clear vision. In fact, we can argue the opposite—socialist mayor Katie Wilson of Seattle has a record-low approval rating. Putting forward a candidate in the second-largest city in the country means the weight and the influence of our organization will be scrutinized, and our endorsement should embrace a strong candidate who is accountable to our chapter.

If we endorse Raman, a candidate who lacks the inspirational leadership and collaborative political relationship that forms the foundation of a strong DSA endorsement, we risk spending the next four years managing the consequences; explaining, defending, and organizing around the shortcomings of a mayor who was never meaningfully accountable to our democratic socialist movement in the first place. Is that a risk we want to take?

We have another choice: we can devote the next four years to building the organization and political infrastructure capable of running a DSA-LA mayor in 2030, one who builds their platform, staffing, and governing with us from the beginning—rather than a last-minute entrant—and who understands that their power comes from being accountable to a multiracial working-class movement in Los Angeles.

The DSA Difference

Our endorsement goes beyond a ranking of progressive candidates. When we endorse, we’re attaching our name, credibility, relationships, labor, and political power to a race. That's why the history of our relationship with Raman matters. Over the last six years, Raman has had the opportunity to collaborate and strengthen the relationship with our organization—especially given the growing ranks of our DSA-endorsed councilmembers. Instead, she has split from our socialist bloc on multiple critically important votes—votes that align foundationally with our organization's core values.

For example, in 2024, she voted to approve the appointment of LAPD Chief, Jim McDonnell, who had previously been ousted as sheriff after he refused to support the statewide sanctuary bill, SB54. This bill made most collaboration between local law enforcement and ICE illegal. But under his watch, close to 6,000 people were deported as a direct result of transfers from sheriff-run jails into the hands of ICE agents. The fact that she voted to approve an anti-immigrant LAPD Chief, at the beginning of Trump’s second term and after the immigrant rights’ movement successfully ousted him, is indefensible.

Also, she sought to remove key provisions from ULA. Measure ULA, also known as the mansion tax, is one of the most significant housing measures that workers have been able to pass anywhere in the country. This tax on properties valued at or over $5.4M generates hundreds of millions of dollars towards social housing and direct economic support for tenants each year. The measure is effectively a direct wealth transfer from the ultra-rich to working people. This move alienated organized labor and tenant organizations significantly, since the Raman carve-outs were seen by labor as major concessions to private development companies.

This is in addition to her breaks from the DSA-LA bloc on issues she touts as part of her mayoral platform; such as when she voted to enable LAHD to raid hillside unhoused encampments without permission, or when she voted to accept a “gift” of Flock cameras from the LA Police Foundation. Nithya’s tendency to “go it alone” without movement partners has caused real harm to the LA working-class.

Our endorsement should be earned through a consistent track record of collaboration on working-class issues, not rewarded based on ideological proximity. When we look at this race under these standards, it is clear that Raman has not earned our endorsement.

Why would we, a working-class organization fighting to outmaneuver the status quo coalition, vote to endorse and effectively promote the very candidate that has consistently undermined the very power we've been building on Council?

Endorsing Raman undermines the socialist movement we have sought to build

Another flawed argument is that endorsing Raman will create leverage. Our leverage is our members, our work, and our credibility, especially now when our organization is stronger and more visible than ever. Endorsement is an expression of leverage, not leverage itself. We cannot create a relationship of accountability by giving away our endorsement to someone who has not expressed interest in being accountable to our members and organization.

Councilmember Raman herself said in Vanity Fair,

I did not join the DSA because I had a deep ideological drive, but I do really care about issues and they were the only political organization in LA talking about renters’ rights, the only one…

We should take her at her word. If she is not invested in addressing the intersecting inequalities we as the working-class face under capitalism (which our members trust us to do), how can we expect her to deliver for the working people on more than just a single issue?

DSA should not be in the business of simply endorsing the most progressive candidate on the ballot. We should be building political relationships with candidates who share our vision, proudly identify as democratic socialists, and understand that their power comes from a movement of organized working people, not from their individual political brand.

An endorsement of a candidate who has repeatedly emphasized her independence from our organization does not strengthen that power; it risks diminishing it.

We should not lend our collective name and credibility to someone who has made clear that she does not share our political identity or see our organization as necessary to her political power. In fact, multiple people on her campaign have told us time and time again that ‘she does not need DSA to win.’ And if that’s the case, then there is no strong argument to give her our endorsement when our organization and socialist project have more to lose than gain.

Los Angeles and 2028

The authors of the original pro-endorsement piece correctly identify 2028 as a critical moment for the socialist movement. With the Olympics, a potential mass general strike, and a possible Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez presidential campaign, 2028 will be a historic year for the left in Los Angeles. A socialist mayor of our city will face unprecedented challenges while representing the movement on the international stage. Failing at such a level risks creating an opportunity for the capitalist class to not only discredit the individual elected and their direct organizing partners but also the entire American Left during a critical historical moment.

Can Raman credibly provide socialist leadership at that juncture?

Los Angeles has weathered year after year of budget crises due to deficits driven by LAPD liability payouts and other forms of mismanagement. We are likely to still be in this crisis when LA hosts the Olympics, which historically leaves host cities worse off and has minimal protections to limit financial costs driven up by the games.

Just as Zohran has been forced to carefully navigate the Trump administration, Raman will also have to navigate local, national, and international reactionary forces. She will face pressure from city developers to expedite rapid gentrification ahead of the 2028 Olympics. If mass strikes disrupt the city during May Day, she will be asked to negotiate a labor contract—the bosses will lean on her to make it favorable to them. If elected mayor, Raman will have to meet with Trump.

Zohran has navigated these mandated meetings well—neither offending the tyrant nor betraying the movement. In contrast, when questioned about her relationship to DSA, Raman has consistently been quick to distance herself from the organization. If Nithya wanted our endorsement for a major leadership position during such a critical period in our city’s history, she should have proudly stood with our socialist movement and consistently voted with our values.

Leaders Who Fight for Palestine

Raman has shown that she is out of step with the socialist principles that DSA has articulated in response to the genocide in Palestine.

Those principles are especially important given the scale of the violence in Gaza, where more than 100,000 people have been killed since October 7th, 2023. On that day, DSA released a statement expressing our solidarity with the Palestinian people, calling upon socialists to act and prevent the loss of more civilian lives—pointing to then New York Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani’s “#NotOnOurDime” campaign as a positive example of disinvestment from Israel. Three years later, that visionary leadership presented by DSA has become a hegemonic political perspective among Democratic voters. In response, on October 10th, 2023, Raman called that statement “completely devoid of empathy for communities in Israel and at home” while admitting that, when initially responding to October 7th, she omitted any mention of the deaths of Palestinians.

Her approach to Palestine has also revealed a willingness to publicly emphasize divergence with DSA on international solidarity. As recently as May, Raman has thoughtlessly repeated Zionist talking points such as “Israel has a right to exist”, whereas Zohran has used his seat to shock the country into progress, taking a clear stance against genocide. Meanwhile, Nithya has tried to play both sides, calling for "bringing an end to the violence in Israel and Palestine, the safe return of all hostages, and a lasting peace with independence and security for Israelis and Palestinians alike."

These sentiments have become political poison to the American working-class who now see politicians’ attachment to the state of Israel not only as an immoral betrayal of human rights, but as a cynical lack of regard for issues at home. Raman has since made less wavering statements on the genocide in Gaza and emphasized the importance of protecting human life. Nevertheless, she has not made public policy commitments to use the mayoral office to stop arms flow to Israel. In contrast, she has emphasized that the mayor “does not have foreign policy power.”

While Raman may not have the hard foreign policy power of a federal-level elected, if she were to become mayor of the second-largest city in the United States, she would have the power of the bully pulpit. Zohran used his office to call for the arrest of Benjamin Netanyahu. Would Raman do the same?

This year alone, we have witnessed the kidnapping of the Venezuelan head of state, the bombardment of schools in Iran, and the slow starvation of an entire nation in Cuba. Socialists must put forward leaders who are prepared to speak out for all members of the working-class—at home and abroad.

Movement Politics vs. Wonk Politics

To make an informed decision about whether or not to endorse Raman’s mayoral campaign, DSA-LA members must look beyond the candidate herself and examine the coalition she seeks to build. Even when given the opportunity to do so, Raman has demonstrated neglect by running a campaign that has rejected coalition building. Instead, she relies on her personal expertise to develop the best policies for working people. Hers are the politics of wonky professionals, not working-class leaders. She has only shown an aversion to the basic construction of a mass movement, let alone a socialist one.

And now, as a coalition forms around her, is this the one that we see ourselves reflected in? She has support from wealthy Hollywood liberals like Natalie Portman, conservative unions like the Carpenters, grad student unions, and overwhelmingly white and wealthy liberal communities like Los Feliz. She has catered more to the Silverlakes than the Latino barrios in the Valley, on the East Side, or our Black and Brown communities in South Central.

DSA is strongest when we unite the working-class. We cannot build a durable base for socialism in Los Angeles with only the most well-off and educated constituents. Raman’s campaign pits an affluent, primarily white progressive bloc against Black Los Angeles and the largely Latino labor movement.

If DSA doubles down on supporting Raman in mobilizing and engaging this coalition, we also double down on the demographic stereotypes about DSA—that we are white, highly educated, “not working-class,” subcultured transplants. Her platform focuses on technocratic solutions like the theoretically best possible zoning policies rather than building power for the working-class by challenging capital. Instead, we should focus on campaigns that ground us in the lived realities and daily experiences of the broader multiracial working class in LA. This decision is not just another endorsement decision—it is truly a fork in the road for DSA-LA.

What if she wins?

If she does win, we can absolutely commit to building a closer political relationship with her, but we shouldn’t give away our leverage or credibility before that relationship exists. Zohran Mamdani isn’t simply a progressive candidate who happened to win. He is a DSA member who ran with the support of his NYC chapter before asking its members to deploy their collective power on his behalf. Our experience with Raman is completely different. Our chapter and our members learned of her decision to run when the general public learned too. That difference matters, especially given how different the mayoral infrastructure is in Los Angeles.

This is why our chapter has proudly endorsed two DSA members, Marissa Roy for City Attorney and Estuardo Mazariegos for CD9, two candidates running for local office where our support and intervention advance our Democratic Socialist Program and the material conditions of working-class people. If Raman’s team is correct that her campaign does not need our endorsement, it makes more political sense to focus our finite resources on Roy, Mazariegos, and any other candidates that our members democratically decide to support. By making the decision to endorse Raman, our chapter will be absorbed by the mayoral race that will not advance our political project once Raman fails to deliver a socialist agenda.

DSA is a Socialist Organization and a Socialist Movement

When we face an important endorsement, the most strategic question to ask ourselves is: will this candidate work with us to build working-class power? If our endorsement can be secured without building a political relationship with us, what is our endorsement actually worth? If a candidate can repeatedly tell us they don't need us, why would we be so eager to prove that they do?

You can be a DSA member and vote for Raman. You can volunteer for her, work for her, support her, and want her to win. But you can also expect more from her—and refuse to hand over our organization's endorsement until a real relationship of accountability exists. We should not be afraid to withhold our endorsement from someone we want to win. Working-class power has always been more than electoral politics and more than one race. Together, we can demand a DSA where our endorsement is earned and built collectively. Vote NO to oppose DSA-LA’s endorsement of Nithya Raman.