Sanders single-payer litmus test alarms Dems

[Virginiá]

They should only do this in blue districts.

Yes. Assuming you mean totally safe districts, those are where Democrats can really grow the progressive bench without risking a loss. That is where they should focus their attention, not in competitive districts where they could easily go too far. We have recent history to learn from (Republicans).

Also, I don't understand why single-payer should be a litmus test. I definitely long for a system like that, and I would always gravitate towards candidates that endorse such a system, but it shouldn't be forced on every one of them. It's not like believing in more incremental steps is completely out of line. At the very least, they should spend a couple years trying to build up favorable candidates in safe districts and then we can revisit this issue later on.

[Virginiá]

In the end, winning elections is the most important part. If progressive issues play badly in West Virginia and North Dakota, then moving towards the center is a matter of survival. When democrats had 60 seats in 2009,  there were at least 17 centrist Democrats by my count.

Depends on what we need to move to center with. I think the leftwards shift on social issues has probably hurt Democrats a good bit with various white demographics in the midwest/rust belt, and there is no reason economically liberal/culturally conservative Democrats can't win there and possibly in some parts of Appalachia.

Honestly the last thing I want to see is any faction of Democrats justifying a shift to the center on economic issues based on the results of the past few elections. That seems like an excuse for Democrats to satisfy rich donors and special interests, when such a shift is totally unnecessary.

[Virginiá]

Hang on - you think Obama and Clinton were economic moderates?

I didn't comment on their economic bonafides, or at least that was not my intention.

[Virginiá]

Why should the people who have lost all control of the federal government over 8 years make the decisions for the party going forward?

Honestly if you want to go in that direction, I'd say the better argument is why should the faction that has gotten the Democrats in a hole with the House and Senate for the better part of the past generation make the decisions going forward. Just slowly losing control of the federal govt over the 2-term tenure of a Democratic president shouldn't be grounds alone for tossing them out, imo. I wouldn't call for the Sanders' wings ouster if a President Sanders and their faction cost the Democratic Party control in the same way Obama did. It really has to be a longer sequence of losses, because it's not uniquely bad for a 2-term president to cost their party seats over 8 years.

Of course I think there is a reason Republicans have held control so consistently that is largely separate from whatever Democrats have done, so it's not an argument I'm receptive to, but still.

[Virginiá]

The idea about the incumbent losing seats during the Presidency is a strawman argument. No President in recent history has lost as many seats as Obama has if you combine the results of both terms (& Bush had a wave election against him in 2016). You can argue that he had a high point in 2018, but he lost the house in 2010, 2012 & 2014 (& Dems continued that trend).

It's undeniable that Democrats have been beaten back beyond where they "should" be, but when you look at a lot of the lost states/seats under Obama, it's at least a little more understandable. Democrats were never going to keep power in all those Southern states, and the Midwest has been mostly Republican at the state level since at least the 90s, if not longer. When people say Democrats lost over 1,000 legislative seats, I think they are using the most dramatic number they can to sell their view of the party. Democrats were very over-extended after 2 waves in a row, and they were bound to crash after that sugar high was depleted.

Ftr, I think I have even had this discussion with you before in the past.

[Virginiá]

Acting as if single payer is the only worthwhile thing a democratic administration can do for liberal Americans is pretty ridiculous.

That's my main concern right now, and I say this as someone who could benefit from something like Medicare-for-all. Everything can't revolve around healthcare.

However I will say this - if we're going to do single payer, then they better fking do it right this time, because we can't spend all our time and power on healthcare. If they fall short again, we need to move on to other issues. The world is not on pause as we squirm on healthcare reform. There are still tons of other issues that need to be addressed.