Sanders single-payer litmus test alarms Dems

[RogueBeaver]

His team isn't ruling out challenging incumbents who don't back single-payer, but so far they've held off endorsing Sbaih in Nevada at Reid's request. Perhaps directed pressure campaigns like with Booker on pharma & Warren on Carson.

[GoTfan]

Of course it alarms them. The pharma industry donates millions to them.

[DrScholl]

Not that it matters, since Sanders backed candidates don't have a good track record of getting elected. He seriously overestimates his credibility.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The leader of the democratic party, her great highness Nancy Pelosi, has famously declared "We're capitalists, and that's just how it is!" If Sanders wants to advocate for socialist policies, he should join the green party.

[Coraxion]

They should only do this in blue districts.

[mcmikk]

On one hand, I support single payer and I support doing this in safe Democratic districts, but in red districts and competitive districts in general, Democrats will need Blue Dogs/moderates if they want to win back Congress. And most places where a Blue Dog/moderate will be needed to win Sanders's support won't matter anyway.

[Hoosier_Nick]

They should only do this in blue districts.

On one hand, I support single payer and I support doing this in safe Democratic districts, but in red districts and competitive districts in general, Democrats will need Blue Dogs/moderates if they want to win back Congress. And most places where a Blue Dog/moderate will be needed to win Sanders's support won't matter anyway.

[Dr. Arch]

They should only do this in blue districts.

On one hand, I support single payer and I support doing this in safe Democratic districts, but in red districts and competitive districts in general, Democrats will need Blue Dogs/moderates if they want to win back Congress. And most places where a Blue Dog/moderate will be needed to win Sanders's support won't matter anyway.

[Mr. Smith]

They should only do this in blue districts.

On one hand, I support single payer and I support doing this in safe Democratic districts, but in red districts and competitive districts in general, Democrats will need Blue Dogs/moderates if they want to win back Congress. And most places where a Blue Dog/moderate will be needed to win Sanders's support won't matter anyway.

This, but modify the litmus test to backing a public option within Obamacare.

The GOP in 2010 converged, even in deep blue states on the litmus test of taxes did they not?

[VPH]

Can we stop with the damn litmus tests? Like yeah it would be cool if everybody backed single payer but let's just start with something like supporting universal access to affordable healthcare as a basic tenet.

[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.

[henster]

Public option > Single payer. The Conyers bill has huge tax increases that may not even cover the full cost of the program.

[GlobeSoc]

Good. Virtually all of the Democratic Caucus is worthless & should be replaced by people to their left, anyway. There's absolutely no justification for any Democrat that sits in a blue district to oppose single-payer.

[Kingpoleon]

Can we stop with the damn litmus tests? Like yeah it would be cool if everybody backed single payer but let's just start with something like supporting universal access to affordable healthcare as a basic tenet.

Please start with this. Even Romney seemed to support UHC in 2012.

[Cynthia]

They should only do this in blue districts.

On one hand, I support single payer and I support doing this in safe Democratic districts, but in red districts and competitive districts in general, Democrats will need Blue Dogs/moderates if they want to win back Congress. And most places where a Blue Dog/moderate will be needed to win Sanders's support won't matter anyway.

[Young Conservative]

Of course it alarms them. T will destroy their suburb gains and dry up fundraising.

[GoTfan]

Not that it matters, since Sanders backed candidates don't have a good track record of getting elected. He seriously overestimates his credibility.

Well let's clear one thing up: Quist's campaign was ignored for Ossoff, who lost in an entirely predictable result. What was it? $30 million and the most expensive House race in history? And he still lost?

Most Democrats would rather lose with a Third Wayer than win with a progressive, because the more progressives that are in Congess, then that risks their chance of getting bribes in campaign donations.

[BudgieForce]

Not that it matters, since Sanders backed candidates don't have a good track record of getting elected. He seriously overestimates his credibility.

Well let's clear one thing up: Quist's campaign was ignored for Ossoff, who lost in an entirely predictable result. What was it? $30 million and the most expensive House race in history? And he still lost?

Most Democrats would rather lose with a Third Wayer than win with a progressive, because the more progressives that are in Congess, then that risks their chance of getting bribes in campaign donations.

Ossoff didnt loose because he wasnt progressive enough. He lost because he didnt live in the district.

[BudgieForce]

Seriously though, there should be no litmus test for democrats outside of a sure vote against Obamacare repeal. If democrats held majorities in both houses of congress than maybe it'd be something to consider but not when every seat is important and damaging incumbents is unhelpful.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Why is it that other forms of universal healthcare can't be endorsed instead?

[mcmikk]

Seriously though, there should be no litmus test for democrats outside of a sure vote against Obamacare repeal. If democrats held majorities in both houses of congress than maybe it'd be something to consider but not when every seat is important and damaging incumbents is unhelpful.

[Lord Admirale]

Sanders' ego is massive since he lost a presidential primary campaign by 4 million votes, turned into the cheerleader for the person he said was corrupt and shouldn't be president, and has a cult following him that believes everything that comes out of his mouth.

By doing a "litmus test," he's just saying "I'm the greatest, do as I say or get out." A pure egotistic bully tactic.

[heatcharger]

Seriously though, there should be no litmus test for democrats outside of a sure vote against Obamacare repeal. If democrats held majorities in both houses of congress than maybe it'd be something to consider but not when every seat is important and damaging incumbents is unhelpful.

It's not something to "maybe consider": leaving even one person uninsured is a moral travesty and, when the time comes, the Democratic Party has a moral duty to implement a universal healthcare system.

A universal healthcare system and single-payer are not synonymous and you know this.

[Tintrlvr]

Seriously though, there should be no litmus test for democrats outside of a sure vote against Obamacare repeal. If democrats held majorities in both houses of congress than maybe it'd be something to consider but not when every seat is important and damaging incumbents is unhelpful.

This this this this this. There are a lot of great, cost-efficient and effective healthcare systems in the world that are not single-payer; the Dutch system, for example, which is basically Obamacare with some patches. We don't need to create a National Health Service to have a great healthcare system, and claiming we do is wasting energy when there are other mega-issues the party could also be addressing, like improving the tax system or fighting climate change.

[Xing]

Most people aren't ready to give single-payer a chance, and while I want Democrats to push for universal coverage in the long run, this kind of "litmus test" could easily backfire. Democrats of course have to stand up for their principles, but they can't become a purist party and win a majority.