I could not pull the lever for a candidate who doesn't support Reproductive Rights!

[JHan]

53. Where is the evidence that officially signaling a willingness to entertain pro-life candidates..

will bring significant net gains electorally?

Where is it?

The issue is not the pragmatism of Democrats, but the folly of reaching to a sliver voters for whom a pro-life position is a central concern when they vote- Such voters DO NOT vote Democrat, they vote Republican, so Lujan's announcement was a political miscalculation.

And why, in the face of women expressing our worries and fears about our rights coming under attack under this administration and across state legislatures, we're being told we don't understand Democrats need to retake the house? No shit. I had no idea..

And Global Warming is your main concern? -, if the DCCC* made an announcement that climate change deniers are welcome in the party, you'd be fine with that going by the logic being applied here right? - actually Dems might get more votes in Red States if they signaled a willingness to ease up on environmental protections and go full hog with coal - I assume you'd be fine with that, in the interest of pragmatism right?

Pragmatic reasoning takes into account the costs/benefits of compromise to mitigate harm in less than ideal circumstances. This announcement by the DCCC is not pragmatism, it is a fail, because the gains will not be significant enough to quell the outrage and anger- I will not be surprised if the DCCC sees a drop in funding- yeah , what a winning strategy.