All of these "purity" discussions are conflating two distinct questions.

[BzaDem]

1. In a hypothetical world, where it is (hypothetically) unambiguously necessary to include members with different views on issue X to achieve a majority, should we reject such members and be comfortable with (hypothetically) forever forgoing progress (or avoiding regress) on all issues?

2. Do we actually live in the world described by question 1? (In general and district-by-district.)

But instead of breaking apart such discussions this way, and making clear all participants' positions on #1 and #2 (allowing debate to focus on actual points of disagreement), the questions are conflated. As a result, people endlessly talk past each other (at best), or claim disagreement on whether issue X is important -- disagreement that doesn't actually exist.

I imagine many people who argue that we should only permit one view on issue X are actually making a statement about question 2. That is, they would acknowledge that there could exist a world in which it makes sense to support a candidate with a bad position on issue X, but they firmly believe that such a world is not the world we live in. (That is, they firmly believe we can achieve progress on all issues without members with such views.)

Likewise, I imagine many people who argue that we should permit multiple views on issue X are mostly arguing against a "Yes" answer to question 1. In other words, they are saying that we should permit different views, assuming for the sake of argument that doing so is necessary to make any progress on any issue. They may also believe that there are actually certain races where such a hypothetical world is the reality, but they certainly do not wish to support candidates with a bad position on issue X in cases where it is not necessary to do so.

Ultimately, I think most of of the disagreement comes down to question 2. This is mostly an empirical question that depends heavily on context (and the issue in question), in which there should be plenty of room to disagree without questioning each other's motives.

[leftofcool]

1. I have decided I am not into purity. I am a Democrat

I will only vote for a Democrat and as far as I know, there is no perfect person therefore purity does not exist.

[brer cat]

2. You are asking for a devil's advocate, you know.

If George Wallace had run as a Democrat in '68 and won the nomination, would you have voted for him or Nixon?

[leftofcool]

5. Neither one. I would have sat out.

Just like I will be doing in 2020 if I don't like what is on the ballot.

[brer cat]

6. It's an interesting situation.

So many DUers are in locations where they would be highly unlikely to ever face a choice that bad, but many others of us have and do. I voted Republican only once and that was when arch-segregationist Lester Maddox was the Democratic (Dixiecrat) nominee for governor of GA. That was a line I could not cross nor would I sit it out. It is one thing to discuss in theory or hypotheticals yet it is very different when the names are on the ballot in front of you waiting for your choice.

[Garrett78]

3. I've only been seeing this question come up with regards to abortion rights.

And the problem is the abortion issue has been framed as pro-abortion/pro-choice/anti-life vs. anti-abortion/pro-life/anti-choice.

As if anyone is truly pro-abortion or anti-life. So, this whole "I'm a pro-life Democrat" thing is merely a political ploy that throws women under the bus and does nothing to address the issue at hand in any meaningful way.

[Bladewire]

4. Purity is a tool used to divide the community

It was fairly effective last election, we've learned from that and moved on.

[BigmanPigman]

7. I agree with Jerry Brown on Meet The Press. The party is big enough for various ideas

to exist while still representing the common people as a whole. He added the word "intelligent" too. He is a wise and experienced politician and person.