The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has decided to widen the tent in order to win. To that end, they’ve decided that a “D” is more important after a name than the candidate’s stance on abortion.

So the DCCC has decided to put their money where their mouth is, and support more conservative, pro-life Democrats in order to win back the House.

#BREAKING: Dem campaign chairman: Dems willing to fund candidates who oppose abortion rights https://t.co/E6y1lxTBZM pic.twitter.com/ZL3ko1uMsA

— The Hill (@thehill) July 31, 2017

From the Hill:

Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) said there will be no litmus tests for candidates as Democrats seek to find a winning roster to regain the House majority in 2018.

“There is not a litmus test for Democratic candidates,” said Luján, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman. “As we look at candidates across the country, you need to make sure you have candidates that fit the district, that can win in these districts across America.”

It seems that the DCCC came to the same conclusion that the DNC did, after initially telling any pro-life Democrats to get lost, and then changing their minds. It turns out that well, maybe all Democrats don’t march in lockstep with “progressive” ideas, and if you want a majority, there should be compromise. Nancy Pelosi even acknowledged that.

Enter the Blue Dog Democrats, who are trying to win seats again.

Founded in 1995, the Blue Dogs are a conservative coalition of New Deal Democrats who prize fiscal responsibility and national security as their core mission, while often leaning pro-life and pro-gun. In the past, the group aligned nicely with voters in swing districts in the industrial Rust Belt states across the Midwest and in the South and even resonated with people in places like (Rep. Kurt) Schrader’s home state of Oregon.

Or they did — until Barack Obama got elected in 2008. As the Democrats took a sharp turn left, voters punished Blue Dog members for their party’s progressive bent, even though they didn’t represent it.

By 2016, Republican Donald Trump had stolen the Blue Dogs’ pragmatic economic message — and their thunder. Voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio, who had once been represented by Blue Dog members of Congress and supported Democratic candidates for president, flipped for the outsider candidate.

Cue the angry progressives who will not tolerate any ideas different than theirs.

Democrats supporting anti-choice candidates is an attack on progressive values. Equality is impossible without reproductive rights. Period.

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) July 31, 2017

Did I mention I'm fucking pissed?

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) July 31, 2017

@repbenraylujan I get you want wins, but funding candidates who oppose abortion rights is a surefire way to alienate women who lean left.

— Cassie (@snarkysnowqueen) July 31, 2017

LEAN? Hell, alienate women who are standing all the way straight up. I am straight up left and they are about to lose me. Oh wait there I go

— Samantha Tara (@tweetPollTroll) July 31, 2017

Not a good idea. I'm a single issue voter and I won't vote for anyone who doesn't support a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy

— Jordana Lipscomb (@jordanalipscomb) July 31, 2017

And NARAL isn’t happy.

“Throwing weight behind anti-choice candidates is bad politics that will lead to worse policy,” said Mitchell Stille, who oversees campaigns for NARAL Pro-Choice America. “The idea that jettisoning this issue wins elections for Democrats is folly contradicted by all available data.”

On one hand, it’s a good thing for the Democrat leadership to acknowledge that their tent should be bigger when to comes to a real discussion on abortion. On the other hand, a progressive revolt and dogmatic insistence on unlimited abortion is a good thing for the GOP, because it keeps the Democrats divided. At this point, the GOP should invest in some popcorn, because it’s sure to be quite a fight to watch.