Read on Twitter
There’s a disingenuous meme and false narrative being propagated by leftists that swing district Dems who didn’t co-sponsor M4A lost and those who co-sponsored M4A won re-election bc of it. There’s zero evidence to support that claim and plenty of evidence that disputes it.
Lots of reasons a Rep co-sponsors a bill: they 100% support it, they cut a deal with a colleague, to avoid being primaried, etc. Most importantly, co-sponsoring a bill ≠ a vote. In one infamous example, Marco Rubio *co-authored* an immigration bill he later refused to support.
Co-sponsoring M4A is esp complex bc no M4A bill is complete. They’re outlines to avoid being scored & brought to the floor for a vote. Many co-sponsor it as aspirational. Others won’t co-sponsor something incomplete. More relevant than co-sponsored bills is what ppl campaign on.
Sanders co-sponsored an ACA 2.0 bill. Is it fair to say he won/lost votes because he co-sponsored that bill? Of course not. He campaigned on M4A. Ro Khanna co-sponsored a public option bill. Fair to say that was the reason he was re-elected? Of course not. He campaigned on M4A.
Virtually every Dem in the House, swing district or not, has co-sponsored multiple HC bills. It’s ludicrous to cherry-pick any one of those bills and claim it’s the reason they won/lost an election or even to claim it had any effect on their election at all.
Almost all the swing district Dems campaigned on strengthening and expanding the ACA, not M4A. Katie Porter is an exception but it’s a bad faith argument to claim Porter, who starred in hearing after hearing on economic issues, was re-elected bc of her M4A support.
Remember when leftists excoriated any Dem who said they supported M4A in the future but thought strengthening the ACA was an immediate priority? Yeah, well now they’re out here claiming *that exact same position* = strong support for M4A. 
Even Kara Eastman, a JD-endorsed candidate, who I believe *is* a strong supporter of M4A, wouldn’t put that phrase on her website. But as hard as she tried to thread the needle in a tough district, it didn’t stop her opponent from tying her to “the radical left.”
Which brings me to the point: Even more imp than a candidate’s policies is what voters *believe* their policies are. Unless you’re in a district watching media and talking to voters, you don’t have an effing clue what issue/s motivated a voter to vote for or against a candidate.
