Do Democrats need their own "Tea Party" branch?

I saw this question on twitter earlier, and at first, I laughed like almost everyone else I saw when I read their reply. No, of course we (liberals) don't need a branch of the Democratic Party that hates gays, women, Hispanics, government, compromise, and several other things. But then I thought more of it, and I thought, well, a part of the party that believes in the party core beliefs above everything else, but will compromise? Yes, the Democratic Party needs many more of those kind of people.

For the last 20 years, the Democrats have been very obliging to the GOP in that they start negotiations acceding to most of what the GOP wants. The ACA was a GOP plan for universal health care, and then the Democrats agreed to delay most of the Act for 4 years, giving the GOP time to try and get rid of it before people could like it. The same thing happened with new regulations for the banking industry. Even the budget talks are starting from a number 1/3 closer to the number the GOP wanted for the budget than where the Democrats wanted it. How bad is it? Well, the Independent Bernie Sanders has views farther left than all but 3 or 4 of the Democrats in Congress. Last week, Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor said he believes that God should have the final say in how people are governed, and he sees no reason to limit guns. And he's a Democrat! Or, at least that's the party he's running with in Arkansas.

From 1932 until 1992, Democrats were the party of government helping people, a strong belief that government should put limits on the damage businesses could do to people and the environment, and a progressive tax code that gave opportunities to the poor, the needy, the impoverished, and the disabled. That wing of the Democratic Party, its Tea Party as it were, needs to stand up, be counted, and be at the forefront of the Democratic Party, just as the Tea Party is for the GOP.