No—what these factions share is a basic concept you still don't seem to grasp: that actually having values helps you win. It is precisely the authenticity of their values that makes these candidates willing to make those commitments AND that endears them to enough voters to win by 10+ points.

"We don't like laying people off"
Meanwhile, Leavitt's face in the moment Trump's meme of Vought as the grim reaper is mentioned:

We’re looking at solutions and working to understand voters across the diverse pro-democracy coalition.

We can’t keep fighting battles and losing the war.

Thanks to @politico.com for this preliminary coverage of our meeting today.

So @ericlevitz.bsky.social is instead just saying something obviously incorrect so that he can smoothly make the argument he wants instead of having to make a case against the idea that not moderating is actually strategically better

Just one of the many problems I have with this piece is that this sentence is fully incorrect. The point he wants to make is that you say there is no tension between fighting authoritarianism and NOT moderating, but he says the opposite (apparently so he can make an easier counterargument)

"Just let us in, we have great ideas, we swear!"

This is the exact energy:

WHY god why are you calling it that

Whoever wrote this article clearly doesn't know what "progressive" means and just used it as a placeholder for "woke." Throughout the article, they point to data that show these voters support progressive policies that centrist Ds don't—but still claim being more progressive wouldn't have helped.

Not to mention the complete refusal to engage with @mikepod.bsky.social's whole premise of the different picture painted by "eligible vote share vs % of votes cast." Truly just ???