One way to see the pattern is to examine the 17 Democrats — 13 in the House, four in the Senate — who last year won in places that Mr. Trump also won.

Shit definition of a swing state/district. No accounting for districts with a lean Kamala win, nor historical trends of districts. Absolute cherry picking.

They claim that reaching out to swing voters is overrated and that the better strategy involves turning out the base by running pure, ideological campaigns. They are wrong

Winning a swing district is not the same thing as winning swing voters. Typically those results are indicative of who did a better job of turning out their base, not who did a better job of appealing to squishy centrists. Likewise,

Polls in 2024 showed that most voters considered their policy views to be closer to Mr. Trump’s than to Kamala Harris’s

Doesn’t account for the policy views of those who decided to stay home in 2024.

Even Mr. Trump highlights the pattern. Extreme as he is in many ways, he moved the Republican Party toward the center on several key issues.

Oh fuck off, in any other context they would not be calling him a centrist.

Rather than locating itself midway between the two parties, this new centrism promises sweeping change while criticizing the two parties as out of touch.

Wait a second, socialists promise sweeping change and criticize both parties as out of touch ARE WE THE CENTRISTS!?

Seriously though, this speaks to a larger problem here that their definition of “centrist” is entirely vibes-based. They present centrists as being pro-capitalist and anti-regulation but also wanting to reign in corporate power and enact class-based economic equity.

Georgia and Wisconsin have offered recent case studies. In Georgia, Raphael Warnock and Stacey Abrams

Oh god, Stacey Abrams is their idea of a leftist.

Finally, ctrl-F “Palestine” 0 results what a fucking surprise.