Yes, you're correct objectively. The average swing voter would not tell you that, though

You are right, but voters perceived it as "Trump affordability, Harris abortion+democracy".

In my second part of the reply I made the point that I actually think that the democracy argument, while executed poorly, was actually a good choice. I'm saying the affordability appeal is very fragile

That's why I actually think the democracy was directionally correct, even if the execution was poor and the actions didn't always match up with their words.

Transactional messaging might win you an election, but running on actual principles and being committed to them is a lot more durable

After doing some reading I decided to start off on Hollow Knight to kind of ease into it and wow I'm glad I did. Definitely guilty of trying to button mash the bosses though (it never works)

Perhaps it's possible that the reason why Josh Shapiro was so popular in PA was in fact due to that underlying cultural appeal. If that is the argument you are making, then I agree. But I don't agree just because of: he flips PA -> The other two must flip

Even if Josh Shapiro would have flipped PA, it's not like some magical force of the universe would have flipped WI and MI just because PA went that way. Using your reasoning, you could argue the opposite scenario: if *any* of them were still predisposed to Trump, all of them would be /2

I'm not sold on this analysis. I would argue that those three states vote together as a result of having relatively similar cultures. Thus in order to get them to all flip together, you would need to appeal to that cultural thing. /1

There is one striking incoherence in the text: the document is all about America first.

But the very same document lists America’s “network of alliances” & “unmatched softpower” as assets, and speaks about “collective defence”.
If the US does what it describes in the doc, it will lose all that.