I think the main thing to understand in the Great Debate over whether or not moderation leads to better electoral performance is that it really, really matters how you measure ideology. Jake Grumbach and Adam Bonica are using a metric based on campaign finance receipts and roll-call votes. I've never worked with it, but I have some concerns about it (see next tweet). Here's another way to look at their data: Endorsements. The first image below is the average WAR of candidates endorsed by the Blue Dog PAC in 2024. The second image is candidates endorsed by Justice Democrats/Our Revolution in 2024. Both rely on Jake and Adam's WAR numbers, not Split Ticket's. The result? Jake and Adam's data shows Blue Dog endorsees are D+4.5% on average and Justice Democrats endorsees are D-5.3%. This is, funnily enough, *literally identical* to what you get with the Split Ticket numbers. (I had to double check this a couple times to make sure I hadn't gotten the sheets mixed up, but no – the average WAR for Blue Dog PAC endorsees using Split Ticket's WAR is D+4.507%, the average using Jake and Adam's WAR is D+4.510%). Again, just worth emphasizing: While most of the technical debate so far has focused on how to measure candidate overperformance, the actual difference in results is driven by how to measure ideology.