Shor should speak for himself here, but I started thinking this was true and ended thinking that the difference is that the DLC/Third Way version of moderation had strong ideological commitments popularism doesn't share.
https://twitter.com/SWGoldman/status/1446451603498749958
I speak to this very quickly in the piece, but I think it's an important distinction: 
The DLC version of moderation, or the Manchin/Sinema version, is about creating a vibe of independence by siding with corporate or status quo interests against progressives.
They'll deploy that strategy against *highly* popular initiatives.
They'll deploy that strategy against *highly* popular initiatives.
One way of reading that is it picks up something Shor misses:
The media is interested in conflict, and so to separate from the party and get a reputation as a "moderate," you have to cause high-profile conflict with progressives.
The media is interested in conflict, and so to separate from the party and get a reputation as a "moderate," you have to cause high-profile conflict with progressives.
This is where it probably matters whether you're interested in driving up ticket-splitting or total Democratic vote share.
If you buy into it, popularism is a strategy for the latter, not really the former.
If you buy into it, popularism is a strategy for the latter, not really the former.
But separate from all that, the DLC understood itself as an ideological organization with a theory of economic growth and dynamism, and it wanted to win a policy agenda, not just maximize Democratic electoral outcomes. Popularism, as I read it, is more agenda agnostic.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
