Given that every swing-seat Democratic candidate who supported Medicare for All and the Green New Deal won their election, is there any non-anecdotal evidence at all that swing-seat candidates who didn't support liberal policies lost because other Democrats elsewhere did?

I understand it's a gut feeling narrative that's very quickly coalesced to explain (/excuse) the failures of a handful of candidates, but if it's going to drive the Party's electoral strategy, there should at least be some real evidence it's true, right?

And even if activists in other districts chanted a slogan that *did* turn off some voters (and assuming that's all that matters), shouldn't we at least see whether negative effect was offset by increased enthusiasm among other voter groups before we decide it was a net negative?

"Defund the police" is not a hard slogan to explain, and it means what it says it means. It only takes time to explain if you want to position yourself as sympathetic but want those words to mean something other than what the people saying them mean.

There are policy details that can be discussed, but if you think every slogan captures the entirety of its policy implications, come on.

"You have a detailed position to enact your slogan" is not really the own some people seem to think it is.