You're pretending like every race is the same. Something she explicitly doesn't do.
This is you making trash inferences to help your argument again. Go back to my language when I initially pulled the quote about Abrams and Beto,
b. This is because the independents that will vote Dem are different from the indepents that will vote Republican. Therefore you need strategies that target them and run left not moderate (ie: Abrams and Beto being left of common politics in their respective districts).
For clarity's sake, I should go back to using "left" instead of "progressive." But the whole "left of common politics in their respective districts" is an acknowledgement that every race is not the same. However it also acknowledges that leaning left for respective districts will draw more left leaning independent voters (a through-line from a lot of my posts and consistent with what she points out in the article).
You're also pretending that everyone who isn't a progressive is trying to reach across the aisle to win republican voters. Also not true.
We're comparing what her model says worked and what didn't. She says the more moderate approaches didn't reach their potential. If Progressives were running with a target of Republicans, then they'd fall into the Moderate strategy camp because that's a moderate strategy being deployed no?
Also, I'm curious...you did hear the bit I transcribed right? About targeting hispanic voters and having a candidate who excites millennials? Which candidate has performed best with both demographics she points to as important for maximizing turnout?