A poster raised an issue about trying to get incumbents to support (and have to run on supporting) a certain policy. I believe in intellectual integrity. That means that even if I disagree with somebody, I try to admit when they have a good point in support of their position which I oppose. I try to think of the strongest case that can be made for their position. I try to acknowledge when my position has a weakness.
Here's an example. I support expanding the Court and I have for some time.
Presented exactly as written in my comment:
I support expanding the Court and have for a while now. Jgoodfri did not move from their original post. Therefore, it's hard to understand how that is moving the goalpost. I believe that you accomplish big goals by trying and failing but using the failed attempt to build a base that supports it and educate the public. Hillary tried to establish universal health insurance, then we got the ACA but because of Joe Lieberman it was without a public option. Marriage Equality suffered a setback in 2008 and then it became the law.
Having said that, the poster has a point. There are policies with 75% support that can't get a vote or get passed. That's because we have an anti-majoritarian system. Gerrymandering means we are likely to get extremists winning the Republican Party's primaries. Then you either get an extremist or a Democrat. It's great if we get the Democrat, but it usually means we can't get bipartisan support. Red states are won by the most extreme republican candidate for US Senate. Even in a close purple state like Wisconsin, we have a nutter like Ron Johnson. He gets all the Republican votes and, therefore, doesn't pay enough of a price for his extremism. That's because of how extreme voters who are members of the Republican Party are. The few moderates left, but there weren't enough of them to hurt the Republican Party. They are only 5 down in the House of Representatives and tied in the US Senate and the orange bigot got 75 million votes after his lies about COVID and numerous felonies in addition to his bigotry, ignorance, and stupidity.
In all but 3 cases in the last 80 or so years, the political party which won the White House lost seats and control of Congress. We have headwinds with inflation and President Biden's low approval rating and we will have a vote on reducing and defending the police forces across the country six weeks before the most important midterm in at least a century and arguably in the nation's history. It may be fine for members of the CPC and individual progressives in very blue congressional districts and maybe a few states, but it's absolute poison everywhere else. We are, nevertheless, favored to retain the US Senate, but we really need to net two seats. We are not favored to retain the House of Representatives and the only things that can save us are their horrible, extremist candidates and Dobbs and the voters who understand that our democracy is on the ballot.
Either way, it will be close and the republicans in Congress will all be extremists and a moderate republican is now one who favors democracy and opposes fascism and dictatorships. The poster RIGHTLY CONGRATULATED US ON HAVING A MAJORITY THAT CONSISTED OF 51% OF THE VOTE IN ONE POLL AND GAVE US ANOTHER WITH 54% AGAINST. Incumbents wanting to ACTUALLY WIN re-election pay attention to those kinds of numbers.
People don't think about the popularity of a given policy correctly. When it's polled, it's usually described in the most favorable terms possible. The reality is that there WILL BE COMPROMISES and those compromises will reduce the popularity of the policy. Then there are details that the voters aren't told until later. It will be attacked and caricatured in attack ads by the opponents. And then there's something almost nobody here considers. Compound probability and yeah the events aren't independent but you still lose votes and voters every time when you put together multiple policies. 70% favor policy A . But the incumbent is not only judged based upon that one policy. And they have already, right off the bat lost almost all voters of the opposite political party and 30% who oppose policy A. Now let's add another policy since that's not the only issue people vote on. Let's have policy B which again is favored by most of our voters and 70% (let's say) of a registered voters. Policy A and Policy B aren't supported by EXACTLY THE SAME VOTERS. So, you lose more voters. Let's say that you lose 15% of all registered voters and these are voters who oppose Policy A and so now you are at 55% of voters support the two policies which you, the incumbent, support. Now that's with policies that are popular and have 70% of voters supporting them, it's before the attack ads and before the compromises. That's two policies. Again, nobody is saying that these are independent events. But we have to give our position on a litany of policies, not two, they will be attacked, and compromise will be required, and unpopular details will come out. AND SMART INCUMBENTS KNOW ALL THIS.
That's why unless a policy is supported by the vast majority of the supporters of the incumbent (if said supporters make up a strong majority of the electorate), it's hard to get an incumbent to switch and to support a policy that may be seen as radical by many voters.
Then you have our anti-majoritarian system and the fact that their side produces extremists making bipartisan support for a new policy hard to come by.
And here, what are our numbers? One poll gives us 51% of voters in support and another gives 54% of registered voters against it. And do you want to try this when we are six weeks away from the most important midterms in our nation's history, one in which our democracy is on the line ?
I think the poster has a point.
By the way, this DOES NOT MEAN THAT I CHANGED MY MIND. I didn't. But it DOES MEAN that I think that a good argument can be made in good faith for their position.