>its on a policy by policy basis.
>
>increasing the minimum wage isnt as polarizing as revamping
>our entire healthcare system. neither is campaign finance
>reform. neither is paid sick/family/vacation leave. neither
>is expanded early childhood education. neither is felon
>voting re-enfranchisement. or increasing voting access in
>general. or independent redistricting commissions. or
>decriminalization of marijuana. even on the healthcare
>front...medicaid expansion isnt as polarizing as medicare for
>all.

Those things would only become more polarized the more an incoming Dem president pushed for them. There was nothing controversial about the idea of a stimulus package in an economic downturn. Or raising the debt ceiling. Or for that matter, the basic policies of the ACA. Until Fox News told their audience these were things to be hated and feared and it became Kenyan Islamo-Marxism.

Have there been that many polls done on felon re-enfranchisement? I know it passed in Florida, but nationally it hasn't been talked about very much. Only exception is maybe marijuana legalization.

>a criminal justice reform bill just passed through congress on
>a bipartisan basis and was signed by trump. nobody is gonna
>pay a political consequence for that.

A criminal justice reform bill that will help a small fraction of the incarcerated population and gives a shit ton of money to private prisons. I don't think that's the approach you want to take with healthcare, though.

>just in the last midterms alone...ballot initiatives were
>approved in states across the country dealing with the
>policies i mentioned above. by significant bipartisan
>coalitions of voters. even in red states.

You can't really test something like M4A on that kind of basis, as it would be impossible to implement at a state level.

Nothing is static, of course. Anything could become more/less popular over time. Including M4A, which is significantly more popular now than it was three years ago. I just don't see why THIS is where we should say "can never happen, don't even try, losing issue," because we wouldn't approach any other major problem this way.

If anything that the 46th president does is going to be ripped apart by bad-faith efforts from Republicans, why play into their hands by limiting your agenda? Unless you just personally think it would be bad policy, which is something else entirely.