You're missing the incumbent bias. It's well known we prefer the devil we know to the one we don't--even if we objectively have good reason to dislike the incumbent.

Which is to say if, after electing someone to office, we immediately 1) forgot we voted for them, and 2) became completely unaware of their continuing existence and actions in office only then would elections be truly a sufficient substitute for term limits. Otherwise, given the choice, enough votes will be cast to keep the incumbent in office just because he/she is familiar. The thinking seems to go something like: well, that's the name I recognize, and hey, the world hasn't come to an end in the past few years, so... why not. Let's just keep 'em. Versus this other person who might do all kinds of things I can't foresee and may not like.

But of course incumbent bias is still dependent on the candidate not being unpopular.

I can see arguments for term limits, particularly in positions where the composition of the electorate means the other major party isn't likely to seriously challenge the governing party's preferred candidate (usually the incumbent) which makes their position very safe indeed.

But anti-corruption isn't one of them. Arguably, from a point of view of anti-corruption, the incumbent needs the special interests a lot less than the new challengers...

Incumbents have an advantage and tend to get reelected. Term limits introduce more outsiders by kicking people out after a while.

Systems that rely on voters being exhaustively educated are brittle and prone to manipulation.

The challenge of term limits is that they hurt effective politicans the most, so it's always got to be a balancing act.

It's a check on direct democracy, which I think is fine in principle. It's the same reason the US has a constitution.

Yes you are; Gerymandering.

Nope.