>If you look at Medicare for all it's supported by 52% of Republican voters and 7/10 of voters in general. It's pretty much the definition of an electable policy.

Only because no one can actually agree on what it means. Which goes to it actually not being passable.

"Medicare for all" has essentially turned into a marketing term.

Politicians would love to capitalize on it's popularity, but that would mean fighting over the meaning, and that would reveal that many people are actually very against certain aspects of it, like funding sources, covering controversial procedures, or even where to draw the line of what's "healthcare". Is OTC medicine? Exercise equipment? Healthy food? Housing?

Everytime you include or exclude any particular policy, you lose some support.

So it ends up being this catch 22 where politicians really want to cash in, but can't figure how to do it without causing the stock to crash.