"Build more" is direct and actionable. Regulatory reform is only one dimension.

Up north, Carney ran on a platform of building 500k homes annually, approx double the rate of housing starts. That's direct and done at the federal level, with billions in financing. It's impossible to be less timelagged than that by way of policy. So-called "affordable housing" qua government funding development (price controls after the fact notwithstanding) still entails hoop jumping and waiting for approvals, they don't spring up the next day.

The effects of zoning reform where they're implemented are reflected quickly as well. See: Minneapolis.

The general trend I see is that the left attacks the "Abundance agenda" without having read about it. Either that or the fact that it isn't just about market solutions is deliberately ignored.

> "Build more" is direct and actionable. Regulatory reform is only one dimension.

I could get behind "build more" much more easily than "abundance". You're onto something there IMO.

Fair, and I have to give credence that messaging effectively is extremely important. It's not enough to be "right", you have to sway and win. Will quibbble that the left is not exactly known for message-discipline, what's popular with them does not often translate well to most voters.