Okay, so what does make politicians take the 20 side on 20-80 social issues? You can't completely rule out conscience in all cases, but in most it's not a very good explanation.
This article by Lisa Selin Davis addresses some things I was curious about. Notably, Massachusetts Senator Edward Markey recently defeated challenger Seth Moulton by taking a maximal position on trans rights, and especially by supporting trans athletes in student sports. Now is this a majority position among Bay State residents? I actually wasn't able to find the raw numbers. I suspect that the majority are more moderate, but when you're talking about primary voters it's a different story. Talk about blue state Democratic doners and it's a very different story.
Davis highlights Ohio gubernatorial candidate Amy Acton as a counterexample. Acton has vocally opposed boys in girls' sports, and still won the nomination. Ohio being more of a conservative state has probably changed the math on that, as Davis clarifies at the end.
This may be the pattern in elections to come. Red-state Democrats will find it easier to articulate a majority position; blue-state Democrats will still have to appease primary voters at the ideological extremes. Expect more Markey-style lean-ins in liberal states, and lean-out moderates where conservatives hold sway.
Again, the politics of the issue are pretty conservative nationwide. But in a state like Massachusetts, Democratic candidates get the benefit of the doubt even from a lot of voters who disagree with them on specific issues. That opens the door for activists who want to push them to the extremes. This doesn't happen as much in states where they have to fight for a chance.
