I don't even think you need #2. Since voters are emotionally predisposed to certain parties or candidates anyway, regardless of past history, it's easy to continue this pattern with extremely intelligent and involved voters.
When the politician is posturing yet has no chance of getting anything passed, they are "Making a bold statement" or "starting a discussion that needs to be had". i.e., the symbolism is more important than the results.
When the politician is taking direct action, yet action that's at odds with the voters, it's "politics is all about compromise", "a flawed deal is better than no deal at all", "a move in the right direction", or "a politician that's brave enough to make choices other politicians won't"
The trick is just to keep slowly alternating between these two perceptions over the segments of the electorate that you can turn out come election time. At the end of the day you can pretty much do whatever you want. So your end result remains the same regardless of any qualities inherent in the electorate, sadly. It's just a numbers game.
At the end of the day you can pretty much do whatever you want.
Eh, I'd say the history of "gun politics" in the last two decades suggests that's not true, or a bunch of politicians who passed or supported (Al Gore) gun control and ended up spending more time with their families just aren't good at playing this game. Assuming you believe they wanted the office more than the gun control bills, which in the case of the sunsetting and now sunset Federal "assault weapons" bill would seem to be particularly pointless.
When the politician is posturing yet has no chance of getting anything passed, they are "Making a bold statement" or "starting a discussion that needs to be had". i.e., the symbolism is more important than the results.
When the politician is taking direct action, yet action that's at odds with the voters, it's "politics is all about compromise", "a flawed deal is better than no deal at all", "a move in the right direction", or "a politician that's brave enough to make choices other politicians won't"
The trick is just to keep slowly alternating between these two perceptions over the segments of the electorate that you can turn out come election time. At the end of the day you can pretty much do whatever you want. So your end result remains the same regardless of any qualities inherent in the electorate, sadly. It's just a numbers game.