If you view the US as an Oligarchy that "pay" to win elections, the constant 51% victories make more sense. With the extreme expense of elections, you pay enoug

If you view the US as an Oligarchy that "pay" to win elections, the constant 51% victories make more sense. With the extreme expense of elections, you pay enough to win. You don't bother paying for 75% victory. You "pay" with both outright money in campaign finance, and in compromise of entrenched advantage (aka policy). You trot out a platform that will get you the 51% majority with an acceptable cost in campaign finance and minimum surrendered advantage. If you lose, you won't lose bad enough that you'll slide back too much. If you win, you push your advantage when you win the coinflip. Sidenote: in the twitter thread there was a reference to the fosbury flop. Note that the Fosbury has the advantage of clearing the bar, but the jumper's center of gravity goes under the bar, thus you clear the bar, but your effort is less than what people think it is.