That's interesting. You believe that, let's say, a policy plank touting a 23 week ban on abortion with the obvious exceptions, would still be too draconian and would not cause enough votes to swing to Republican? Yet, poll after poll show a huge majority are against late term abortions. In my opinion, there are plenty of voters who are 100% against a total ban (or a very short time period like FL's 6 weeks) AND late term. Right now, they feel they have to vote D as the R's aren't giving them much to work with and this issue is very important. Match the state's abortion ban with the murder statute and I believe, for a chunk of voters, this would take abortion as THE deciding issue off the table and those voters would then look to immigration, the economy, crime, foreign policy, etc. as determinants of their vote where, I believe, the R's have a lot more going for them than do the D's.
Yes, there are zealots on both sides that will NEVER vote 'for' abortion and others who wouldn't support any restriction on it, but they're not going to change their mind regardless. I believe, and I'm certain I could be way off here, that there is a sizable number of voters who are so concerned about a total ban that they feel the only choice is Harris/Walz even if they promote unlimited abortion rights. Marrying the abortion limitations to the murder statute is defensible, logical, and, my guess, many states have set that time limit around the 20-24 week mark which, politically, is reasonable, imo.
So, it's interesting to me that you believe going further than Vance did last night would be a bad move politically. You may be right. But, it sure doesn't make logical sense to me.