I read the referenced question, the linked article, the comments and the answer. I did some research, considered all at length, decided it was opinion-based, then went to bed. In the morning, I thought more about the issue and attempted to compose an answer to your Meta post. It was clear there was a misunderstanding; but whose, what, and how to explain it? At a loss for those answers, I decided to rewrite the question based on the additional research.
The following uses quotes from the second edit.
What were some of the problems?
- You say "the question is whether strong evidence supports the claim that 'expanding the electorate' is an unworkable strategy in American politics", yet you raised irrelevant points unrelated to the intent of your post.
What evidence, if any, was Carville relying on? Is the evidence so strong that anyone who disagrees with it can be compared to a climate change denier?
These questions were sufficient to close the question for opinion. While you explained climate change denial as "something conclusively proven wrong by science", you could have chosen wording other than "climate change denier" in the above question.
The clearer "Is there strong evidence that supports the claim that 'expanding the electorate' is an unworkable strategy in American politics?" would have been much better than leaving the above questions in the post.
- It was seemingly clear from what was provided that the question was about a Sanders nomination.
One part of Bernie Sanders' strategy to become the Democratic party's presidential candidate in 2020 ...
You claimed that it wasn't about Sanders, yet you linked Carville's quote to Sanders's campaign, specifically.
Carville claimed that there is "no debate about this" and that this part of the Sanders campaign's strategy was completely wrong.
From the transcript, the idea for which you say "no debate about this" occurs after Carville claims Sanders can't win. There is no necessary connection to the strategy of "expanding the electorate".
A quote showing that Sanders was referring to any Democrat nominee would have prevented the misstatements. You, others and I, for a while, did not understand that "expanding the electorate" was not solely about Sanders's campaign.
- Who's the "fool"?
Carville referred to voters, who think Sanders can win, as fools. However, you linked that comment to "expanding the electorate" in the title. Elsewhere you use "unworkable strategy", which would have been preferable for the title and without the incorrect linkage.
Is expanding the electorate a foolish strategy in American politics?
Dropping the unnecessary second paragraph of the quote would have removed the reference to "fool" and the incorrect linkage to "expanding the electorate".
Though I could not explain it earlier, the bottom line is that, without an extensive rewrite adding more background sources, in particular the Sanders quote, the post could not have been saved.
While I understand that you "feel really uneasy about this complete rewrite", take heart in this: Had I not found the Sanders quote, which clarified a lot, I could not have rewritten the post, I wouldn't have spent any more time on the post and it may not have been re-opened, ever. And, there is no telling how long your Meta post would have remained unanswered. But, if you like, you can reclaim authorship by changing "research", in the title and body questions, to your original "strong evidence".