> I don't think "tough on crime" voters strongly differentiate, based on the behaviors of the prosecutors themselves. The biggest resume priority seems to be maintaining a ludicrously high conviction percentage, which is awful for different reasons (innocent defendants forced into plea bargains).

Well, I think your position is probably one of ignorance. Plenty of people I talk to are for tough prosecution on things like violent crime and against tough prosecution for simple drug possession.

> Only a small subset of prosecutors elected in the most liberal districts are rewarded by their constituencies for exercising prosecutorial discretion. I say that without making any judgment as to whether they're using that discretion well — I'm just observing that very few prosecutors work that way.

Yes, that does seem to be a trend. Prosecutorial discretion is actually important, but it doesn't mean you let crime run rampant, either.

> The biggest resume priority seems to be maintaining a ludicrously high conviction percentage, which is awful for different reasons (innocent defendants forced into plea bargains).

I don't live in a jurisdiction that elect prosecutors, but is this actually a thing? Do candidates/incumbents run campaign ads on their conviction rate? Are voters researching/talking about the conviction rate of the candidates like it's a pissing contest?