I don't believe in term limits for elective office. They face a potential term limit every 2, 4, or 6 years.
I see your point, but 2 thoughts:
-in many districts, like Pelosi's, they are basically uncontested and the election is a mere formality. If anything, it takes away the incentive to vote
-this is a reach, but if a congressman or woman isn't constantly focused on appeasing their party to ensure reelection, is there a chance term limits might cause strict adherence to the party lines to get blurred in some situations?
To your first point, that's a problem with the electorate, not its candidates for office. I lived in Nancy P's district for the 2016 election; that ballot was 5 double-sided pages and had exactly 3 Republican names on it (Trump, Pence, and some dude running for I think it was school board who I voted for out of solidarity for him and his mom, who were probably the only other votes he got). I think in the city/county of SF, with over 800,000 people, the most competitive precinct for Trump delivered him 90-ish votes. I might be mis-remembering this, but I think Bernie Sanders got more votes in SF as a write-in than Trump got while actually appearing on the ballot. (Fun side note: That precinct where Trump had his biggest numerical support was the neighborhood Mrs Tif most wanted to live in, but we were priced out.)
To the second, the much bigger problem imo is the obligation to plead for money to feed the election machine. There was a story a couple years ago about how draining it is, particularly for House members who are up every 2 years; they literally spend half their waking hours soliciting contributions. To the extent there is any outsized party loyalty, it is to service this need (because of the influence party leadership has in distributing funds from the national apparatus), and that's agnostic to the existence of term limits. (Unless the limit is '1', which would be useless imo.)
