In the days leading up to the presidential primaries on Super Tuesday, Joe Biden argued that voters aren’t seeking the political revolution promised by Bernie Sanders.


“I don’t think people are looking for revolution, I think they’re looking for results,” Biden told CNN.


Certainly the outcome of Super Tuesday, with Biden winning the most states including some unexpected victories, support the former vice president’s case.


Backers of Sanders have good reason to complain that the Democratic Party establishment is again trying to thwart their candidate’s bid for the presidency. But the results also show that voters are either scared of the sweeping changes he promises or worried he can’t win.


The contest embodies one of the biggest dilemmas of our time: Is it better to make small but steady progress on the major challenges facing our country, or to really go after the huge changes that are needed and risk accomplishing nothing?


There are no simple answers to this question. One can believe that a single-payer health system is desperately needed in the United States, while recognizing that lives will be lost if we don’t expand coverage for the uninsured in any way possible in the meantime.


In Florida, the degradation of springs and other parts of our natural environment brings the debate between major improvements and incrementalism into sharp contrast. The state Legislature is up to its usual tricks this session, acting like it is planning bold moves to protect the environment when in fact modest changes are being proposed.


Aliki Moncrief, executive director of Florida Conservation Voters, said she is concerned that this approach allows lawmakers to take more credit than they deserve.


“Baby steps aren’t good enough anymore, and if anything they’re dangerous” because they create the misimpression with voters that more is being done, Moncrief said on a recent visit to The Sun.


With climate change, there is a pressing need for substantial changes to prevent the most catastrophic consequences from occurring. But should voters who recognize this need hold out for a candidate like Sanders, who promises the dramatic changes of the Green New Deal, and possibly contribute to Donald Trump getting four more years to wreak havoc on the environment?


Of course, there is a big difference between making small but steady progress toward a larger goal and making minor changes just to avoid more difficult decisions. Moving away from fossil fuels isn’t going to happen overnight, but we need to work toward achievable goals that will get us there before it’s too late.


Voters might prefer results over revolution, as the outcome of Super Tuesday suggests. But those results must be meaningful, not baby steps that keep us from ever making a huge leap forward.


Nathan Crabbe is The Sun’s opinion and engagement editor.