The only actual choice being offered in this experiment is between having a guilty conscience or not, since A and B are substantively the same thing. As such, of course people are going to choose politician A. The choice of not treating housing as an investment wasn't even offered.
I think the point was to examine just these two politicians to show that the two messages are the same in different clothing. It wasn't to suggest that there wasn't alternatives.
I would even say that the alternatives have the same issue.
Politician C: I will make sure that housing remains affordable.
Politician D: I will make sure that your housing investment does grow.
But C is (loosely) the negation of B and D is (loosely) the negation of A. While there are other choices, the likely ones people vote are are the first group (A, B) verses the second group (C, D), normally with the options appearing in their nicer forms.
In short, affordable housing and having homes be worthwhile investments are at odds with each other in most issues.
That's what I was getting at. Politician C is making an argument similar to what the original article is making. If you tried to make the D argument: I would make sure that your housing investment doesn't (I think that's what you meant) grow. The NYTimes would probably have no interest in publishing it, but for all intents and purposes it's the same argument with different optics.
