Term limits definitely aren't a magic fix, I just see the tradeoffs as worth it relative to my personal concerns.
How does forcing new candidates every number of years ensure that elected officials will be "popular and effective at their job"?
I don't actually like governments creating regulations and drawing lines in the sand. As many have raised with term limits, it isn't a perfect answer and at best bandaids the real problem rather than fixing it.
I'd argue that's the case with any regulation emposed on large populations, there are just too many complexities at that scale to draw a clean line. With term limits specifically, I see it as an unfortunate but possibly necessary tradeoff that may at least give us a chance to start fixing the real problem. We both need more time to find the right answer, and we need to remove those who collected so much power and control from the same system that needs to be fixed in the first place.
And there is nothing that prevents the replacements from abusing the power and control afforded to them in similar or worse ways. They'll be kicked out regardless of what they do, so why care about the long term?
If power is largely collected by the office itself, or the party behind the talking head, then I agree replacing them more often may not help much.