Mostly it's ending up as the stick, eg "You can only get these major performance advantages over HTTPS". Soon there is an intent to specifically call out non-HTTPS content very prominently in the browser, even more so that HTTPS content was ever called out back when that was introduced.
Even if the government could brute force or fingerprint one of your TLS sessions, they can't do it for everyone for every site.
Just because Amazon wasn't broken doesn't mean we can't improve it.
Also your comment about a think tank coming up with this idea is an odd insult, given how broadly you can empirically see people support this.
Citation? We've learned what has always thought to have been true: Encryption works very well and intel collectors need to resort to attacking other aspects. TLS has had its share of flaws but it's still very much a "big thing" to defeat.
Is this based on some odd notion of ClientAuth?
This is a great opportunity to get people to use TLS across the board. The carrot is HTTP/2.
What's more unique about HTTPS traffic than HTTP traffic?