Sometimes, I've come up with a suggestion for a feature change to be made to the Stack Exchange engine. Based on several guideline posts on how to write well-received feature requests, I've come up with a fairly strong argument for implementing the feature that is likely to be received positively by the community.
However, as part of my research, I found that someone else already requested the same feature. That prior request, though, made quite a weak argument in favor of making the change, which has been quite disagreed by the community. It has received a score negative enough to not show on the home page when bumped, and the comments and/or at least one answer explain why the author's arguments for implementing the change are incorrect. On the other hand, my argument contains several points not brought up in the prior request (or they were raised in comments but got buried in other comments and thus never seen).
As per usual Meta community consensus, it isn't a good idea to post a new request, as it will be closed as a duplicate of the prior request. The general action to bolster a feature request with new arguments for implementation is to post an answer to it with my strong argument, but it's generally a fruitless action if the original request was received negatively, as if its score is low enough it will never get seen on the home page, and even if it's not negative enough, users aren't likely to click on questions that have negative scores. The presence of the prior weak request essentially hinders my ability to properly present my stronger arguments for the feature.
What can I do if I have strong arguments for implementing a feature change that haven't been brought up before, but a request for the exact same change that makes a weak argument and is negatively-received already exists?
One thing I can think of is to try and get the SE team to officially decline the prior request on the grounds of the disagreeing answer(s) or comment(s), which makes it possible to make a reconsideration request with the new, strong argument, but I don't think it's necessary to involve the community team for such a small matter.