In other words, the anti-abortionists, as I prefer to refer to them, are not the majority in the polls, but they somehow manage to win in certain elections. Saletan does not explain exactly how this can happen. But he correctly notes that it does happen.
Unfortunately, he fails to note that the anti-abortionists did not win in their efforts to defeat President Obama in 2012. So anti-abortionists win only in certain elections, not in all elections. So when anti-abortionists do not win in other elections in which they made an effort to win, why don't they also win in those other elections?
Thomas B. Edsall's Article
As a result of Edsall's complicated analysis of voter patterns over the years, he attributes the recent increase in "the percentage of voters holding anti-black attitudes" to "the intensifying conservatism within the right wing of the Republican Party." His attribution here will probably surprise no one.
In other words, the efforts of outspoken people who hold anti-black attitudes to voice their attitudes has attracted like-minded people also to join and thereby intensify the conservatism of the right wing of the Republican Party.
It would seem to follow from Edsall's analysis here that we should also expect that that the voicing of anti-abortion views would attract like-minded people to join and thereby intensify the conservatism of the right wing of the Republican Party.
Therefore Edsall's subsequent analysis may surprise some people: "To win the White House again, it [the Republican Party] must assuage the social conscience of mainstream, moderate white voters among whom an ethos of tolerance has become normal."