It’s been a few days, but additional “votes” and comments have been coming in in dribs and drabs regarding how pro-lifers, who had volunteered for Republican candidates in the past (at any level) would react to Rudy Giuliani getting the Republican presidential nomination. The sample, obviously, is limited to folks who read NRO and who felt like writing in; I limited the voting to folks who listed some volunteer work for previous campaigns.

  • Hell No, and I Would Vote Other Party or Stay Home: 31.7 percent
  • Maybe, I Don’t Want To Think About It Until I Have To: 2.8 percent
  • Not For Him, But Would Volunteer For State & Local GOP: 17.7 percent
  • Sure, Hillary Scares Me/Rudy Would Be Okay on Judges: 39.2 percent
  • I’m Pro-Life, But Not a Die-Hard, and I’m Okay With Rudy: 8.4 percent

More or less the same proportion we had before.

It suggests that if Rudy gets the nomination, then despite all the offsetting factors – the dire vision of Hillary Clinton appointing Supreme Court nominees, Rudy’s pledges on appointing strict constructionist judges, his citing his work to promote adoption, etc. – that a significant percentage of pro-lifers – maybe half – would either stay home or not make efforts on behalf of his campaign. And if abortion is your make-or-break issue, it’s hard to blame these folks for drawing a line.

Gun control advocates would not knock on doors for a pro-gun Democratic candidate. Trial lawyers wouldn’t man the phone banks for a candidate who touted tort reform and limits on damages. The number of African-Americans who would knock on doors for a candidate who opposed affirmative action is limited.

There is a possibility that some of those “hell no” folks feel one way now, when there are other possibilities for a Republican nominee, and will change their mind when staring down the barrel of President Hillary. But I’m not sure I would count on it.

Rudy’s campaign has argued – with some credibility – that he alone can put quite a few blue states in play – California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. A Republican carrying any one of those would just about torpedo the Democrats’ hopes. But one has to wonder – has Team Rudy run the numbers, to see if a loss of support among pro-lifers puts any red states in play?

UPDATE: Noemie Emery points out these poll results when she looked at this issue a little while back:

A Survey USA poll taken last summer positing head-to-head contests in all 50 states between all leading contenders showed McCain and Giuliani beating Hillary Clinton in electoral landslides, 351 to 187 and 354 to 184, both holding almost all the red Bush states, flipping the blue states of Pennsylvania and Michigan, and breaking up the Democratic entrenchments in New England and in the Far West. Both “won” in Oregon, Connecticut, Maine, and Rhode Island; McCain, the reformer from the open spaces of Arizona, won the Birkenstock states of Washington, Minnesota, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Giuliani shook loose New Jersey (which was hit very hard on 9/11), and held on to Florida, which flipped to Hillary against John McCain.

I would note, though, that the question here isn’t just, “will pro-lifers vote for Giuliani?”; it’s, “how many won’t volunteer for GOP get-out-the-vote efforts, and what’s the total effect of that?”