I disagree on abortion being a lessor issue in the general election. It is a key issue for swing voters in several battleground states:
...At one point, the thought behind Malanga’s comment was the conventional wisdom. Socially-conservative views, notably opposition to abortion, were required to get the Republican nomination in presidential and many other races, but hurt the candidate in the general election.
The generalization never had much evidence to support it. It was true that opposition to abortion bought candidates worse news coverage, and true as well that some measures of public opinion found the public to support legal abortion. But other measures of public opinion, at least as good, found the public to be mildly pro-life. Among voters who considered abortion a top issue, meanwhile, pro-lifers clearly predominated.
In recent years, the conventional wisdom has changed. In the 2004 election, it was widely recognized that abortion was a bigger political problem for pro-choice Democrats than pro-life Republicans. John Kerry agonized over the issue; at one point his campaign disinvited Kate Michelman, who had long headed the abortion lobby NARAL, from a rally. The crucial swing voters in that election were not the “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” people who are disproportionately found among the college-educated. Rather, they were social conservatives, often Catholics, who were receptive to Democratic appeals on economic issues. Those voters were the great prize the campaigns sought in Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Iowa.
I meant it will be a lessor issue in the general election IF we have a prolife nominee. I don't think the Democrats will raise it to the level of the war.
On the other hand, if Giuliani is the candidate in the general, then the Republican party comes apart at the seams.