Available post‑Dobbs evidence broadly supports Sacks’s prediction that, in a post‑Roe world, state‑level politicians whose abortion positions are closer to the median voter in their state gain an electoral edge over more absolutist positions.

1. Voters have repeatedly chosen policies near the statewide median over absolutist bans. Since Dobbs, voters have backed abortion‑rights or viability‑based measures in a wide range of states: Kansas rejected a constitutional amendment that would have allowed near‑total bans by ~59–41 in 2022, with the pro‑rights side winning in every congressional district, including deep‑red ones.(en.wikipedia.org) Kentucky voters likewise defeated a 2022 amendment stating there is no constitutional right to abortion.(rasmussenreports.com) In 2022 and 2023, California, Michigan, Vermont and then Ohio approved constitutional protections for abortion up to viability, often by double‑digit margins even in states that lean Republican in federal races.(kff.org)(en.wikipedia.org) In 2024, voters again adopted viability‑oriented or broad abortion‑rights amendments in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Montana and Nevada,(en.wikipedia.org)(en.wikipedia.org)(en.wikipedia.org)(en.wikipedia.org)(en.wikipedia.org) while an abortion‑rights measure in Florida still drew 57% support despite failing the 60% supermajority requirement.(en.wikipedia.org) The main exception, Nebraska, saw voters choose a relatively less absolutist restriction—a constitutional ban after the first trimester with rape/incest/medical‑emergency exceptions (Initiative 434) over a broader rights‑to‑viability measure (Initiative 439)(en.wikipedia.org)(en.wikipedia.org)—still consistent with voters gravitating toward a perceived middle ground for that very conservative state.

2. Politicians visibly tied to hardline positions have been punished, while those closer to state opinion have done better. In Kentucky, Democrat Andy Beshear won reelection governor in 2023 by over 5 points in a deep‑red state; reporting credits a viral ad highlighting that Republican Daniel Cameron had backed a near‑total ban with no rape or incest exceptions as a key factor in Cameron’s loss, even Kentucky GOP leaders acknowledged its impact.(en.wikipedia.org) In Virginia, Governor Youngkin and legislative Republicans framed a 15‑week ban with exceptions as a "consensus" limit, but polls showed voters split on that policy and broadly seeing GOP abortion positions as too restrictive or "extreme";(theguardian.com)(washingtonpost.com) Democrats ran squarely against new restrictions and went on to win full control of the legislature in 2023, blocking Youngkin’s proposal—analyses explicitly linked GOP losses to their abortion stance.(stateline.org) In red and purple states with abortion on the ballot, Democratic/state‑level pro‑rights candidates systematically ran ahead of generic partisan baselines when their message matched the broadly pro‑Roe preferences revealed by the ballot questions.(kff.org)(judiciary.senate.gov)

3. Quantitative studies find an electoral penalty for hardline anti‑abortion positions, implying a relative advantage for moderation. KFF’s analysis of the 2022 midterms using AP VoteCast found that voters for whom Dobbs/abortion was the most important issue backed Democratic House candidates by about 70–25, and that the Dobbs decision had a "major impact" on turnout and candidate choice for many key groups; this helps explain Democrats’ better‑than‑expected performance, particularly where abortion was salient.(kff.org) A political‑science style analysis of 2022 races estimates that Republican candidates’ pro‑life stance and the Dobbs backlash likely cost the GOP around 1 percentage point nationally, and that, after controlling for incumbency and Trump alignment, candidates who maintained hardline pro‑life positions lost roughly 0.6 points more than relatively more moderate Republicans—small but real margins that matter in close races.(decivitate.jamesjheaney.com) That is exactly the kind of marginal advantage Sacks was pointing to: over time, being closer to voter sentiment on abortion appears to yield electoral gains at the margins, while absolutist positions (especially near‑total bans without broad exceptions) have been electorally costly.

4. Caveats. The effect size is modest, and many other factors (partisanship, Trump, the economy) shape election outcomes. There are also outliers like Nebraska’s relatively strict 2024 amendment(en.wikipedia.org) and ongoing efforts in states like Missouri to roll back voter‑approved abortion‑rights measures(apnews.com). But taken together—ballot‑measure results across ideologically diverse states, high‑salience gubernatorial and legislative races (Kentucky, Virginia, Michigan, Ohio), and quantitative estimates of an abortion‑related penalty for hardliners—the post‑Roe electoral record aligns with Sacks’s claim in direction and mechanism. Politicians whose positions track where “most of the people in their state are” on abortion have, on balance, fared better than those holding uncompromising extremes.