Evidence cuts both ways.

Where the prediction looks directionally right (especially in competitive races)

• In high‑profile swing‑state races after Dobbs, Republicans with absolutist abortion positions often lost badly:

  • Michigan: Tudor Dixon backed banning abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest, allowing only life‑of‑the‑mother exceptions, and lost the 2022 governor’s race to Gretchen Whitmer by ~10 points. Analyses explicitly note her near‑total‑ban stance as a liability in a cycle where voters also passed a pro‑abortion‑rights constitutional amendment. (en.wikipedia.org)
  • Pennsylvania: Doug Mastriano advocated a ban from conception with no exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother and was defeated decisively by Josh Shapiro in the 2022 governor’s race. (en.wikipedia.org)
  • North Carolina: Mark Robinson repeatedly rejected any “compromise” on abortion and said he’d outlaw it entirely if he had the power, then ran for governor in 2024 and lost to Democrat Josh Stein by nearly 15 points in a purple state. (en.wikipedia.org)

• Post‑Dobbs analysis of the 2022 midterms concluded abortion was a defining issue that helped Democrats and hurt Republicans seen as extreme; the Guardian’s post‑election read explicitly ties Dixon’s and Mastriano’s losses to their hardline abortion positions. (theguardian.com)

• GOP candidates in competitive 2022 races were documented scrubbing or softening earlier “no exceptions” or very rigid abortion language once Roe fell, reflecting exactly the kind of electoral pressure Jason anticipated. An AP report described more than a dozen such Republicans in battleground races who tried to distance themselves from prior statements favoring bans with few or no exceptions. (keyt.com)

• Since then, several prominent national Republicans have argued for a more moderate, “legal under some circumstances” posture:

  • Rep. Nancy Mace now publicly insists she will only support abortion legislation that includes rape, incest, and life‑of‑the‑mother exceptions and urges the party to move toward broadly popular middle‑ground limits. (en.wikipedia.org)
  • Nikki Haley centered her 2024 presidential campaign rhetoric on finding a “national consensus,” pointing to a 15‑week limit with rape/incest/health/life exceptions and explicitly rejecting the idea that a pure ban is realistic or electorally viable at the federal level. (en.wikipedia.org)
  • Party messaging guidance circulated by RNC‑aligned strategists recommended emphasizing that Republicans favor exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother, highlighting the political necessity of not appearing to back absolute bans. (washingtonpost.com)

Taken together, these patterns in swing‑state and national races support Jason’s core intuition: in much of the country, Republicans who are perceived as insisting on abortion being illegal in all or nearly all cases have struggled to win or have felt compelled to shift to a “legal under some circumstances” position.

Where the prediction fails or overgeneralizes

• At the same time, a substantial bloc of Republican officeholders in deep‑red states has not moved into a clearly "legal under certain circumstances" bucket in the ordinary‑language sense; instead they have enacted or defended near‑total bans:

  • Alabama’s Human Life Protection Act imposes a near‑total abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest, only a narrow life‑of‑the‑mother carve‑out, and it took effect after Roe was overturned. (en.wikipedia.org) Republican leadership that backed it—including Gov. Kay Ivey and the legislators who passed it—remains electorally secure in a heavily Republican state.
  • A 2024 Guttmacher analysis notes that 14 states had total abortion bans in effect (i.e., abortion is broadly illegal, often with only very narrow exceptions) even after multiple election cycles post‑Dobbs. These bans predominantly exist in Republican trifecta states, whose GOP governors and legislators have continued winning elections. (guttmacher.org)
  • News and explainer pieces as of 2024 still list states such as Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, Kentucky, and others where abortion is banned in almost all circumstances and explicitly lacks rape and incest exceptions; yet Republicans firmly control statewide offices there. (fox5atlanta.com)
  • Tennessee’s near‑total ban has no exceptions for rape or incest; Republican Gov. Bill Lee, who backed sweeping abortion restrictions, was easily re‑elected in 2022 with nearly 65% of the vote. (en.wikipedia.org)

• Even some politicians with very absolutist prior rhetoric (e.g., Mark Robinson in NC) have modulated their messaging without actually renouncing support for much stricter bans if they had the power—suggesting that moderation in language doesn’t always equal a genuine move into a stable "legal under some circumstances" policy bucket. (en.wikipedia.org)

Why the verdict is "ambiguous"

Jason framed his prediction broadly (“Republicans are going to have to… They will not get office”), without specifying that he meant primarily competitive statewide or federal races rather than deep‑red strongholds. In practice:

• In swing and purple states, and in nationally visible contests, subsequent elections strongly support his claim: hardline no‑exceptions or near‑total‑ban stances have generally been punished at the ballot box, and GOP candidates have been pushed toward acknowledging at least some legal abortion.
• In many solidly Republican states, however, politicians who back laws making abortion effectively illegal in almost all circumstances have kept or won office, and total or near‑total bans remain in force. That directly contradicts the idea that such positions are electorally non‑viable across the board.

Because the real‑world outcome matches his forecast in some major contexts (competitive races, national messaging) but clearly not in others (safe red states with total bans), and because his wording doesn’t pin down which universe he meant, the fairest overall assessment is "ambiguous" rather than clearly right or clearly wrong.