Polls are notoriously unreliable and easy to manipulate. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics". I'm not even saying that you're wrong -- I'm saying that we have no way to know whether you're correct or not based on the numbers you threw out. We would need some good sources to even begin to evaluate the truth of these assertions.

The assertions themselves are so unbelievably vague that they could easily go either way with cherry-picked polling. Most people support abortion in cases of rape, so if you do a poll asking if people think some abortion should be legal, you will easily get a majority. If you ask about easy access to abortion in the 9th month, you get far lower levels of support. Saying "most support legal abortions" is practically meaningless without specifying what type of abortion they support.

I know many people who vote Republican only because of abortion. The fact is that pro-life people see this as the greatest injustice of our society by a wide margin. The left is motivated by BLM and the right is by pro-life.

The first two are accurate because they are relatively clear.

The other two depend very much on how you ask the question. It’s nowhere near as simple as you make out.

If people voted for any of those things, there would be quite a different margin. So then, what DO people vote for?

Is it relevant what people do vote for?

Getting the most votes isn't what translates to forming a government in the US. The big things are: having your family members run state governments, setting district lines, and setting up laws to prevent people that disagree with you from voting. Not to mention just having a lot of money to bribe already elected politicians.

As an absolute leftist, I think you're overstating the effects of gerrymandering. State gerrymandering cannot win statewide seats, nor the electoral college.

Anti-voting regulations, while frankly absolutely despicable, I've not yet seen any studies regarding a significant effect. Do you have any data on that?

People do vote for these things, but if you split voters is a particular way you can ensure that the minority hold on to power (Gerrymandering and the Electoral College).

If you're looking at a 60/40 split though, even the extreme levels of gerrymandering can't override it. So what are the other things that people vote for - they must have a large rightward split if people keep voting right wing, in the face of all those left-leaning polls on policies.

That’s not how elections work in the US, 60/40 is not a big enough divide to undo a gerrymander. The majority of the liberal population lives in dense urban areas and thus their votes get “wasted” as they’re reliably Democrats, while sparser regions which consist of the minority view get more representation compared to their actual numbers.

Add to that the fact that many voters are single issue voters, so their opinions on different policies don’t end up amounting to much.

So even if some policies are popular overall, they need to be popular enough to overcome these things to form a durable coalition that advocates for them in the halls of power.

Did you just make those numbers up out of thin air?