It's not clear to me what you mean by "counterfactual" and "prima facie plausible" for these.

When you talk about real historical coalitions (like, say, anti-slavery evangelicals), in what way is that a "counterfactual" rather than, say, a "factual"?

Likewise, the one that you put on the list twice (pro-homosexual nationalists and anti-family nationalists) strikes me as prima facie implausible (if you have to grow it in competition, rather than having it in isolation and hoping it's stable).

Some of the combinations do highlight real intellectual divides- "libertarians for conscription" calls to mind Hayek's potential acceptance of a conscription law so long as it didn't impede the ability of individuals to plan. (Mandatory two-year service would work, whereas lotteries might not.) This was seen as a major disagreement by natural rights libertarians, who view conscription as slavery (and thus objectionable). But there seems to be a lot more chaff here than wheat.