First, I disagree with the 30/30/40 division of the voting public. I see the division more like this:
1. Each party has a group of reliable voters. These are people who will vote in almost every election and vote a straight-party ticket for their side almost every time.
2. Next are groups of consistent party voters on each side. They will vote for their party maybe 70 to 90 percent of the time but will occasionally sit out an election on purpose, vote third party, or maybe vote for the other major party candidate. The most famous example is the "Reagan Democrats" who will vote for conservative Republicans who represent their traditional values. Another example is the "Country-club Republicans" who abandoned Ronald Reagan in 1980 to vote for that liberal Republican who ran as an independent. These people also abandoned Oliver North in the Virginia senate race in 1994. Many religious conservatives fit the same mold as relative newcomers to the GOP who will go elsewhere if their issues aren't addressed.
3. Finally, there are the people who are completely erratic voters. They are not all moderates as the media would like to portray but are all over the map. Some are hard-core liberals who complain about DINOs in the Democrat Party just as the ones on the right complain about RINOs. Some are people who vote for a candidate because they like his name or his hairstyle. Some are true moderates. Others may have some oddball deciding issue. Some are just drawn to a novel campaign idea the way many people liked Ross Perot showing pie charts during his speeches. Others are the kinds who say things like "I want Democrats to make my laws but Republicans to look after my money," or "I want Democrats to teach my kids but Republicans to protect my kids." Some are the people who vote for an incumbent as long as they still have their jobs. Some will vote for someone because they saw him once in the grocery store.
Following this line of thought, most elections come down to each party getting almost all of its reliable voters and the winner getting a larger percentage of its consistent voters and holding more or less even among erratic voters. For instance, Ronald Reagan won by getting crossover of "Reagan Democrats" who were in the consistent Democrat category. George Bush won in 2004 by getting a bigger percentage of consistent Republicans than a Republican would normally get. These were the religious conservatives who turned out in larger numbers to vote for President Bush. Bill Clinton won in 1992 in large part because Ross Perot drew many of the erratic voters who would have voted for an incumbent and drew a few more consistent GOP voters than he drew consistent Democrat voters.
I believe that Rudy Giuliani would lose the general election because he would lose more consistent Republican voters than he would gain consistent Democrat and erratic voters. The consistent Republican voters are largely made up of pro-lifers and pro-gun people, and they will abandon the GOP if the candidate is completely unfriendly to their issues.
I believe you're saying is that a social conservtive would lose those consistent GOP voters who are moderate and liberal. I disagree. None of the issues that have hurt Republicans over the past two years have had anything to do with social or religious conservatism. We are frustrated with the Iraq War aftermath because we don't see that aftermath as just the latest battleground in the war against Muslim jihadists. People who don't know any better bought into the notion that the federal government somehow failed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The housing bubble is bursting a bit, so people don't see their net worth rising as much as it did for a few years. People are buying into the global warming nonsense, so those who don't know any better think that they have to change the government in order to change the weather. Again, none of these are related to religious or social conservatism.
The problem is not that religious and social conservative issues are out of favor. The problem is just that the religious and social conservative voters do not have a well-known candidate to represent them. After seeing failures of Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes, and Gary Bauer, they realize that running a candidate with little or no experience in elected office is not likely to be successful. We want a candidate who knows what he's doing, but we want a candidate who represents our views. If George Allen hadn't train-wrecked or if J.C. Watts had been elected governor of Oklahoma, we'd have a prominent religious/social conservative at the front of the race.
Bill
If Hillary Clinton is the Democrat nominee, then at least half of your analysis should have been directed at how the voters would react to her. All that I have said is, if it's Hillary against Rudy, Rudy wins. And he wins big.
If the Democrats have the sense to nominate a different candidate, who is more electable than Hillary, then all bets are off.
Congressman Billybob