No it's the definition of "can win" that is the point of contention. For the Rudy Tooters the definition of can win is only Rudy and no one else. They then go forth with that premise to start some very ugly and divisive debates.
Rudy in fact CAN'T win because there are prolife people across the country who are not political. They are religious, morally conservative but don't consider themselves to have any allegiance to any party. If there is no prolife candidate on the ballot, they simply throw their hands up and wait for the next election. I wouldn't suggest that, but that's the way it is.
If there is no prolife candidate for President, they skip the election, and in this day and age of razor thin political divisions, that will kill any Republicans chances. End of story. Rudy can't win.
that is it. in a nutshell.
Your two errors, in my view:
(1) You are neglecting to include Rudy’s crossover appeal in your calculation.
(2) Wanting a future for your kids isn’t ‘political’ or ‘religious.’ It’s instinctual.
There will be pro-life candidates on the ballot, if not the Republican nominee there will be pro-life 3rd party candidates. I and my extended family will all vote for the 3rd party nominee who best represents our beliefs if Rudy is nominated by the GOP.
I will never vote for a pro-death candidate just because he or she is the lesser of two evils, and I believe that God will punish America severely if we reject viable pro-life candidates while embracing pro-death candidates for the sake of some perceived political advantage.
Yes, and there are more single-issue pro-life voters than pro-choice - IIRC in 2000 or 2004 it was 10% voting on pro-life only vs. 8% voting on pro-choice only - a 2% advantage for a pro-life candidate.