> He indicated that at the Scotus level it was not sacrosanct.
True, but it is nonetheless an important point of consideration. If Alito & Roberts were honest (no reason to suspect otherwise), then they'd have a hard time overturning Roe without something new.
The point: the President has little if any impact on abortion. And until such time as Roe is overturned and the decision on abortion is returned to the states... then governors also have little say in the matter.
Abortion is a subject that makes rational people go buggo and work against their own best interests. Single-issue voting doesn't make much sense when you're voting for/agaisnt someone based on an issue they can do nothing about... especially when there are *bigger* issues.
If it comes down to Condi vs. Hillary, every vote that's not cast for Condi is a step forward for Hillary.
The next president will get to replace at least 2 justices.
The only sort of single issue voting that makes ANY sense is RKBA. That's the one thing that can be used to secure all other rights. Give that up, and candidates can promise whatever will get votes when they're running, but turn around and attack basic rights (think eminent domain) after they're elected.
It's true that a president has little direct control over abortion laws, but not everyone agrees that there are "bigger" issues than life and death.