Dear qlangley,
There is also history.
Over the last few decades, the social conservative movement has been a critical part of the Republican coalition that has permitted the Republican Party to win seven of the last ten presidential elections.
I might note, as well, that the three times that the Democrats won, they won with candidates who at least initially presented themselves as social issue moderates.
In looking at who comprises this Republican majority, where the actual votes come from, social conservatives have been necessary to elect Republican presidential candidates.
Nominating a Republican candidate who is diametrically opposed to the entire social conservative agenda doesn't appear to be a historically reliable way to win the presidency.
sitetest
I don't see your analysis as being any different from what I called judgement.
After all, every one of those elections was unique. Each time the circumstances were different. Reagan was a great candidate, but he would have lost if Jimmy Carter had not failed as a President.
I am not denying the truth of what you say. I am just saying that the next election will have its own unique circumstances. We can estimate what they will be, but factors which have yet to emerge will be critical: Iraq and the economy are the most obvious. There will probably be other, less obvious ones, which perhaps neither of us has anticipated.
I have enjoyed this, but I think we are exhausting it. I think that if Giuliani wins the nomination (which I agree that he probably won't) he would (probably) easily win the subsequent election. You think he would probably lose.