That's not really all the power is it? If he gets the opportunity to nominate judges, and if the court revisits the issue again, and if his judges vote the way you expect, and if they are enough to make the difference, then yeah he has some power.
If that ever happens, and it's far from likely, it's way off in the future. It makes no sense to pick our presidents based on their personal opinions of an issue that they will not decide.
"And, Paul is grossly ignorant if he doesn't know the majority believes that abortion should be banned in all cases except in cases of rape, incest and the mother's life being endanger. That has been true in polls for 40 years."
Actually the country is roughly evenly split between "pro life" and "pro choice", and a large majority wants abortion legal to varying degrees.
"And, since the states would decide the issue, more than half of them would ban abortion immediately in most cases."
But the states aren't going to decide. The Supreme Court has already had its say.
Again, it makes no sense to base a presidential choice on his personal opinion about abortion when it's one issue he will have no power over. There are other important things he will affect. That's all he was saying.
And for anyone that missed it, he wasn't telling pro-lifers not to worry about it. He was reassuring pro-choicers that might be thinking of voting for him that they shouldn't be concerned about his pro-life views. It's good politics.
Again, the President has more power than any other elected official to end Roe and return the power to the people by nominating judges. And, the people in the more than half the states would ban abortion except in rare circumstances.
You make the arguments you do as does Paul because neither one of you are pro-life and/or care about the issue.