Agreed. Reagan made a gee-gosh comment as a PRELUDE to negotiation and to reassure conservatives why he was compromising with Tip O’Neill to move the ball down the field, to gain some ground.
Reagan was NOT laying down a hard and fast rule to govern all campaigns for all time. He was referring to the compromises he cut with Tip O’Neill.
But the 80% figure — any measurement — is meaningless because votes are not all of equal importance.
1 vote may be so important that it outweighs all the other votes.
If the 20% where a Member of Congress diverges are the most important, then the other 80% don’t matter.
The implication is that the 80% agreement matters.
In reality, the RINO’s are voting liberal on the most damaging and most significant and most important issues, and voting conservatives on the LEAST significant issues.
In other words, the entire discussion assumes at all votes have the same value or importance.
They don’t.
The canard assumes that it is possible to measure such things. It isn’t.
The canard also assumes that votes are the only things that matter. They aren’t. An elected official can hurt conservatives and advance liberal policies in many ways other than voting on the floor of Congress.
Suppose a politician had a high conservative ranking based on votes, but campaigned for liberal democrats for office. Would you call that person 80% your friend?