Reagan was already in office in 1984, so he was running a "stay the course" campaign -- or at least a lot of people who voted for him understood him as running such a campaign. In that sense, he wasn't as different from the other candidates you put down as one might think. If Ted Cruz gets the nomination and runs the campaign many expect, he wouldn't be running a "stay the course" campaign and wouldn't be able to count on support in some of the places where Reagan did well.
Also, how much more liberal in practice do you really think Bob Dole was than Reagan? In practice, that is, in terms of deeds rather than words. I get that Reagan talked about going further, but a lot of his support came from the perception that there was only so much that he'd be able to get through Congress. Maybe Dole should have been more rousing and promised conservative voters more (it wouldn't have won him the election), but maybe he recognized just how much change any president could really make in the system and didn't overpromise.
And also, is the country today the same as it was in 1984? Hasn't the political environment changed a lot since then?
Dole was the ultimate liberal Republican. He was no more inclined to fight the democrats than McCain, Boner or McConnell are today. He surrendered on the Gingrich backed government shutdown at the very moment Clinton was about to surrender because the senate was looking bad. Dole wasn’t about a change in direction he just wanted his turn to run the show and control the $$$.
If I accept your premise the political environment has changed then the self-outing of the Republican party as socialist lite should have helped them correct? They ran Dole, GWBush with his compassionate conservative BS, McCain who is a traitor and should never have been called conservative or a Republican and Romney who should own the name Waffle House, all liberals and if your premise is correct they should have had a chance, especially Romney and yet lost and badly. The Republicans have accepted your premise which the media has perpetuated and have lost in most cases and barely won twice.
If you accept the changed political environment you promote then Jeb, Krispy Kreme or Romeny again should be a shoe in for 2016 and yet no one wants them except big business and liberal democrats/republicans. The conservatives loath all three of them. Democrats voters are not going to vote for them why should they?
Why would any self-respecting mooch vote for someone who says here have some other persons money, say $300 a month which you might have to pay back when the out of the closet liberal democrat says, here take a cool $1000 I took from this other guy and paying it back, don’t worry about that, just remember who stole it for you and gave it too you when you vote.
Yeah there is a choice but the choice is cheap liberal versus the real thing. How is that a choice? The only difference we are being offered in this new environment is the price tag each party will offer for votes. For a country that claims to be 60% conservative in nature that is no choice so tell me why am I going to waste my time voting and supporting someone who is liberal lite?
There has been no stark choice from either party since the 1984 election and in 1980 and 1984, the country was offered a very different path by each party. Since then we have been offered one path with the speed we travel down it being the only difference. My question is do we get another squish liberal go along, get along candidate or a real choice?