You tell us. Maybe "traditional Republican candidate acceptable to conservatives" is a better way of putting it than "traditional conservative."
If you're saying they weren't all traditional Republican candidates or acceptable to conservatives, you could be right.
If you're saying that all of them weren't traditional Republican candidates acceptable to Republicans, that could be going too far.
My point is that NONE of them are “traditional conservatives”. I take issue with the author’s suggestion that the recent run of Republican candidates come anywhere close to that standard.
Your description “traditional Republican candidate acceptable to conservatives” is almost there. I would say “marginally acceptable” instead. That would perfectly describe those candidates.
Implied in my comment is the obvious lack of electoral success experienced by the people I mentioned (Bush II barely made it in, and Bush I couldn’t make it on his own). I forgot to include Dole, he belongs there as well.
In this day and age, “traditional Republicans marginally acceptable to conservatives” aren’t likely to ever become president.
I had high hopes that Cruz was going to be the traditional conservative who is also electable, but he succeeded only in driving people away from him, in stark contrast to the Reagan phenomenon.
Trump is neither a traditional Republican nor is he a traditional conservative.
But he has other things going for him that put him far ahead of his Republican rivals, and hopefully will allow him to forever erase the Clinton/Obama stain on our country.