Replies

True, but one can be staunchly conservative and still appeal to the mainstream.

Does the name Ronald Reagan ring a bell? At the time, he wasn't a "mainstream" conservative by the traditional Republican definition at the time.

Well, you have to be fair. In 1980 the country was in the dumps, and folks largely blamed President Carter. This was for number of reasons: the economy, gas prices, the Iranian hostage crisis, the Olympic boycott, etc. I think almost any Republican could have beaten Carter, all else being equal.

Also, Reagan was fairly likable and the MSM's depiction of him as a right-wing-nut never stuck to him with most people.

Even then the image of Reagan had softened by the time 1984 rolled around. The country wasn't going to give the reigns to Carter Jr. And the perception was that things were better than they were in 1980 (and they were). Reagan's core principles resonated with enough people in 1980 and 1984 to win.

So it depends what you mean by staunchly conservative. I can tell you this: the consensus positions on FR tend to be significantly more conservative than mainstream folks. The good news is that people instinctively lean conservative, though nowhere near as much on FR.

My 'scale' - based on instinct and my evaluation of the political climate - with -100 being crazy liberal, 0 being moderate moderate, and +100 being crazy conservative, has the consensus among the electorate at about +25 or so, give or take, and the consensus on FR ranging from +70 to +100.