[EDINVA]

Reagan may have had clarity in his political philosophy and achieved most of his goals, but he didn’t achieve them without a great deal of compromise along the way. One has to know when and how to compromise, what can be compromised on and what can’t. But we can’t 30 years later forget about the fairly extensive Reagan compromises done to achieve his ends. I think that’s what Dr. Carson is alluding to in his commentary.

[JRandomFreeper]

The problem is that modern republicans want to compromise foundational principles. That's something Reagan didn't do. And he caught hell from the establishment because of it.

/johnny

[ansel12]

The GOPe fought tooth and nail not to compromise for Reagan, he muscled that nomination on his third presidential run.

[nathanbedford]

Ronald Reagan, as you have alluded, was more successful in electioneering then in governing, although he had great success as President. One need only cite his roles in the restoration of the economy and winning the Cold War to establish that case.

I contend that Ronald Reagan practiced two virtues which greatly contributed to his success in governing: First, he carried the country with him so that when he had to call upon Republican Rinos to support his programs they had no choice but to do so or risk disaffection of the voters. He did this in a positive way but in a way that left Republican Senators and Representatives with no choice but to support him. He communicated these values so effectively that even many Democrats were forced to vote with him.

Second, Reagan prioritized. He had four or five cardinal issues which he explained to the people in terms they can understand and in ways they would support and he followed through.

I see nothing in any of this which is inconsistent with my arguments concerning how to win elections by attracting people into our tent rather than pandering to those outside of the tent. Reagan simply applied these principles to governing as well is getting elected.