[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.

[EDINVA]

If you recall, he was so successful he not persuaded “moderate” Republicans to support him, but many Dems who eventually switched party. There was a LOT of that going on during his time. I just wish some Rs would not become R!

[Sivad]

I think your analysis of Reagan is fair and mostly accurate
but I would add another aspect or two. Recall the term
‘Reagan Democrats’? RR could reach out to lifelong Democrats
and attract the support of a number of them. Of course one
might argue that in his time politics was not nearly as
polarized as today. And, it might also be argued that the MSM has been much more favorable to Obama than they were
to Carter which made things a little easier for Reagan
in the late 70s than they would be against Obama in more
recent times. Heck, maybe those Reagan Democrats became
Republicans and were replaced by today’s ‘low information
Democrats’. (Funny thing.....more information sources
today but a less informed electorate?)

Another thing you might recall is that Reagan was an
expert at talking passed the media and directly to the
people. Oh, how the news jerks hated that! We don’t
have any potential candidate that has that kind of
savvy and ability that I can see.

[zeestephen]

Re: “Reagan simply applied these principles to governing as well as getting elected.”

You have overlooked a critical fact - voter demography.

In 1984, a 59%-41% landslide victory for Reagan, he was decisively rejected by non-white voters.

Blacks - 91% for Mondale

Hispanics - 66% for Mondale (that was Reagan's “reward” for supporting the 1986 Amnesty!)

Now, apply those exact numbers to a 2012 imaginary election between Reagan and Obama.

Reagan would have won by 2%.

Reagan - 51%

Obama - 49%

Since 1984, the Democrat Party has imported 20 million new Socialist voters.

Reagan couldn't convert them in 1984.

And we can't convert them in 2014.