>>Cruz is Reaganesque.<<
I completely disagree. One of Reagan’s greatest strengths was his ability to speak to a particular audience effectively. He could always gauge their interest and would modify the direction he was headed as it became apparent that it wasn’t working as well as he wanted.
Cruz absolutely lacks that ability. It showed in the last debate in two glaring examples, the first at the opening with his attempted joke that fell flat as a pancake and the second when he tried to illustrate how all the last questions were targeted specifically at him. (He wasn’t wrong; he just mishandled the delivery of the information—compare to “I paid for this microphone.”)
And then, last night, he went way, way, over the top in his acceptance speech, both in tone and length. No graciousness, just pontificating. Had he screamed a bit louder at any particular point, it would have indeed been his Howard Dean undoing.
So, no, Cruz is not Reaganesque, although he might well make many of the same decisions if elected. But he doesn’t connect with people personalliy; Reagan did. Now, Rubio on the other hand....
I was (ill-advisedly?) using the term in a different way. I was referring to Cruz's ability to win people over to his policy positions. His Americanist logic is practically impeccable, and he is a good communicator when he has to stay on point. (In this regard, I think Cruz is even better than Reagan, because he thinks on his feet very, very well.)
Rubio is much more winsome than Cruz, and otherwise roughly as good as Cruz in general public speaking, but I don't find myself trusting him on policy--especially not on immigration policy.