Reagan is probably more extreme than Cruz forget Kasich. I find it hard to put him in a box, he is definitely a Freedom Caucus type person. But more importantly, he did more damage to the economic system, working class & middle class than any President in history which Trump n Cruz are totally incapable of doing.
Trump may say stupid or even mildly racist statements but he is way to the left of Reagan in economics & social issues. Atleast the man has some heart deep inside, I can't say that about a monster like Reagan. Go read his 1980 & 1984 party platform, you get an idea about the man. I have always disliked Reagan !
Did u forget Reagan unlike the Freedom Caucus was always ready to compromise . Reagan never would propose privatizing social security , or doing a flat tax.
On results , Reagan presidency had produced some of the best results of any president in the past 50 years easily.
Sure, just spend a little bit of time in the Mill Towns of Coos Bay/ North Bend, Toledo, Philomath, St Helens, etc Oregon about how Ronald Reagan produced "great results"....
Just six months ago I was up in a small Mill Town area in Tillamook County Oregon, playing some video poker in a small bar, and a proud former International Woodworkers of America member literally spit on the floor when we were talking about Ronald Reagan.... s**t we weren't even talking about the '16 Presidential Election, and I wouldn't be surprised if he voted for Trump.
Maybe you should actually take some time travelling around your own state, before you start talking about the "great results" that Reagan achieved....
Sorry, just because your parents got major tax breaks under Reagan in no way shape or form makes him a President that "delivered results"....
Unemployment dropped from 10.8% to 5.4% , Inflation Dropped from 13% to 4%, Median Income went up from $18000-$27000(http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php). I call that a sucess.
Well, this isn't the Ronald Reagan appreciation or debate thread, so I'll pivot back...
I think part of the reason that Jimmy voted for Bernie in the Dem Primaries, was that Jimmy recognized how both the Democratic messaging and policy positions have shifted significantly over the past 28 years....
Both Jimmy Carter and Bernie Sanders performed quite well in rural communities and small towns throughout the United States and in many different regions.
Even Mike Dukakis was able to swing an impressive number of Counties that hadn't voted Democratic for President in decades, and in some cases 50 years....
That all started to change in '92, although it was obscured by the Ross Perot phenomenon, making it more difficult to do apples to apples comparisons with previous elections, if one were to simply look at a national county level map.
In the case of Oregon, there was clearly a backlash developing against Reagan in communities in counties that supported Carter in '76, swung a bit towards Reagan in '80, that by '88 went full tilt Dukakis.
This was not an accident.
Obviously I can't speak for former President Carter's exact motivations for supporting Bernie quietly during the primaries, but I suspect that he sees the same thing that I have seen, which is for decades, National Democratic Party candidates basically ignoring or paying lip-service to rural and small town specific economic issues, while continuing to focus on expanding their support within suburban and exurban areas of large Cities.
Ultimately as both 2000 and 2016 showed at the Presidential level, as well as in various recent House and Senate election cycles, this is not a strategy that can create a winning governing coalition.
Democratic Presidential Candidates need to start talking more, and with greater substance and detail about specifics as part of a national conversation (As Bernie has done before, during, and after the Democratic Primaries), rather than cede the ground to Republican candidates that are all image and no substance.
