Under Reagan, the public became more liberal, in contrast to the prevailing view that Reagan’s skills as a communicator made the public more conservative. During the Obama administration, as during the Clinton administration, there has been another shift to the right. Far from ushering in a liberal majority, the Obama administration has presided over a shift among Americans toward preferring less government, not more government. Obama has helped to increase the overall conservatism of the American public more than Reagan ever did, ironically enough.

So what lessons should the GOP draw from this? First, none of this means the GOP can nominate someone from the far right-wing of the party and expect to win in 2016. Ideologically extreme nominees do suffer at the polls (see Table 2 in this piece by political scientist John Zaller). Of course, the GOP already seems to know this. In 1988, 1992,1996, 2000, 2008, and 2012, the GOP nominated a relative moderate from the field of candidates that was running. And as history shows, that the longer the party is out of the White House, the more moderate its nominee becomes.

Second, none of this means that the GOP should rest easy or do nothing. My goal is simply to frame the conversation within and about the Republican Party differently. People tend to overestimate how much policy and ideology have to do with election outcomes, which is why the losing party spends so much time debating how to renovate its platform. But the Republican Party’s loss in 2012 was predictable given only the economic fundamentals. And those same fundamentals could easily give Republicans the presidency in 2016.

The GOP will also benefit from what political scientist Alan Abramowitz calls the “time for a change” factor: only once since the 22nd Amendment limited the president to two consecutive terms has a party held the White House for more than two terms in a row.