His genius, if you will, was in getting people to believe in him and in the cause. The Continental Army lost most every battle, but got very lucky in the few critical ones that really mattered - plus an enemy that relied too heavily on conscripts and mercenaries, not fighting for a cause.

One of the true "innovations" during the Revolution was not even a Washington or von Steuben developed tactic. It was those pesky colonist farmers (militia) who thought it better to hide behind trees and fire at the red coats (very easy to pick out, what with their red coats). The tactics of the day were to line up in a skirmish line 3 deep, the first course firing, the second aiming, and the 3rd reloading. The Brits complained about the colonists "not fighting fair" by hiding behind trees. I see this innovation in warfare tactics similar to the asymmetric warfare happening today. As I type this, I just got a notice that a 2 star gen was killed inside the Afghan military academy compound. That, too, is "not fair" but is something that we have to adapt to or lose.

True. Reagan had the benefit of a demographic that was approaching peak spending. Largest boom in population growth (ever, I believe) reaching their peak spending period (46.5 yrs after birth - so that started in 1991 for the boomers born in 1945). Ten years earlier, they would have been in their mid-30's. Think about your own spending pattern, that's when many start increasing their incomes and buying more stuff, with it reaching a peak by 46.5.

Even Carter would have looked like a competent president had he been elected in 1992. You would have had to try very hard to screw up that economy.

Likewise, whomever is elected in 2016 will at best need to keep gov't out of the way so as not to further degrade the economy, but it won't likely rebound to any significant degree until the early '20's (children of the baby boomers).