The development of post-election polling techniques makes it possible to examine the nature of electoral mandates more precisely, and therefore to compare them with the mandate claims of winners. On that basis, we can more accurately assess the limits of the “administrative presidency” in individual cases. This article first summarizes the evidence regarding the 1980 Reagan mandate, and then proceeds to describe prominent cases in which his administration tried (with uneven success) to reverse or greatly re-orient purported statutory intent. Finally, it sketches some propositions regarding the appropriate limits of policy change in the absence of changes in organic statutes, and evaluates the cases discussed in light of these propositions, suggesting that a legitimate part of executive discretion revolves around how to reach statutory goals but not whether to pursue them. It concludes that the limits of what has to be permissible for effective operation of the system are probably broader than critics of any particular president's policy positions may prefer to see.