Reagan was clearly the weakest opponent when measured against Carter (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=115543.0). This poll and others like it convinced Carter that Reagan would be the easiest opponent to beat. You seem to be saying that presidential polls more than a year before the actual election are unmovable and we should just nominate the person that matches up the best in the early going, which is Romney if you believe the polls. I do not. Reagan was behind by 29 points one year before the election. According to your logic he should not have been our nominee. Your premise doesn’t hold up and we can do better than Romney. Whether that is Palin or another true conservative, I am tired of having to vote for loser establishment RINO’S like Romney, McCain, Dole, Bush Sr., Ford, and Nixon. We are heading toward the abyss at a hundred miles an hour with Obama. Changing to Romney or some other liberal Republican leaves us going toward the abyss at a slightly slower pace, but we are still headed for disaster. We need someone who has a history of changing the system; someone who has a history of exposing corruption, even if it is found in their own party; someone that leads from a desire to see their country do well, instead of someone who is “the next in line”.
Yes, Reagan was way behind from Dec. 1979 thru March of 1980 - but so was everyone else. You may not remember, but there were 2 big international event that took place in November of 1979. The first was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the second was the taking of the American embassy in Iran. Those two events gave Carter a huge boost over all opponents as the country came together to support the president. But that boost proved to be temporary as he managed to screw those up as well.
So the question you have to ask yourself is: If there has been no major international event to give Obama a big boost over Palin, how can Reagan's experience be relevant to her situation? Also, since her high negatives have been persistent for at least 2 years, you have to ask what she can do now to change them? Since none of the other GOP candidates are in the same situation, it cannot be like 1980, where the incumbent got a big boost over the entire competition.
You folks really need to get over the Reagan analogy. It does not even come close to applying to Sarah's situation. It is like a form of mental masturbation - it will make you feel good for a while, but will not actually produce anything constructive.
That is irrelevant to vanity posted here and my argument. You don't get to go head to head with the sitting President unless you win the nomination. Reagan was the frontrunner all through the Primaries. Palin is nowhere near that from any polling I see. She is going to have to make up a lot of ground if she jumps in. It also took Reagan 2 tries to get there. '68 and '76 before he made it in '80.