No he wasn't. See post 69. Your Carter example is not relevant. We are talking about getting the nomination from GOP rank and file. Of the people running in '80, Reagan always lead in the polls. He was not some dark horse with incredibly high negatives coming from behind for an upset.
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”.