You might remember that Reagan’s approval numbers were also in the sub-50 range. He was also trying to deal with an economic mess handed to him by the previous administration. The cure involved high unemployment (hitting 10.8%, even higher than now), and going into the 1982 elections unemployment was on the rise.

Sure enough, in the 1982 elections the Republicans lost seats in Congress. But the loss was not as great as it might have been in the Senate because 1982 involved the Senate class of 1976, which was a very good year for the Democrats in the post-Watergate era. So the defending Democrats tended to be weaker, and the defending Republicans were stronger.

By 1984, the economy was clearly on the rise, unemployment was down, and Reagan won 49 states.

2010 involves the Senate class of 2004, which was a good year for Republicans. While some Democrats are facing very tough reelection challenges (Reid, Dodd), there are also Republicans seats being vacated in states that went for Obama in 2008 (Ohio, New Hampshire). Unlike 1982, where the economy was still sliding on election day, in 2010 the economy will clearly be on the upswing. The Democrats will still lose about 20 seats in the House, but they could actually pick up a seat or two in the Senate. Remember, the world of November 2010 will not be the world of December 2009.

As for current polls, I’m reminded of the old Dennis Miller line – “According to Gallup, if the election were held today 95% of Americans would be surprised since they thought the election wasn’t supposed to happen until November”.

Just as the Democrats crashed and burned in 1984 assuming the country would just reject Reagan, Republicans cannot go into 2010 and 2012 assuming the country would just reject Obama. Only a broad based, narrowly focused Conservative vision, clearly and cogently articulated, has a chance.

And as for Palin, the only important question in 2010 will be if she gets Sean Hannity’s time slot.

Where is the evidence?

Palin’s favorability averages remain fairly low and she is currently only at 42% according to http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-palin.php
That’s two points better than her polls ratings from August but still not very good.
E.g. Mike Huckabee [ http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-huckabee.php ] and Barack Obama [http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-obama.php] are considerably more popular.

MARCU$

I disagree about his level of accessability. Yes, he is everywhere, but no one can ask him and honest question and get a simple yes or no answer. We keep hearing the same tired speech over and over again with different subjects, names and dates inserted. He’s become unwatchable.

Obama has everything to lose in 2010 and Palin has nothing left to lose. That’s the difference and that’s why Palin has so much power and appeal, from her humble facebook page.

Also, there is a typo in your piece. I think you meant to say Bush’s bailouts (The TARP was a Bush administration policy).

1fw

He got through an ENORMOUS stimulus package and is very close to signing a bill for major health care reform, something that nine other presidents failed to do. He’s put into place a plan for Afghanistan, has started to dismantle Guantanamo, and has radically shifted perceptions of the U.S. around the world.

You can argue with the merits of any of these accomplishments, but to dismiss him as ineffective is just ridiculous on the face of it.

As for Palin, it’s easy to jack up your likability numbers when you’re just ridin’ a bus, doin’ photo ops and signin’ books and winkin’. But just let her step outside her role as book writin’ celebrity mom and her numbers will collapse faster than franco’s arguments.