Will 2010 be a replay of 1994? No.

There’s a lot of talk in the media these days — and among some very influential pollsters and pundits — about the possibility of a major Republican revival next year.

The GOP surge could, in theory, begin this fall with big elections for governor in New Jersey and Virginia, and a smattering of off-season House races, including the one for the North Country’s 23rd district.

The theory goes that Barack Obama has stumbled into the same political territory that nearly swallowed Bill Clinton in 1994.

Republicans gained 54 House seats that year, and 8 seats in the Senate.

Clinton had misfired on health care and on gays in the military. The Democratic congress was also woefully unpopular, thanks in part to a scandal involving overdrafts by lawmakers.

In 2009, Democrats have once again waded into the complex, controversial debate over America’s health care system.

Conservatives have used the issue masterfully to stir passion and activism among voters who generally pull the lever for Republicans.

They’ve also used a series of “wedge” issues to suggest that Mr. Obama is out of touch with mainstream America.

So. Is past prologue? Will we see a Republican re-emergence comparable to the one led by Newt Gingrich?

I think the answer is no. Here’s why.

1. Demographics. The United States is a different country now than it was 15 years ago. More voting districts have more of the kinds of people who tend to vote Democratic, thanks to urbanization and immigration.

Year by year, the Republican base as currently defined grows smaller. That makes a 1994-style breakout harder and harder to accomplish.

2. Leadership. In 1994, the GOP was led by one of the most brilliant legislative and political tacticians of the modern era, Newt Gingrich.

His “Contract with America” was reviled by progressives; but the document offered a coherent agenda that gained broad traction among independent, mainstream voters.

In this political season, conservative leaders are a lot edgier, a lot more openly ideological. They’re also more divided and less coherent.

3. The crazy stuff matters. In the 1990s, Gingrich’s revolution began to falter when he shut down the government. A lot of Americans hated that kind of weirdness.

I know there are many, many Republicans who have no interest in the “birther-Glenn Beck-Rush Limbaugh-the-sky-is-falling” stuff.

But I think that nervous energy will scare off a lot of independents who might otherwise have been ready for an alternative to the Democrats.

4. The mountain is high. Democrats have so many seats currently that Republicans could win 40 House districts and still not gain the majority.

All of that said, it’s important to note that in 2006 and 2008, Democrats stole away a lot of House districts that are very, very conservative.

It’s likely that the GOP will claw back a number of those seats, a sort of “correction” to levels that might be more stable.

Here’s my prediction. By the time election day 2010 is over, Republicans will have retaken 3 U.S. Senate seats and 20 House seats.

Those are respectable gains, but nothing like 1994, and not nearly enough to shift control of Congress.