I know that "American" Political Science has a tradition with quantitative models...but aren't you overstimating the importance of unemployment correlated to eventual voting patterns?
I don't see how a high unemployment rate would be decisive with, err, heterodox candidates like Bachmann or Palin. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't has never worked in "America"?
1. George W Bush, 2004 -- although "Devil" might be a hysterical depiction.
2. George H W Bush, 1988
3. Richard M. Nixon, 1972
4. Harry S Truman, 1948
Our real estate meltdown and the offshoring of manufacturing have done more to ravage the middle-income groups in America than any political decisions not related to either. Dubya-era tax cuts heavily rewarded people who did such stuff, but that is the equivalent of adding lead salts to arsenic in a lethal potion.
The quick fixes that Dubya did in the latter part of his administration (under the pressure of the 'financial bosses' and who-knows-who-else... Joint Chiefs of Staff?) and that President Obama did early may have prevented what could have been the analogue of the 1931-1932 part of the 1929-1932 meltdown which was eminently possible. Long-term solutions that would promote small and competitive business over cartels (that means a more progressive tax structure) and reinvestment in plant and equipment have been shoved aside because in 2011 "he who owns the gold makes the rules". In view of the political impasse that now exists and is unlikely to allow any reform of any type, we can expect no political reforms that would address any of the underlying realities of the economy.
The 2012 elections will decide what is possible -- in 2013. Until then we can expect economic stagnation because political gridlock prevents any real change.
