I agree, in Dec. 82 the national unemeployment rate was 10.8% and Reagan and the Republicans had suffered a 26 seat loss in the House the month before which is in sharp contrast of Bush 43 gaining seats in his first midterm election.
Reagan went on to crush Mondale in Nov. 84. There is a lot of time. In 92 the economy was in full recovery, but the press was hellbent for Clinton, add Perot's tilting at windmills, and Bush 41's lackluster campaign led to Klintoon's win with 43% of the vote.
When Perot first dropped out of the race in 92, Bush 41 pulled ahead of Clinton. If it wasn't for Perot, Clinton would have never have won, IMO. Also there was no mass Internet availiablity in 92 and the press had full reign to put out thier propaganda for Clinton.
Sadly, I was one of the Perot people. I had been a Reagan democrat prior to that, had voted for GB-1 in term one, and was at something of a crossroads when that election occurred. I, like many Perot voters, was tired of the political games and wanted something new.
Hindsight is, of course, 20-20 - Perot split the vote and the 'toon won without anything close to a majority (a little fact that doesn't get in the way when democrats talk about the 2000 election). I always wonder how that vote would have went had Perot not entered the scene. I also wonder at times what would have happened if Perot would have won. Now THAT would be an interesting scenario. :^)