The only poll I remember seeing showed that Perot voters were split 38-38 between Bush and Clinton. There's an argument that Perot scrambling the race by getting in and dropping out helped Clinton, but I have to think that Clinton likely would have won anyway even if Perot had never gotten in.
If Perot hadn't run, Clinton would have won a majority. That's what would have happened. Bush would not have won.
Yeah, I'm tired of the "Perot elected Clinton" canard. Strong third-party candidacies are a sign of dissatisfaction *with the incumbent!*
I think Clinton would have won narrowly.
You could argue Perot cost Bush a Montana or a Colorado but that's about it, Clinton would have won easily.
Georgia & Nevada maybe too but yeah don't see Bush digging all the way out.
The only poll I remember seeing showed that Perot voters were split 38-38 between Bush and Clinton. There's an argument that Perot scrambling the race by getting in and dropping out helped Clinton, but I have to think that Clinton likely would have won anyway even if Perot had never gotten in.
Correct. Perot voters would've split roughly evenly between Clinton and Bush, meaning that Clinton would still have won easily.