What % of Perot's '92 voters would have voted for Bush...

[soniquemd21921]

...if Perot hadn't ran?

Or in 1996, what % would have voted for Bob Dole had he not run?

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

There are like 2 other threads discussing Perot's effect on the 1992 election. Exit polling shows about 1/3 would have voted for Bush in 1992, while the potential benefit for Dole in 1996 was about 43% of Perot's '96 voters.


We discussed 1992 in more detail here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=172635.msg3789472#msg3789472

[barfbag]

Clinton 53%
Dole    47%

Clinton 51%
Bush    47%

1992 Bush may have won without the popular vote.

[SingingAnalyst]

I say 30% Clinton, 50% Bush, 20% someone else or don't vote:

Clinton 291 (still wins)
Bush 247

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I say 30% Clinton, 50% Bush, 20% someone else or don't vote:

Clinton 291 (still wins)
Bush 247

How does Bush win WI when it voted for Dukakis in 1988? Just looking at the IA results tells you that Perot hurt Clinton even worse than Bush in that part of the country.

[SingingAnalyst]

Maybe he doesn't; then Clinton wins 302-236. But then again maybe Bush holds Connecticut, which gives Clinton a 294-244 win. I think it is unlikely Bush would have won considering how unpopular he was, but Perot probably cost Bush a few, even several, states.