Exit polls show Clinton would have carried CO in 1996 with no Perot

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

The consensus is that Perot took votes mostly from Dole, but in CO it appears he took at least 3% off of Clinton: http://www.cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/ELECTION/COPxp.html

[Meursault]

Perot probably hurt Clinton more generally in 1996 than Dole, owing to NAFTA.

[SPC]

The consensus is that Perot took votes mostly from Dole, but in CO it appears he took at least 3% off of Clinton: http://www.cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/ELECTION/COPxp.html

That exit poll also showed Perot voters splitting 34-28 Dole (with 34% abstaining), so I would think that result speaks more to flaws in the exit poll than Perot costing Clinton votes.

[sg0508]

CO was too close in '96 to really take exit polls seriously. It would have come down to final count. Who knows?

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

The consensus is that Perot took votes mostly from Dole, but in CO it appears he took at least 3% off of Clinton: http://www.cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/ELECTION/COPxp.html

That exit poll also showed Perot voters splitting 34-28 Dole (with 34% abstaining), so I would think that result speaks more to flaws in the exit poll than Perot costing Clinton votes.

Yeah, the exit poll is wrong - if you do the math on the gender split, Clinton does better in the exit poll (44.76%) than he did IRL (44.43%). I've noticed the same thing happens with 2000  - the "revised" exits overestimated Bush in Florida and New Hampshire, so you sometimes get arguments that Nader didn't really cost Gore those states.

Speaking of Nader, he was on the ballot in CO in '96 and did rather well (almost 2%). So that would explain part of Clinton's loss.