The first one really isn't debatable. Most polls showed Perot's voters either sitting it out or splitting fairly evenly between Bush and Clinton. Even if they did break to Bush, it would've had to have been by an overwhelming margin to give him the win.
What that misses is that with third party candidates, the reasons for voting third party candidates are not uniform across the States and thus the split of who they would vote for in the absence of that candidate is also not uniform. Looking at the individual States, I think it is fairly obvious that had Perot been magically stripped off the ballot everywhere on the 1st of November, Bush would have done better in the Electoral College than he did. By itself, I agree that wouldn't have given Bush a chance of winning, but had he been facing fire from only one opponent instead of two during the whole campaign, he would have done better. How much better, we'll never know. So I can't really answer the first question, tho if forced to answer I'd go with Yes.
The answer to the second is Yes, tho I do agree with those who think the election would have been closer without Clinton as the candidate.
Poll
