The conventional wisdom is that Perot took votes from Bush in the South, and from Clinton in the North.
I am wondering what would have happened without Perot on the ballot in 1992. I think Clinton would have likely lost Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Tennessee in the South, Ohio and Wisconsin in the midwest, and Nevada, Colorado, and Montana in the West. I think he also would have lost New Jersey. This would have given Bush a 269-267 EV victory.
In looking at 1992, I'm convinced that Perot did not change the outcome. I would have been closer, Bush would had more EV's, but below 270.
That said, TN would have been a tossup in 1992. By 2000, Gore had moved substantially to the left of where he was 1992.
