What would the 1992 Presidential Election map look like without Ross Perot?

[The Arizonan]

Would Bill Clinton still have been able to pull off a win against George H.W. Bush?

[Mr. Smith]

It'd be a 53-47 PV for Clinton and that'd entail adding Florida and North Carolina to the slate. But Montana and New Hampshire wouldn't have flipped.

[OSR stands with Israel]

D 302
R 236

Kentucky, Wisconsin and New Jersey are the closest states. Overall, Bush does better since he isn't being attacked from two sides at the same time.

Clinton loses Kentucky and Louisiana as well dropping him to 285 electoral votes, and I believe in that Bush wins popular vote

[White Trash]

D 302
R 236

Kentucky, Wisconsin and New Jersey are the closest states. Overall, Bush does better since he isn't being attacked from two sides at the same time.

Clinton loses Kentucky and Louisiana as well dropping him to 285 electoral votes, and I believe in that Bush wins popular vote

Perot mostly drew Democrats and Independents in Louisiana.

[mencken]

Based on my cursory analysis of randomly selected counties (I lack the will to go through all ~3,000 at once and observe the trend), I would estimate that between 5-20% of Perot's voters voted for Dukakis in the prior election (and thus would likely have voted for Clinton), 20-30% of Perot's voters voted for Bush in the prior election (and thus would likely have voted for Bush), and 50-70% sat out the prior election (and likely would have sat this one out too). His absence would likely have been sufficient to flip New Hampshire, Ohio, Montana, and Nevada to Bush. New Jersey, Georgia, and Colorado are a bit more difficult to say (Perot's effect was more ambiguous in the South and large urban centers)

[The Govanah Jake]

It would still be a Clinton victory. Bush was incredible unpopular and a candidate like Clinton who offered change was destined to win. Without Perot I could see a maybe 40-35-20-5 Bush,Clinton,Not Vote, or vote for another minor party happen to Perots voters which may have flip Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Maybe Colorado and also Ohio if it is to that extreme. However a decent Clinton win would still happen. A popular vote might be say 52-46 also.

[dw93]

Clinton/Gore: 342 EV, 52% PV
Bush/Quayle: 196 EV, 48% PV

Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Florida, and Nevada are the closest states. Bush gets 11% of Perot's vote, Clinton gets 9%.

[TML]

I personally haven't tried calculating it myself, but I did find one article online which suggested that Clinton would have won the PV 56-40 without Perot. That amounts to a 10-point PV swing toward Clinton, which, if applied evenly across the country, would result in the following map:

[twenty42]

It would be the exact same map with slightly different margins.

Going by exit polls, 38% of Perot voters said they would've voted Clinton, 38% said they would've voted Bush, and 24% said they wouldn't have voted at all. If you to interpolate those numbers into the national results, it results in 52.93% Clinton - 47.07% Bush. This is a 5.86% win for Clinton, a 0.3% D shift from the actual results. Since Bush won NC by 0.79%, the shift wouldn't have changed any states.