I think it's worth pointing out that Gore's opponent in 2000 was a southerner. An artificial one at that, but still percieved as a southerner.
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.
That sure is a lot of speculation that all of those states would have gone in the Bush column. 269 electoral votes is still not a victory in a presidential election, either. 270 is needed to win.
I still can't quite figure out why people have this mythical belief that Perot cost Bush the election in 1992. I remember it well since it was the first election I voted in. I also remember doing a paper in College about how Perot's presence cut into
Clinton's lead at the time. Clinton won by about 5 and a half points in 1992. It would take an unreasonable split of about 65-35 of Perot's votes in Bush's favor just to even things out nationally, and I don't even want to speculate what if scenarios in each individual state to get a different result.
Anywho, there's a whole lot of proof in the facts. The telltale one to me that involves no speculation is that in 1992 when Perot was more of a factor, Clinton won the popular vote by 5.5% as I covered earlier. When he(Perot) had less influence in 1996, Clinton won by a much wider margin(almost 9% nationally.)
