General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A question for HRC supporters ... [View all]R B Garr
(16,950 posts)analysis have disproven this. This myth is basically a right-wing canard to delegitimize Clinton, which others here appear to like to engage in, as well.
http://www.salon.com/2011/04/04/third_party_myth_easterbrook/
"Ross Perots presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.
The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perots absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.
And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush margin without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire.
In most states, the second choices of Perot voters only reinforced the actual outcome. For example, California, New York, Illinois and Oregon went to Clinton by large margins, and Perot voters in those states strongly preferred Clinton to Bush.
Repeat after me: Ross Perot did not cost George H.W. Bush the 1992 election. If you see or hear a commentator using this claim as supporting evidence, immediately discount whatever argument that commentator is advancing. The poor economy doomed George H.W. Bush in 1992 not a short billionaire from Texas."