Look out, Jeb!'s getting snippy.

[ericson00]

39. where is your empirical data backing your claim up? Otherwise, your claim is no different than

"there is no global warming." Here is my empirical data:

1. Exit polls from election night 1992, a better method than just saying what one wants to believe, show that Clinton would have won over 50% of the vote absent Perot, and thus in more than 9 in 10 trials, the election.

2. George H.W. Bush's approval ratings in 1992 rivaled Jimmy Carter's in 1980. Both in their election years were not only lower than Reagan 84 and Clinton 96, but lower than Bush 04 and Obama 12. You don't win with under 40% and below approvals.

3. The GOP (and the anti-Clinton fringe left) also leave out that when Perot was not in the race, which was from July to the start of October 1992, Bush Sr. still polled near the 37% that approved of his performance and that he won in the end. Nate Silver, a data and stats expert, also disagrees with the idea that Perot cost Bush tho he does believe he hurt Clinton.

4. Ross Perot was not a conservative like Nader was a liberal or Trump is running as a conservative. Perot was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and against trickle down economics.

5. For Bush to have won 270 EVs, he'd have needed to win almost every state (here's a hypo map: ) he lost by less than 5, which doesn't happen when a president has Carteresque election year approvals. Also note that he'd have needed WI, but Dukakis won that when Bush was popular, so Bush wasn't going to win when he was very unpopular. Remember, that map is a best-case scenario for a president with approvals we have not seen an incumbent pres beside Bush I who was seeking re-election have for 35 years. Bush Sr. and Jimmy Carter.

You cannot just make such huge claims like you have without empirical data. If you want to use a RW smear that goes against data, go join the GOP.