Look out, Jeb!'s getting snippy.

[ericson00]

42. that website clearly also mentions that a lot of states that "possibly" could have turned

were just that; possibly. Also of note- Carter still blames him for being a spoiler for many of the same reason Bushies accuse Perot after they get confronted with empirical data; he "weakened" me. Anderson is pushing IRV, and its easier to push if more can be construed to be "spoilers." I agree with IRV, but the data still suggests Perot had a near minimal effect.

A better source would actually use exit polls and shows the one state Perot may have changed showed an exit poll margin difference within the MoE that it could've stayed the same, but either way, Clinton wins an electoral landslide.

Ross Perot's 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 Perot's 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.

Perot-elected-Clinton is no different than "I am not a scientist." Same dumb redneck data and math hating non-logic.