People argue about that to this day.
Did Perot drain enough votes away from George HW Bush, so that Clinton won the election because of that?
Clinton got 43 percent, Bush got 38 percent, and Perot got 19 percent.
if 68% of Perot voters would have voted for Bush, then Bush would have won reelection. Some people say while a majority of Perot voters would have voted for Bush, if Perot had not been on the ballot, that nowhere near 68% would have voted Bush. Which would have meant Clinton wins anyway in a 2 man race.
Besides, Bush and Clinton were two sides of the same coin anyway.
Clinton has no chance of winning in a 2 man race. The same reason Trump won in 2016, if 35% are given the chance to step outside the 2 parties, with a canidate who is not a moonbat, they will.
Centrist running as a 3rd party without a crazy moment almost assure any GOP canidate wins in 2024. Without an Obama tickle running up ones leg, democrats are not bothering to show up for old joe in 2024. He lost the dorm room turnout flubbing the student loan and abortion causes.
“Read my lips. No new taxes.” Didn’t help Daddy Bush at all. His “Thousand Points of Light” ended with a thousand Iraqi oil well fires. Not helpful...