Some say, now, that he was a spoiler to make sure that Clinton won. Who knows. All I remember is him carrying around that book, talking about how much money was being flushed down the toilet.
And I think he got something like 16%. So, he must have been saying something right.
I'd say 'a LOT' say, now, that he was a spoiler. But that could be Monday=moring quarterbacking, too.
I agree with the "who knows." I give it 50/50. That's how pernicious the Clintons are: there are uncharted depths to their machinations. Everything they have a hand in is to be viewed with a grain of salt. And yet there is infinite variety in the universe, even in the political universe. Perot may have been on the level. Outgunned and outmaneuvered, but on the level. Yet, still, it worked out far too conveniently for Clinton that he split the vote.