I think half the Perot voters would have stayed home had he not been on the ballot (which would have resulted in a percentage turnout similar to 1988), but the Perot voters who would have voted would have preferred Bush over Clinton by around 2:1, which would mean that the national popular vote would be around 49.5% each. That would result in Bush picking up at least GA, MT, CO, NH, OH, NV, WI, NJ (not a typo) and KY, with IA, CT and ME too close to call; for Bush to have won, he would have had to carry both IA and CT.
You have a lot more faith in those voters than I would. I'd go so far as to say if Perot had pulled out for a second and final time, he would've endorsed Clinton. It's hard to overstate the absolute hatred Perot had for Bush, Sr.
"for Bush to have won, he would have had to carry both IA and CT."
I was thinking, even in '92, Iowa seemed to have a particular distaste for Bush, Sr. He lost rather handily to Dukakis there in '88 (partly due to reaction against the Administration on the "farm belt depression", IIRC), and I see no way for him to have won the state over Clinton. It took 20 years for Iowa to finally come back to the GOP column after 1984, and not by a particularly impressive margin.