You couldn’t be more wrong.
None of the 19% that Perot got came out of Clinton’s share.
Clinton got 42% - only a hair more than Mondale’s humiliating 40% in 1984. Even DuKakis got more than Clinton when he got thrashed by Bush in 1988 - 45%.
Without Perot in the race, there is no doubt that Clinton’s pathetic 43% would have given Bush a repeat of his 1988 landslide of 53%.
Says who? And who defines some candidate’s “share”? Got any proof the folks who voted for Perot would have even voted at all if Perot hadn’t run?