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?
Do the math - it’s not hard: 36 + 19 = 55.
Bush inherited Reagan’s franchise in 1988, winning 55% of the vote - and he would have inherited it in 1992 as well - the ONLY difference was Perot.
Meanwhile, Clinton won a pathetic 43% of the vote - that kind of number gets you thrashed like Mondale or DuKakis - UNLESS it’s a three way race.
This is not rocket science, and you are just about the only person I know who would even try to dispute it.