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.
You haven’t bothered to answer any of my questions. All you’re doing is ass-u-me-ing Bush “owned” votes. He didn’t. NOBODY owns votes until their cast. PROVE Perot voters would have voted for Bush. PROVE they would have voted AT ALL. Especially because you’re living entirely on percentages not vote count. It could easily be that nobody who voted for Perot would have voted in the election without Perot on the ballot, then Clinton gets over 50%.
You got one thing right. It ain’t rocket science. And the not rocket science says you ain’t proven nothing.