Perot did not cost Bush 1 the presidency. He took some more Bush votes than Clinton votes in the South, and some more Clinton votes than Bush votes in the north. Without Perot, Clinton would have won an absolute majority. I don't think Perot made any difference in the electoral votes in any state, certainly none of any consequence. Bush 1 was off his game in 1992, due to a thyroid problem, a weak economy, and Clinton was on his game, the most talented political salesman to come along in a long time, a very long time. The die was cast.
Exactly what I was saying. Bush I (whether it was health issues, economy, etc.) cost himself the election. And Clinton was there. However that doesn't negate the fact it's about time the media starts giving some third parties recognition. We need some wildcards in Washington instead of the same old same old
What cost Bush I the presidency was the correct perception that he wanted to Commander in Chief of the Free World, not president of the United States. And that is because of a personal failing that I think he possessed. He's a snob. Look at his inner circle. All whitebreads born to wealth.
Perot certainly did cost Bush the presidency. He took 15% of the votes.