[MichaelCorleone]

People say that, but really, where is the evidence Perot pulled votes from Republican voters?

Any polls taken to see how many registered Dems voted for Perot?

How about those registered independent?

He got almost 20% of the popular vote, no? Clearly the public even then was frustrated with the political system, maybe even fed up.

[Lisbon1940]

A lot of IT Democrats voted for him.

[SecondAmendment]

> People say that, but really, where is the evidence Perot pulled votes from Republican voters?

Not specifically, but as per Codevilla, "while most of the voters who call themselves Democrats say that Democratic officials represent them well, only a fourth of the voters who identify themselves as Republicans tell pollsters that Republican officeholders represent them well".

[TECTopcat]

yes studies showed those who voted for Perot 71% had previously voted for Bush or Reagan- and Perot's rallies were devoid of any minorities who constitute the base of the democratic party-he drew less of these votes than even Bush-and if you follow the polls Bush was well ahead of Clinton until Perot entered, then withdrew, Bush started to close and Perot reentered. I was very intrigued by him until it became apparent he was nursing a business grudge against Bush from when Bush refused to see him

[Fresh Wind]

“Any polls taken to see how many registered Dems voted for Perot?”

Exit polling indicated that Perot drew votes from both major candidates more or less equally.

Another factor was the total popular vote spiked in 1992, then dropped off in 1996. (1988 92 million, 1992 104 million, 1996 96 million).

The excitement of the Perot circus brought large numbers of otherwise uninvolved voters into the picture, people who would not have voted for either Bush or Clinton (two sides of the same counterfeit coin).

This article from 2012 is worth reading for an analysis of 1992 pre-election polling trends and exit polling:

“The Man Who Supposedly Cost George H. W. Bush the Presidency”

http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm

It thoroughly debunks the “Perot gave us Clinton” myth. Say what you will about Clinton (and there’s plenty to say), but no one can dispute that Clinton was a master of the political game, and Bush was totally outclassed in that respect.

1992 was a “change election”, as was 2008 and 2016, as it turned out. Bush was damaged goods due in large part to his “read my lips” fiasco. The blame lies with him, the GOPe, and a fickle electorate, not Perot.

After Reagan left office, the GOPe has handed us a string of second-rate “it’s my turn now” candidates (Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, and Romney). That’s not Perot’s fault. They tried hard again in 2016, and if Trump hadn’t entered the race, the same thing would have happened. Hillary would now be president.

I’m not saying Perot was perfect, Lord knows, he wasn’t. But have we ever had a perfect president?