I doubt after 4 losses in row the rats would renominate a loser (Neil Kinnock didn’t get another chance) with penis issues even if he “won the popular vote”, he’d have stiffer competition than he faced in 1992 when only had to contend with an ersatz frontrunner in Tsongas and a late bid by Moonbeam.
I also so see no reason why 1994 wouldn’t have been another 1990, I don’t see much room for big rat gains or Bush being that unpopular.
For the record, when I analyzed the 1992 elections 20 years ago and found that the likeliest result had Perot not been in the ballot would be 283 EVs for Clinton and 255 EVs for Bush (but with a decent chance that Bush also would carry CT and IA and get to 270 EVs), I found that the likeliest result also was that Bush would have won a plurality of the popular vote. Had Bush won CT and IA as well, one would have to assume that Bush would have won the national popular vote by an even bigger plurality (or perhaps even a majority). So I think that it would be quite unlikely for Clinton to have won the 1992 national popular vote yet not been elected president.
That being said, had Clinton fallen short in 1992, I doubt that he would have been given another chance. He would have lost a race that the Democrats thought that they would win, and the modern Democratic Party would not give such a loser another shot. Think about it: Democrats were not clamoring for Gore in 2004, much less for Hillary in 2020.