Sorry,
37.4% of Americans has nothing to do with elections. Your post almost reads or seems that you are talking about Americans. I think that is what you meant. Regardless, the 37% was impacted by Perot.
NINETEEN PER CENT of VOTERS voted for Perot in 1992.
As 1 person who voted for Perot, I can say that I voted for Perot because George Bush and his “no new taxes” pledge violation ruined him when it came to reelection.
If that was not what you meant, then if Perot had not received those votes in my opinion they would have gone to President Bush, and he would have beat the scumbag who received only 43% of the vote.
In other words, Ross Perot changed the election results completely. The vast majority of his votes would never have gone to Clinton and we would not even ever have had the BJ legacy, or worse.
I repent for my Perot vote.
But your definition of the Perot voters as the "starting gun" is a false & arbitrary one. A bigger factor than the "37%" being impacted by Perot is the 19% who were impacted by the Bush negatives--including the "no new taxes" pledge. (Otherwise you can never blame an election loss on the actual losing candidate--it's always the voters fault in your eyes)