92 Perot had enough votes to allow Clinton to win Ohio, California, Pennsylvania, and likely several others, had the majority of his voters gone to the more closely aligned GHWB.
If you consider yourself conservative, Perot is likely the reason Clinton won the electoral college in a landslide, while he himself received exactly 0 EC votes.
Progressive people, especially those concerned about the environment, can say the same for Nader in 2000, and only have to look at Florida.
Back in ‘99 there was a paper that showed Perot had the most impact the opposite direction, reducing Clinton’s margin of victory. I remember it because back then it made the news that what everyone thought to be obviously true (the businessman from Texas’ campaign spoiled the republican vote) was wrong. It’s even cited in the Wikipedia article about Perot 92!
Florida literally went against bush jr in the recount and his brother who was the governor of Florida at the time had a significant impact on calling it before the recount came in.
Now once again: why would you make your feelings known in a protest, but not when they can actually be counted?
