Most successful 3rd party candidate

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

By most successful, I mean having the most impact on the election, and affecting the policies of the major parties - not necessarily which one got the most votes.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I should mention that, although TR got a whopping 88 EVs, and 27% of the popular vote in 1912, Wilson would have won anyway, with or without his help.  So he really didn't have an impact on the outcome.  Although he may have given the Democrats a progressive "nudge."

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Well, how do you define successful?  None of these tipped the election, which may have been their goal.  (Other than TR in 1912, he probably tipped it to Wilson.)

Perot most certainly tipped the election in 1992.

Actually, Nader did too, although he got less than 3% of the popular vote, so I didn't include him.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I disagree, Taft would have won without TR.

Looks like an electoral landslide for Wilson to me.  How many of those red states flip to blue without TR in the race?  I can't imagine it would be enough to win it for Taft.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Perot most certainly tipped the election in 1992.

You want the evidence?  Yes or no.  'Cause I got the evidence.

Sigh.  I've been over this before.  Perot votes were overwhelmingly Republican.  I'll have to dig up the evidence, but I can show you very convincingly that 1. Perot excelled in Republican areas, and 2. Democrat numbers in those Republican areas were not affected at all by the presence of Perot.

Let's go by popular vote:
If you split the Perot vote 2-1 (which is being very, very generous to Clinton), Bush wins the popular vote, 49.93%-49.25%.

The following states would probably have gone to Bush, had Perot not run:
Montana (3)
Nevada (4)
Colorado (
New Hampshire (4)
Maine (4)
Wisconsin (11)
Iowa (7)
Kentucky (
Georgia (13)
Ohio (21)
...That gets him up to 251.  I'm sure a few others also would have flipped as well to get him over 269.