Exit polls in 1992 showed that the Perot voters would have split about evenly between Clinton, Bush, and not voting. So all of you who say that Perot cost Bush the race are basically saying that you believe the voters lied in the exit polls, or that the exit polls were way wrong. But they were right on everything else, so that's a pretty tough argument to make.
And to say that Perot cost Dole victory in 1996 is even more patently false, since even if every Perot vote had gone to Dole, he still would have lost in the popular vote to Clinton.
It's a complete myth that Perot cost Bush victory in 1992, and in fact he may have hurt Clinton's legitimacy by costing him a majority of the popular vote which he would have gotten in both 1992 and 1996 if Perot had not run.
I tend to disagree with your analysis. One fact about polls is that people biased their answers as to be on the side of the winner. All post-election polls show more people voted for the winner than the winner actually got. A poll right after 9/11 showed about 59% of Americans claiming they voted for Bush in 2000 when in fact only 48% did.
In the 1992 election it was pretty clear that Clinton was going to win even given that last minute surge in support for Bush I. So that concensus I feel influenced the Perot votes when it came to exit polls.
