this alone proves that illogical. These states voted for Dukakis! Why would they vote for a weak candidate over Bush at a time when he was rather popular, and then reject a much stronger candidate over a much more unpopular Bush? Makes no sense.
Also if you portion the Perot vote that way in St. Louis county, Minnesota, the most Democratic predominately white county in the country, Clinton would've still won but barely done any better than McGovern! Why did Perot run strong here? Maybe his anti-NAFTA views appealed to normally Democratic union voters?
I do agree with Beef though that Wilson would've won without TR.
