One thing I don't understand is how Perot helped Clinton to win Georgia and Montana, but not even Florida?! Maybe I'm just looking at this from a 'now' perspective, but it certainly seems weird that a key swing state stayed for Bush, while two very safe Republican states switched over.
Well, Florida wasn't exactly a swing state. In '88 it went for Bush by 22 points, while the popular vote was only 8 points for Bush. Even in '96 when the rest of the country went for Clinton 49-40 it went for him by a smaller 48-42.
So that accounts for part of it, yet it can be argued that if Georgia and Montana (particularly Montana) certainly Florida should, and my only answer is that Clinton would have stood a great chance at winning Georgia even if Perot hadn't been running and that Perot could appeal to the libertarian-conservative types in Montana wheras Perot took away many suburban voters in Florida who would have voted for Clinton.
