Do you believe Bush would have won WI in 1992 with no Perot?

[Old Man Willow]

This revisionism annoys me more than anything else. When people make maps based on what would have happened if Perot hadn't run, it seems 50% of the time they give WI to Bush. It's like they only look at the margin. It was a Dukakis state, and Reagan only won it by single digits in 1984. Just look at IA, which voted for Dukakis by double digits, then only by six for Clinton, and you can see that Perot hurt Clinton badly in the midwest, probably on trade issues.

[The Govanah Jake]

No, and besides some states out west and in the northeast, I doubt the map itself would change much. The most drastic change would be the change of state wins from plurality (most states except Arkansas) to majority popular vote victorys.