9 of Perot's bottom 10 states in the country were in the ex-Confederacy, the tenth being culturally-adjacent Kentucky, so I have no idea why anyone would call him a good fit for the region. He had no chance of carving a niche in such a racially polarized region outside of wealthy suburbs and wonky, overwhelmingly white rurals.
The South was still Bush's best region of the country at large, aided surely by his massive raw vote margins in Alabama, Florida, Texas, and Virginia. However, as many of his strongest performances in those states were in more [sub-]urbanized and less idiomatically "Southern" regions, and given the strong personal branding of the Clinton-Gore ticket, one can argue that Bubba was a better fit who just didn't have the demographics on his side.
Bush was the candidate of the wealthy Sunbelt suburbs like Dallas, Houston, Atlanta and Phoenix. Bill Clinton was the candidate of the Jacksonian Upper South. He was the candidate of the working class and the poor in the South. He dominated in coal country in WV and KY and in rural MO, AR, TN and LA.
Poll
