Carol - I'm sorry; I should have explained. There are any number of scholars around now who dispute the claim that Perot split his support equally between Bush and Clinton. If you will recall the events of the time, Perot managed to piss-off the blacks when he went to a black forum and refered to them as "you people." Hispanics were public enemy number one for him. If you watched a Perot rally, the one thing that was noticable was, there wasn't a person of color in the audience. He had some kind of personal fued going on with George H.W. Bush, and there was a lot of speculation that the only reason he was running was to prevent Bush Sr. from getting re-elected. That speculation was further promoted when, about half way through the campaign, he quit. His supporters convinced him to get back into the race, and he did in a half-hearted manner, but many of us believed at the time that once he figured he'd done the damage to Bush, he'd done what he'd come there to do, and had just gone on to other things. The polls that suggest that he split the vote equally between Bush and Clinton could have been constructed to produce the results the pollsters wanted them to produce, because there was still a large number of, call them "Eisenhower Republicans" who didn't like that Reagan had made a deal with the religious-right-wing for the purpose of bolstering his numbers. Those are the folks I suspect that were mostly backing Perot, and if Perot hadn't been there, I further suspect they would have either voted for Bush or simply would have stayed home from the polls. After having voted, however, if an exit polster were to ask a voter--"If Perot had not been on the ballot, would you have voted for Clinton?"--if it had been one of the Eisenhower Republicans, he very likely would have replied, "Yes." That's how I think they arrived at their numbers. But if Perot had not been on the ballot, many of the people question would not have voted, and would therefore not have been there to answer the question. I hope that makes sense.