From what I understand, the exit polls of the time indicate that Perot took from each camp equally. And if you look at the numbers, 2/3 or Perot supporters would have had to break for Bush to get him a majority of the popular vote, which is not necessarily going to happen. I see Clinton winning 52%, vs. Bush's 47%. And that's assuming that dissaffcted moderate Republicans didn't just vote for Clinton outright what with the economy being in such bad shape. Would the lack of a strong Independent running for President tip some of the House and Senate races the other way? New York or Pennsylvania, I'm more inclined to Pennsylvania, could tip the other way in the Senate. Maybe both, which would lead to a tied Senate, with a Democratic slant in 94. And a couple more seats for the Democrats in the House, leading to them retaking the House in 2000. Maybe.