Good article debunking spoiler myths

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

I just accidentally stumbled across this 2011 article by Steve Kornacki and I thought it was an interesting and solid takedown of a couple of commonly believed electoral myths, namely that Anderson was a spoiler for Carter in 1980 and Perot for Bush SR in 92. I think that Nader in 2000 was more of an edge case which he acknowledges as well: https://www.salon.com/2011/04/04/third_party_myth_easterbrook/

[SInNYC]

I never thought it was a good article, though many (especially on the winning side) make such arguments. Its primary argument is based on polls of voters for their second choice. But the effect of third party candidates is mainly in changing the dynamics of the race. A can no longer do negative campaigning against B since that might just make undecided voters vote for C instead. The issues of the race also change in some cases where C focuses on certain issues instead of general incompetence of A and B.

These are real, not hypothetical. The long standing Republican playbook then was to portray the Democrat as unamerican (with some definition of American), and this is not possible when there is a 3rd party apple pie candidate - a major reason Dukakis went from double digit leads to a loss was his portrayal as a weird latte liberal in Atwater's negative campaigning. And Clinton 92 was completely smearable given his zipper problems that were already coming out.

[Podgy the Bear]

A Kornacki artlcle from 2011?   How old was he back then--12?