Who wants to be a spoiler?Rep. Don Cazayoux’s loss to Republican challenger Bill Cassidy in Louisiana’s 6th congressional district race is already being blamed on the presence of independent, Democratic-leaning candidate Michael Jackson. Jackson — the story goes — “spoiled” Cazayoux’s chances by siphoning off enough black votes in populous East Baton Rouge Parish, splitting the Democratic vote and essentially handing the election to Cassidy. This accusation is not without merit. Cassidy won East Baton Rouge, garnering 44 percent of the vote to Cazayoux’s 42 percent, and Jackson won 14 percent, according the Louisiana Secretary of State’s Web site.Seeing the argument requires only simple math. A similar pattern repeated in other parishes, including East Feliciana and West Feliciana parishes. But is the story really that simple? Is Cazayoux’s loss totally attributable to Jackson? Is politics ever that simple?There are at least two other modern elections where a “spoiler” has been accused of throwing the race to a particular candidate. In the 1992 presidential election, the presence of independent candidate and Texas billionaire Ross Perot undoubtedly shattered much conventional wisdom about the presence of third party candidates. Perot won more than 18 percent of the popular vote, far exceeding the total of any other modern third party candidate, without actually winning any electoral votes.Some Republicans blamed Perot for drawing off George H.W. Bush’s base support, specifically drawing conservatives toward his balanced budget proposals and anti-gun control stance. In 2000, Ralph Nader achieved far less support than Perot, not even breaking 3 percent of the popular vote. But Democrats believed Nader’s consumer advocacy message significantly drew off enough Democratic support from former vice president and 2000 Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore to cede Florida and its critical 25 electoral votes to President George W. Bush.    As with the recent congressional election in the 6th district, there is empirical evidence to support the “spoiler” theories. But such a simple analysis ignores other important developments during the 1992 and 2000 campaigns — developments that had just as much, if certainly not more, influence on the election results than third party candidates.Former President George H.W. Bush was facing declining poll numbers and a recession. During times of economic duress, it simply stands to reason the party in power will receive the blame. Adding to his already vulnerable position, Bush broke his infamous promise during the 1988 Republican National Convention.”Read my lips: No new taxes.”He raised taxes in 1990, and he faced the wrath of an electorate that remembered Bush’s glitzy promise. This dissatisfaction opened the way for a fiscally right-leaning candidate like Perot to hone in on the perfect message to attract these unhappy voters. The results in 2000 were far more complicated, and Nader’s role less prominent. Any number of factors influenced Gore’s loss — first and foremost being Gore’s own detachment and professional condescension against President George W. Bush’s cowboy, sprightly, wise guy personality.  There were also the puzzling butterfly ballots, and — of course — the Supreme Court also played a hand in the outcome. Any one of those factors — along with several more — could have changed the result of the 2000 presidential election. As for Jackson and Cazayoux, let’s not pretend Cazayoux was the greatest candidate for this particular election. He followed the traditional formula for a southern Democrat — conservatism.”The key difference between incumbent Don Cazayoux and insurgent Bill Cassidy was the ‘D’ and ‘R’ behind their names,” wrote the Advocate columnist Mark Ballard. Unfortunately for Cazayoux — and the national Democratic Party that staunchly supported him — East Baton Rouge Parish and perhaps the district at large were ready for more than just a conservative Democrat. President-elect Barack Obama actually won East Baton Rouge Parish, and a real Democrat probably would have too. Jackson filled in that gap — he played the role of the unapologetic, Obama-supporting Democrat. He just ran as an independent. He wasn’t afraid to debate the issues Cazayoux tried to avoid. If Cazayoux had actually embraced significant portions of the Democratic platform in his first run for Congress, maybe he wouldn’t have given Jackson a reason to run in the first place. But at least we got a debate about issues — something we wouldn’t have gotten had Jackson decided not to run.That’s more important to me than ensuring the victory of a politically cautious, conservative Democrat who — as Cazayoux would have us think — wouldn’t have been that different from Cassidy anyway. —-Contact Nate Monroe at [email protected]