Krugman Gives Ground - Sort Of
Decision 08
Though his pride apparently will not let him admit to mistakes (that’s the opinion of former NY Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent, who had this to say upon his departure: “Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults”), Krugman almost admits one in a followup to his widely criticized recent column:
This reaction seems to confuse three questions. One is what would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn’t intervened; the answer is that unless the judge overseeing the recount had revised his order (which is a possibility), George W. Bush would still have been declared the winner.
The second is what would have happened if there had been a full, statewide manual recount - as there should have been. The probable answer is that Al Gore would have won, by a tiny margin.
The third is what would have happened if the intentions of the voters hadn’t been frustrated by butterfly ballots, felon purges and more; the answer is that Mr. Gore would have won by a much larger margin.
Well, the third is pure speculation, the second option was never on the table (notice even Krugman says “should have been”; i.e., would not have been), and here are Krugman’s exact words from the original column:
In his recent book “Steal This Vote” - a very judicious work, despite its title - Andrew Gumbel, a U.S. correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent, provides the best overview I’ve seen of the 2000 Florida vote. And he documents the simple truth: “Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election.”
No nuance there, just a bold assertion that Krugman himself now shows to be false.
Krugman speculates as to why we wouldn’t believe his lie:
One answer is that many editorials and op-ed articles have claimed that no possible recount would have changed the outcome. Let’s be charitable and assume that those who write such things are victims of the echo chamber, and believe that what everyone they talk to says must be true.
The other answer is that many though not all reports of the results of the ballot reviews conveyed a false impression about what those reviews said. A few reports got the facts wrong, but for the most part they simply stressed the likelihood - in some cases presented as a certainty - that Mr. Bush would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn’t intervened. But even if a proper recount wasn’t in the cards given the political realities, that says nothing about what such a recount would have found.
I will buy a steak dinner for the first reader who can show me any editorial or blog post by anyone that says no possible recount would have changed the outcome. You certainly didn’t hear it here. Look at Krugman’s pathetic wording on his second point: “…Even if a proper recount wasn’t in the cards given the political realities”. That’s game, set, and match, proving that even Krugman doesn’t believe his original assertion that Al Gore won the 2000 election; he has just admitted that a full manual recount wasn’t in the cards. All else is speculation.
Give it up, Paul; you were busted and you know it. Of course, that takes more class than Krugman has; witness his parting shot: “a man the voters tried to reject ended up as president”.
Pathetic…
decision08.net |
