Monday, August 22, 2005

The myth that will not expire

Richard Baehr on The American Thinker systematically dismantles Paul Krugman’s wishful analysis of the “stolen” 2000 election today and recalls the disenfranchisement of Florida’s Panhandle voters:

The Panhandle was Bush's strongest section of the state. While turnout in Florida was up across the state from 1996 to 2000, it was up by a much smaller percentage in the Panhandle than in the rest of the state. Were voters less interested in the contest in the Central Time Zone counties of Florida or did some of them listen to and believe the reports that the polls had closed or that the race was decided in the state and not vote? Some analyses of the Panhandle vote have suggested Bush may have lost net between 5,000 and 10,000 votes due to the errors (presumably not deliberate) by the TV broadcasters, who seemed blissfully unaware that Florida is one of the states with two time zones. If this had happened and the Panhandle had been a Democratic voting area, there would have been screams of voter suppression from Krugman, Jesse Jackson, and Mary Frances Berry.
Absolutely correct. What does it say about NY Times columnist and sometime economist Paul Krugman that he needs to devote two columns in a row picking at the scab of the 2000 election? It’s an ordeal reading any of Krugman’s tendentious articles. As Baehr notes in his analysis, Krugman’s articles reveal him to be either lazy, stupid, or a liar. It’s a wonder the NY Times keeps him on the payroll as he embarrasses himself with instantly refutable scribbling.

Extra – More piling-on over at Ankle Biting Pundits and Brainster.

5 comments:

Jeb Screamer said...

I love it. "The Florida election was fairly counted, and even if it wasn't, **we're** the ones who got gypped!"

Hypothetical 11th-hour voters who may have turned their cars around ("were... did some... believe... some of them... have suggested... may have..."), versus actual human voters who were turned away.

Hypothetical bellyaching by the liberals, versus the actual charter flights importing Congressional aides and RNC staffers... er, I mean, Floridians who were outraged by the hijacking of democracy.

Hypothetical votes by people who couldn't be bothered to travel to the polls (if they exist), versus actual ballots which were spoiled or discounted.

Remind me which party is filled with the weepy whiners again?

Anonymous said...

Can't Krugman be lazy, stupid AND a liar? He's an embarassment to journalists everywhere.

Eric said...

Jeb,

You have evidence of "actual human voters who were turned away"?

No. No you don't.

Whereas during the challenge stage, voters testified in court that they were misled and did not vote after hearing the incorrect call for Gore. Studies afterward showed voter participation in the heavily-Republican Panhandle to be lower than the rest of Florida and a study estimated that the early Gore call cost Bush 5,000 votes.

http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/newspoll/np2001/001206panh.htm

Reminder: it's the Democrats who are full of weepy whiners. That's why they keep losing. Maybe Krugman will write a third article on "what might have been."

Anonymous said...

Jeb,
There were some discounted votes. Votes for Bush, Gore, and other were in various fashions un-usable as a legitimate vote because of damage, double strikes, unclear, etc. The majority of these happened to be votes from heavily democratic voting areas. Now, is this because of a VRWC or because apparently the majority of people who can't seem to understand the concept of a punch ballot vote democratic? I'd bet you know what option my money is on.

Anonymous said...

And don't forget that there is some evidence of one of the most fundamental cheats of all, when using punchcards. (I come from Illinois, so, trust me on this one. I know.) Bundles of votecards in Dem counties had a metal rod run through the Gore punch just before being turned in. This would not hurt any Gore votes, but it would double-punch Bush votes (and any other non-Gore votes). You can actually get some idea of whether this happened for sure by checking the percentage of "overvotes" (double-punched votes not tallied) for each candidate compared to the percentage of the actual vote tallied. If it's just a mistake or something, they should be similar. If not, they should differ in a way that is statistically significant (even at fairly low numbers).

Guess what. Only in the three major counties Gore wanted recounted is there such a disparity, and it goes for Gore and against Bush. Hmmmm. Smoking gun? Quite possibly, if you're familiar with how elections get stolen in most of the country.

It looks like Bush got, literally, cheated out of at least a few thousand votes.

JorgXMcKie