Paul Krugman should really stick to economics, where he at least can fall back on some educational credentials to back up his nonsense. When he gets into politics, as he does again today, the effect of his voice echoing around inside Obama’s backside is becoming a little bit tedious.
As with most Obamabots, he is running around in ever diminishing circles and about to disappear up his own ass over the polling which is increasingly not favoring Obama. He says there are “two basic approaches to election analysis,” one being “campaign reporter style” which he describes one way and I describe a bit differently, and the other being “poll based” which he doesn’t describe but which I describe the same way as the first.
I favor a third style which I call “figuring it out after it happens,” because the first two strike me as the equivalent of shoveling up what comes out of the south end of a northbound horse. That’s why I limit my television to things like “Modern Family” and “Parenthood.” If she dies of cancer, by the way, I’m going to go buy some playdoh from the FBI and blow up NBC.
Back to Krugman’s election diatribe. He says that the “impressionistic style” reporting is all about “Romney on the rise, a narrative that is to a large part being fed by the Romney campaign itself.” Apparently claiming that your candidate has a chance of winning constitutes a form of cheating now. Obama, of course, is not predicting his own victory, only Romney is doing that; or else both are doing it and the “impressionistic style” reporters are listening to Romney and ignoring Obama for reasons that Krugman does not explain in this column.
Intrade, which he quoted as a reliable source when it was predicting an Obama landslide is now less than reliable because “Romney supporters are trying to manipulate the results.” Notice that he doesn’t say they are succeeding in doing so, merely that they are trying. Intrade is located in Ireland, so it’s difficult to say what Romney supporters are doing that would influence Intrade, other than altering the election dynamic itself.
Krugman says that “by inclination” he trusts the nerds who are predicting an Obama win, but I suspect that “inclination” is born out of the fact that they are saying what he wants to hear.