Well, it seems like one to me. All the liberals thought Bush stole the 2000 election because Gore won the popular vote by a razor-thin margin. Bush won an outright majority in the popular vote, plus added to his party's grip in both houses of Congress. I think that deserves the name "landslide."  But there is no precise definition -- so the hate-blogs can do what they always do: accuse people who disagree with them of "lying."

In the meantime, while we're waiting for the haters to dry up and blow away, here are some more thoughtful comments from thoughtful readers. (And a few from the lefty lunatic fringe, just to keep it fair and balanced.)

Wisconsin Public Radio devoted one hour of its air time on Friday to Paul Krugman, who not only spewed his anti-Bush venom and bile but made it perfectly clear to the listening audience that he has slipped into dementia and paranoia.

On two separate occasions on the Kathleen Dunn Show, Krugman claimed that he concluded his most recent op-ed piece with an announcement that he was going on vacation so that his readers would not think that the New York Times had fired him because of political pressure from the White House. He insinuated that the Bush Administration had tried to remove him before, but that such pressure had not worked, "at least not yet."

More outrageously, he told Kathleen Dunn, who gave Krugman the most obsequious introduction I've ever heard, that because of the election he was afraid for the country's future as well as his "own personal safety," which explains why he repeatedly said that he was taking time off at "an undisclosed location."

And for outright political dementia (or manipulation), he frantically warned WPR listeners that the Bush Administration would soon dismantle "minority rights and women's rights." Needless to say, the host and all the callers spoon fed Krugman with their own conspiracies and vacuous analyses, which in turn allowed Krugman to swell with delusion and hysteria.

Patrick Michelson

The rumor I heard is that the funny trading on Tradesports.com was coming out of California. And, of course, Ms. Streisand was reported to have become an ardent day trader a few years ago. So maybe it was Streisand, not Soros.

By the way, people who have worked for Soros say he cannot trade for his life and his coup in breaking the Bank of England almost certainly had to be the result of inside knowledge. He couldn't have made that big a bet without some leg up.

Steve Jenkins

Paul Krugman needs to come out among the great unwashed. I'm sure that modern medicine can cure any disease he might contact, other than knowledge. Bush won, not because of some great ultra-conservative, right-wing, ultra-religious cabal. He won because he demonstrated leadership and values that were more in tune with the electorate. I've yet to know a leader, manager, or person with deep religious convictions who had to continually advertise and sell (like Kerry) his abilities or convictions. They just do it. It's obvious.

As a conservative and Republican, I hope Krugman and the others, delude themselves as to why they lost. Let the elite continue to believe we are ignorant yokels.

Bob Greene

In Krugman's Tuesday column he wrote, "Regular readers won't be in any doubt about who I want to win, though New York Times rules prevent me from giving any explicit endorsement. (Hint: it's the side that benefits from large turnout.)"

Surely Krugman understands the concepts of marginal votes and can calculate the marginal votes of the large turnout. Or he can check here and see the results: 65.5% of the additional votes went to Bush. The large turnout favored Bush.

Ergo, Krugman wanted Bush to win. Who would have guessed?

Phil

Reality is that Paul Krugman is a national treasure ! You're just a dum business man ! The day will come that Krugman gets the Nobel Prize in Economics while you'd still be a dum business man writing your dum blog in NRO. Enough said!

Luigi

You actually understate the success of the Tradesports markets in predicting the election, but then, so did the Tradesports markets. When I captured the data on September 22, New Mexico was in the low 40s, New Hampshire was at 50, and Wisconsin was at 60. If you'd bought any state bid between 50 and 80 and sold any state offered between 20 and 50 (New Hampshire was neither; the bid and offer were on opposite sides of 50) you would have made about $30. You would have been short volatility; it's fair to note that, had something unexpected happened in October causing a landslide win, you could have lost up to $30 or $40, depending on who won the landslide. (I should have noted the electoral vote probabilities; I don't know whether you could have profitably hedged this out.) Still, I think it's fair to say that the Tradesports market was too cautious in its predictions.

In addition, every Senate race it got wrong was trading in the forties or fifties. The pundits didn't seem to think Murkowski or Thune were doing as well as DeMint's opponent; Demint was trading in the eighties.

Details: I would have paid $56.93, including commissions, for 8 states that would have expired at $70. I would have sold short 9 states for $25.60, net of commissions, expiring at $10. No states beyond 80 and 20 went the wrong way, so taking a position on every state would have paid off more, but would also have cost more. If Kerry won big (all 17 states), I lose the $31.33. If Bush won big, I lose another $10 on top of that. (Commissions are $.04 per contract, right? Is there a commission when the contract expires? That isn't included.)

I used Tradesports Senate probabilities to determine my contributions. I declined to send DeMint more money late in the cycle, instead directing it to Coburn, because Tradesports had him just over 50%.

Dean Jens

I work in the crude pit on the NYMEX floor. I am not 100% sure, but I think Soros was buying crude futures in London ahead of the election. I bet the $55.17 high will not be broken anytime soon. Look for a swift drop soon in crude prices and a dollar rally.

Joe Salvatore

A thought comes to mind I'd love to share with Mr. Krugman myself.

What do you call 10,000 disgruntled Democrats headed for Canada?

A good start.

Brian Anderson

Your comments on Paul Krugman are appalling. You only wish you had one tenth of his intelligence, and I live in a red state. You are mistaken: you are the alpha wolf and our country would be a far better place without the likes of you. The echo chamber you participate in via Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, has unfortunately misinformed the red states, and as Thomas Freidman said, instead of asking people whom they voted for you could have just asked them where they get their news. I am fatigued at the toll you and your cohorts have taken on our country. God save us during the next four years.

Mary Kobey

Paul Krugman also has an outlandish line in his Friday column about how "we must start now to retake the Senate." He hasn't glanced at the outlook for 2006, but I have. The Democrats will have 18 seats at stake, including Jeffords, the GOP only 15. Almost none of the 33 would be at all vulnerable except that several are getting older, and they are mostly Democrats. So it will be a battle over the open seats, just like this year, except that even Karl Rove can't pick up more than two from these states. But neither can they from ours.

Democrats up in 2006 are: Byrd, Akaka, Bingaman, Cantwell, Carper, Clinton, Conrad, Corzine, Dayton, Feinstein, Kennedy, Kohl, Lieberman, Nelson FL, Nelson NE, Sarbanes, Stabenow and Jeffords.

Republicans up in 2006 are: Allen, Burns, Chafee, DeWine, Ensign, Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Snowe, Talent and Craig. The oldest republicans are Lugar, born in 1932, followed by Hatch, 1934, and Burns, 1935. After that, it's Lott, born in 1941. As you can see, all relatively young compared to the Dems, and mostly from very blue states.

Byrd was born in 1917, Akaka 1924, Kennedy 1932, Sarbanes and Feinstein 1933, Jeffords 1934, Kohl 1935. Then Ben Nelson of Nebraska, 1941, but he and the others are not very old.

There is going to be a Republican majority in the Senate for a long time, but it doesn't look like they can get to 60 any time soon. Corzine is said to be leaving for the governorship of New Jersey, but fat chance of gaining his seat. Our best shot could be to replace Herb Kohl, and maybe that guy who took on Feingold will run again. Mark Dayton also should be vulnerable, since he acts mildly insane. Byrd will die in office, even if he has to run again in 2012, and unfortunately, West Virginia just elected a Democratic governor. We might have a shot at beating his appointed replacement. Anyway, you can bet Rove will make superhuman efforts.

Larry Hughes

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:55 PM | link  

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:31 PM | link