thefederalist | I have to admit, I was surprised to read this particular rant by Paul Krugman, the Nobel-winning economist and columnist for the New York Times (he won the Nobel for his work on economics, not his writing). Having read a New York Magazine piece
that theorizes that some state election machines may have been
“hacked,” thereby costing Clinton the election, Krugman declared:
[N]ow that it’s out there, I’d say that an independent investigation is called for…Without an investigation, the suspicion of a hacked election will never go away.
Really: “never?” Well. Krugman quickly backed off after Nate Cohn challenged this thesis (so much for “never”), but a number of hours later he shared a Vox piece: “The election probably wasn’t hacked. But Clinton should request recounts just in case.” Just in case!
It
might be fair to say that Trump’s election kind of broke the brains of
many people both left, right and center: nobody expected it and a great
many people really didn’t want it to happen. But the Left seems to be
taking it the hardest, and this is perfectly exemplified by Paul
Krugman, a genuinely brilliant fellow who has started to sound like a
tinfoil-hat-wearing neighborhood crank.
Just so
we’re clear, the “suspicion of a hacked election” that Krugman latched
onto—the one that “will never go away”—was spelled out this way:
While it’s important to note [the Center for Computer Security and Society] has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review — especially in light of the fact that the Obama White House has accused the Russian government of hacking the Democratic National Committee.
Yes, it is
surely “important to note” that there has been no “proof of hacking or
manipulation.” But that doesn’t go far enough by half: there isn’t even
any evidence of such, except for some voting patterns that, as Nate Cohn points out, vanish when you control for certain variables. Gabriel Sherman mixes up the cause and effect: proof is demonstrated after an investigation, the latter of which is undertaken only on the basis of strong-enough evidence—which doesn’t exist here (unless you’re an aggrieved liberal pundit, I guess).
