Krugman: Voting and Counting

By the way, why does the Gallup poll, which is influential because of its illustrious history, report a large Bush lead when many other polls show a dead heat? It's mostly because of how Gallup determines "likely voters": the poll shows only a three-point Bush lead among registered voters. And as the Democratic poll expert Ruy Teixeira points out (using data obtained by Steve Soto, a liberal blogger), Gallup's sample of supposedly likely voters contains a much smaller proportion of both minority and young voters than the actual proportions of these voters in the 2000 election.

I think his credits to Teixeria and Soto mark a NY Times first, though real insiders must still wonder when and if he'll credit Brad Delong, who's often a week or two ahead of him on economic analysis (sometimes they use the same charts). However, here he's tackling a distorted media perception and a pattern of disenfranchisement, not economics. His conclusion is red hot, incendiary:

But we must not repeat the mistake of 2000 by refusing to acknowledge the possibility that a narrow Bush win, especially if it depends on Florida, rests on the systematic disenfranchisement of minority voters. And the media must not treat such a suspect win as a validation of skewed reporting that has consistently overstated Mr. Bush's popular support.

While most other columnists are running out the clock with recycled conventional wisdom and bland metaphors, Krugman is bringing heat in the 9th inning, throwing all his fastballs. And why the hell not? Why not go all the hell out? Yeah! Let's fucking bury these goddamn crooks!