Mickey Kaus disagrees with my take on the Krugman article, while James B. rebuts Kaus.

My main problem with Krugman’s article is the apparent surety with which he makes the claim that Gore was the rightful winner in 2000. It was a close election, and trying to cast it in such certain terms is bogus. There were many scenarios in which Bush would have won, and one variant of counting in which Gore would have won. The lack of specificity in Krugman’s claim is a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader into believing that no scenario showed Bush the winner, whereas the reality is that most of them did. This is a pretty feeble foundation upon which to build the argument that your guy was robbed.