O'reilly and KRUGMAN asked us to google it, So I did

[wacki]

Prof. KRUGMAN: Here we are. Published by AP in November 2001, the National Opinion Research group, they looked at statewide counts under six standards, prevailing standard, two-corner standard, most conclusive, least conclusive, county by county, Palm Beach standard, and under every one of those Gore won.

Mr. O'REILLY: OK. Look, if you want to think that, fine.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Hey, guys ...(unintelligible), Russerts...

Mr. O'REILLY: All right? Now I'll--hold it, hold it, hold it.

Prof. KRUGMAN: ...you can check this out.

Mr. O'REILLY: You can check this out.

Prof. KRUGMAN: You can get--do it by Google.

RUSSERT: But Moore has said every...

Mr. O'REILLY: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, I gotta get this in.

RUSSERT: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Let me just...

Mr. O'REILLY: Miami Herald, Orlando Sentinel, USA Today and the University of Chicago investigation all went in and repudiate what he just read.

Prof. KRUGMAN: This is not true.

Mr. O'REILLY: Four--yes, it is.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Not true. I mean, again, folks, this is the modern world. You can go check it.

I remember these statements from the show, and found them in a transcript.
So, I did a google, and this is what I found.

CNN Article

"The Miami Herald and USA Today conducted a comprehensive review of 64,248 "undercounted" ballots in Florida's 67 counties that ended last month.
Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes -- certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State's office -- would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore. "
-QUOTE FROM CNN ARTICLE


Transcript -May not be a good source, but best I could find.

Am I missing something? Why would KRUGMAN ask us to google to prove Oreilly wrong when his statement were correct? I find it difficult to believe that anyone in the news business is that dumb. Maybe they are bickering over Semantics and fine line details of the discussion, but Oreilly was right about those 4 saying Bush won.

[Utah]

I did the same. Krugman is dead wrong.

Also, I looked for the national opinion research group and I cannot find it.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Your search - "National Opinion Research Group" - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.

Also, you can try Google Answers for expert help with your search.

[/ QUOTE ]

You weren't kidding.

[nicky g]

"also, I looked for the national opinion research group and I cannot find it."

He misspoke. It's the The National Opinion Research Center (NORC).

[TenPercenter]

I did the same think hehe. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] First search results, in fact the first nine words: "CNN.com In-Depth Specials... Florida recount study: Bush still wins."

Ten

[Please, no one bother correcting me on that not really being nine words. I know how even a misplaced apostrophe can drive people here crazy.]

[nicky g]

" did the same think hehe. First search results, in fact the first nine words: "CNN.com In-Depth Specials... Florida recount study: Bush still wins." "

From the story you mention:

"Use of Palm Beach County standard

Out of Palm Beach County emerged one of the least restrictive standards for determining a valid punch-card ballot. The county elections board determined that a chad hanging by up to two corners was valid and that a dimple or a chad detached in only one corner could also count if there were similar marks in other races on the same ballot. If that standard had been adopted statewide, the study shows a slim, 42-vote margin for Gore . "

"Inclusion of overvotes

In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name. The consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes. "


Several Florida electoral officials said that overvotes would have been counted in a state recount. Flordia law stipulates that all votes where voter intent can be dicerned must be counted - and overvotes where the candidate ticked a box and wrote in the same candidate's name clearly fit that bill. Furthermore, the US Supreme court said a count that included undervotes but not overvotes would have been unconstituional. If there had have been a statewide recount that included overvotes, which it probably would and certainly should have, Gore would have won. Krugman was wrong to say that under all scenarios Gore won. But under the fairest and legally-demanded one, he would have.

Florida recount study: Bush still wins

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I missing something? Why would KRUGMAN ask us to google to prove Oreilly wrong when his statement were correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
Come on. I would expect you - a poker player - would recognize a bluff when he sees one. It's not a matter of being dumb, as you suggested. He made his point very strongly, knowing that 49 out of 50 viewers will never do the search. They are, therefore, convinced by his insistence, and will never know the facts didn't back him up. Well played.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I missing something? Why would KRUGMAN ask us to google to prove Oreilly wrong when his statement were correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
Come on. I would expect you - a poker player - would recognize a bluff when he sees one. It's not a matter of being dumb, as you suggested. He made his point very strongly, knowing that 49 out of 50 viewers will never do the search. They are, therefore, convinced by his insistence, and will never know the facts didn't back him up. Well played.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about it being a well played move, but my opinion of the New York times has just gone down one more notch.... again. They are supposed to be reporters (commentator in O'reilly's case) working at esteemed news outlets. In poker you expect people to trick you, it's part of the game. In fact, simply by sitting down at the table you are asking someone to try their best to do so.

I don't like the thought of reporters (I use plural because this isn't the first case) that work for the New York Times, or anywhere else in the media "Elite", misleading, let alone flat out lying to us. I like to think humans are better than that. After all, they are supposed to be our "Elite".

[riverflush]

O'Reilly/Krugman take:

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_l...0408090930.asp

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
O'Reilly/Krugman take:

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_l...0408090930.asp

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, thank you very much. Very good article. Sourced and linked just like every paper should be. I just added Donald Luskin to my list of good reporters.