About the evidence regarding a manual recount: in April 2001 a media consortium led by The Miami Herald assessed how various recounts of "undervotes," which did not register at all, would have affected the outcome. Two out of three hypothetical statewide counts would have given the election to Mr. Gore. The third involved a standard that would have discarded some ballots on which the intended vote was clear. Since Florida law seemed to require counting such ballots, this standard almost certainly wouldn't have been used in a statewide recount.
We had a long head-scratcher offering the point that, under one subset of the scenarios they evaluated, the Miami Herald did in fact find that two out of three pointed to Gore.
But wait! As Don Luskin notes, in versions of the story that went out on the wire, the Herald subdivided a scenario favorable to Bush, and reported that Gore and Bush each won two scenarios. The eerily prescient Patterico had warned about this sort of thing when he wrote:
Third, Krugman’s formulation is a play on words that describes two standards favoring Bush (“two-corner detachments” and “clear punches”) as only one (“at least two corners detached”), making it seem like Bush won under only one standard. But you could just as easily describe the two Gore standards (“any dimples” and “dimples with other dimples”) as a single standard (“dimples”). With that verbal sleight of hand, you could say Bush won two of three standards (“two-corner detachments” and “clear punches”) vs. Gore’s one (“dimples”). It’s the same thing, but — presto-change-o! — Bush, not Gore, wins two of three.
Now, for the benefit of the folks who still care, we actually have a mild lead to the other half of Krugman's error and correction, which involved voter turnout in Ohio (Miami County, naturally, since we can't escape Florida). Fortunately, we are not defending Krugman - it turns out that conspiracy-minded Dems lost track of their own spin, with comical results. From Krugman's correction:
Corrections: In my column last Friday, I cited an inaccurate number (given by the Conyers report) for turnout in Ohio’s Miami County last year: 98.5 percent. I should have checked the official state site, which reports a reasonable 72.2 percent.
But we wonder - were Conyers and Krugman hallucinating when they came up with that 98.5% figure? Here at JustOneMinute we are 98.5% committed to the truth, so we poked around a bit, and found the seed from which this propaganda grew - "Hacking the vote in Miami County" by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
Apparently, turnout was weirdly high in two precincts - Concord SouthWest at 98.55%, and Concord South at 94.27%. Of course, there were other irregularities as well, and I have not attempted to run down explanations.
Last winter, Dem activists and Conyers' staffers were able to maintain the distinction between "precinct" and "county". However, perhaps blinded by rage, the distinction blurred and disappeared, with the result shown by Krugman above.