Your Abbreviated Pundit Round-up

TGIF! Pundits love Fridays!

Paul Krugman: There are some disturbing parallels between 2008 and 1932, and one disturbing one is the gap between when the discredited Bush leaves and the new folks take over.

David Brooks:

And yet as much as I want to resent these overeducated Achievatrons (not to mention the incursion of a French-style government dominated by highly trained Enarchs), I find myself tremendously impressed by the Obama transition.

Jonah Goldberg: Hey, bankruptcy for GM isn't so bad. Better that than government pragmatism and confidence. The effects of that would be much more long-lasting.

Jay Cost: Watch me use statistics to prove that the 7 point (365-173 EV) Obama win was merely an illusion, and that the post-election polls – suggesting that (by 2:1) Republicans need to cooperate and not obstruct the new President – don't count.

Charles Franklin: Graphic demonstration of Obama improving over Kerry everywhere (all demographics) in all except a handful of groups, like "small town". And check out those first time voters. Call it the Obama effect.

Mark Blumenthal: On Nate Silver vs. John Ziegler/Zogby – it was not a push poll, but the whole exercise is awfully questionable. Update [2008-11-21 10:58:30 by DemFromCT]: excellent article on the topic by Carl Bialik.

David Corn: no drama Obama, meet the Clintons. Me? I'll pass.

And because it was too good to pass up, here's a revisit from yesterday:

David Ignatius: No matter how "big" this election was, never underestimate the ability of pundits like me to think small. So let's make this about (what I define as) the mistakes the Obama transition team is making, because we don't do substance. I mean, I like the guy, but unless he's what I define as perfect, he's toast. Why? Because it's up to the press to define these things. You can't leave it to the rabble. They won't notice all the mistakes, and won't care if they do.

And yet, after the public speculation, Obama will seem to be dissing Clinton and her supporters if she doesn't get the job. Here again, one sees a once-seamless team making little mistakes.

See? You need us to create some manufactured drama, and we've always got the Clintons. What would you do without us?