In his popular New York Times column, dated May 30, 2016, Prof. Paul Krugman of the Nobel Prize fame says, ". . . the current state of the [Democratic presidential] race should not be a source of dispute or confusion. Barring the equivalent of a meteor strike, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee; despite the reluctance of Sanders supporters to concede that reality, she's currently ahead of Donald Trump. That's what the math says, and anyone who says it doesn't is misleading you." Read the entire article.
Wow! Given the most recent IG Report, and in the midst of reports that the FBI has been conducting a serious investigation of a potential corruption case relating to the Clinton Foundation, as of this date, the probability of a potential indictment or other serious criminal charges against Hilary Clinton, which can derail her presidential campaign almost instantly, cannot be considered an equivalent of a meteor strike. If anything, it would be more like the equivalent of a tornado in Oklahoma or Kansas, but in reality even more likely than that, although still not certain.
Does Prof. Krugman really believe that the potential indictment of HRC is as remote and as unlikely as a meteor strike? Or, is he the one who is actively trying to misleading the voters? I am not a mathematician or even an economist, but I have to say, for sure, Prof. Krugman's math is pretty deficient and pretty misleadingly, and politically conveniently, loose.
