Paul Krugman's tweet storm on the campaign

only 7 tweets.

He makes the case for why Clinton was the best candidate to take on Trump  

x

Some advance thoughts on post-election punditry: it's already obvious that pundits will dismiss HRC's achievement 1/

— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) October 15, 2016 x

They'll claim that she only won because she had an insane opponent, and/or that she should have won by a bigger margin 2/ https://t.co/0tz34ECLQR

— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) October 15, 2016 x

But this will be all wrong. First of all, negative partisanship limits the potential margin of any candidate; most Rs vote R regardless 3/ https://t.co/pUlkbD9mMh

— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) October 15, 2016 x

Beyond that, would a white male candidate have exposed Trump so thoroughly? I doubt it. Remember, he slid right by the Matt Lauer types 4/ https://t.co/dT7aJeAM1s

— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) October 15, 2016 x

The turning point came in 1st debate, when HRC set him up, both by her presence and with the strategic cite of Alicia Machado 5/ https://t.co/5xafq5lXV3

— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) October 15, 2016 x

The point is that Trump didn't just happen to melt down, HRC triggered his meltdown -- and that required grace + steely resolve 6/ https://t.co/Bd72EpuIET

— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) October 15, 2016 x

Plus of course her gender. So there's a real case that HRC was by far the best person to beat Trump, and bring GOP sickness into the open 7/ https://t.co/NN85jsTImK

— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) October 15, 2016