US economist and Nobel-prize of Economy winner Paul Krugman, center, speaks to journalists after meeting with Japanese PM Shinzo Abe, at Abe’s official residence in Tokyo, Japan, March 22, 2016. (Franck Robichon/Pool Photo via AP)

When it comes to analyzing Democratic presidential candidates and their campaigns, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has shown on more than one occasion that his analyses leave a heckuva lot to be desired – to put it mildly.

For example, just two days after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was victorious in New Hampshire, Krugman actually declared that Sanders was not a socialist. He said this even though Sanders is an admitted socialist and even though another unapologetic socialist (AOC) enthusiastically endorsed his campaign in October.

And just a little over a week ago, Krugman took to the Twitter machine to reassure people that Sanders was “not a wannabe authoritarian ruler”, in spite of rather large amounts of evidence to the contrary.

This time around, Kruggie weighed in on Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) after her exit from the Democratic presidential race.

As he often does, Krugman made several questionable claims in a multi-tweet thread, but it was the first one that had people doing a double take:

About Warren: deeply sad. She was the candidate of ideas, the best hope we had of getting a strongly progressive agenda actually enacted. Plus enormous energy and personal charm. What happened? Well, sexism was a big deal, probably the most important thing 1/

— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) March 5, 2020

I wrote a receipt-filled piece earlier today explaining how sexism had nothing to do with why campaigns like Warren’s and Sen. Kamala Harris’s failed, which you can read here, but unfortunately Paul Krugman doesn’t read my work. Twitter users, however, responded to his tweet directly with their observations, many of which debunked Krugman’s “sexism” spin:

I liked Warren but I think it does more harm than good to assume that her shortcomings could all be attributed to sexism. I think she could have been a man and faced a lot of the same hurdles that she did.

— Matt Gaetz's Gas Mask 🌹 (@Finger_Knees) March 5, 2020

C’mon Paul I like Liz but I began to feel her ideas we’re too far left and costly to gather support all across the country. The idea is to defeat an incumbent running on a good economy. Sexism had nothing to do with it.

— Richard F Brown (@Dixter41) March 5, 2020

It truly is remarkable. At one point, Warren was leading in the polls. So, when and why did these millions of Democrats, including many women become sexist?

— Kurt Hildebrandt (@kurtahild) March 5, 2020

Because the same electorate that nominated Hillary 3 years ago is super sexist pic.twitter.com/FcwSCfCmA9

— Jeff Gremillion (@JeffGremillion) March 5, 2020

She supported sanctions in Venezuela and Iran, voted for Trump’s war budget and trade deal, and fucking took a DNA test to try to justify when she classified herself as a WoC at UT. Stop it. Not liking her politics is not sexist.

— Ana Gabrielle (@absurdana) March 5, 2020

People not supporting a candidate is sexism, even if their reason for not doing so is based in policy preference.

— weighing myself before and after pooping (@Philopean) March 5, 2020

So we agree democratic voters are misogynists?

— Craig Steger (@craig_steger) March 5, 2020

Oops.

Perhaps next time Krugman should just stick to economic matters … or maybe not, considering his disastrous track record and his penchant for rooting for the economy to fail because Orange Man Bad.