> On Thu, September 24, 1998 at 16:29:47 (-0700) Paul Henry Rosenberg writes:
> >...
> >I think it's obvious that Ferguson is right about the big picture, but
> >that doesn't negate a simultaneous effect from voters....
>
> What doesn't? Of course *Ferguson* does not discount that voters can
> "shake, rattle, and roll", and that they can at times break through to
> affect important issues. If you think Ferguson is not aware of a
> "simultaneous effect from voters", you're mistaken (you probably
> should read the rest of the chapter I excerpted, he goes on therein to
> fill out the picture considerably).
Sorry, I was responding specifically to your comment, not to Ferguson in his entirety. I was using "Ferguson" here metenomycially, the man for the idea you were highlighting, not the whole body of his work.
> >I think one could argue that this happened in 1994. The huge
> >investment shift that drove the election occured in anticipation of a
> >relative small, BUT SIGNIFICANT, voter shift, and after the dust cleared
> >that's exactly what happened. ...
>
> Yes, one could argue this, if one had evidence. If you have some,
> please share.
I don't have it at my fingertips, but the Nation ran info on that at the time (i.e. BEFORE November 1994). How the PAC money began trending toward the Republicans despite their not being the incumbents. If it wasn't Ferguson who wrote about it, I'm sure his name was invoked. This was not because they anticipated a landslide popular vote shift. They know enough to know that isn't necessary. They're big boys, after all.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"