>>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.
This is one of my problems with Ferguson's work (aside from his bizarre Perot endorsement in 1992) - it's all just too neat and unidirectional. In 1994, the shift in money followed the shift in the polls - I've made a point of asking people who track campaign finance about this because of its theoretical importance.
Speaking of big money, Brad De Long endorsed Moynihan's analysis of Clinton's welfare stance - that it was boob bait for the bubbas. Maybe, but we should be clear on just which bubbas we're talking about. According to the Rogers/Ferguson theory, the Reps have been the party of low-wage employers, and the Dems more friendly to the high-wage ones. Clinton's embrace of welfare reform could be read as a signal to the low-wage crowd to come aboard - especially if the EITC was going to subsidize low-wage work.
Doug