Tom Ferguson and the Myth of the Median Voter

[William S. Lear]

On Fri, September 25, 1998 at 15:19:55 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes:
>William S. Lear wrote:
>
>>>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.

I'm not sure what you mean by "neat and unidirectional".  He does not,
as far as I know, claim that opinion polls reflect shifts in
investment, so your claim that in 1994 the shift in investment
followed the shift in the polls is not a valid criticism of his work.
He argues that party behavior is, in large part, determined by
investor behavior, but he does not, again to my recollection, anywhere
claim that poll shifts are not possible without investment shifts, nor
that they are insignificant.

About his "endorsement" of Perot: this is news to me.  Do you have a
cite for where he did so?  I can imagine him mildly supporting a third
candidacy simply because it might throw a monkey wrench in the normal
absurdity of elections, and because Perot was raising some issues that
other candidates would not touch.  But, this is a far cry from an
endorsement.

Bill