>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.
My understanding of his theory is that "investors" lead. But the 1994 money shift was prompted by the polls, showing that investors can also follow.
>About his "endorsement" of Perot: this is news to me. Do you have a
>cite for where he did so?
He did it at a forum sponsored by the Village Voice. I was pretty stunned.
Doug