Perhaps, but I don't see how a second order effect is more indicative than a first order effect.
In any case McCain went from 38 to 40 in the time period in question, but he had been steadily rising at the same rate for some time now.
His continuing rise might well have more to do with the fact that there are still two squabblers for the Dem nomination, rather than any particular property of either of the squabblers.
In other words, his rising in the polls is simply due to the fact that he exists (as the Rep nominee), while the Dem nominee does not (yet) exist. People like existence.
Comments 3
Reply
effect is more indicative than a first order effect.
In any case McCain went from 38 to 40 in the time
period in question, but he had been steadily rising
at the same rate for some time now.
His continuing rise might well have more to do with
the fact that there are still two squabblers for the
Dem nomination, rather than any particular property
of either of the squabblers.
In other words, his rising in the polls is simply
due to the fact that he exists (as the Rep nominee),
while the Dem nominee does not (yet) exist. People
like existence.
(-:
Reply
effect is more indicative than a first order effect.
Indicator of market rationality?
Reply
Leave a comment