Quick Question: Isn't Rush A Big Winner?
Isn't Rush Limbaugh one of the biggest winners from this week's election?
A Democratic president and Congress should provide Rush with lots of fodder and plenty of listeners. Any bets about his ratings?
Bookmark/Search this post with
Rush maybe - the others?
I think you might be right about Rush. However, with that exception, I think most right-wing talk radio will actually see a decline in ratings. This election is mainly a rejection of the Republican leadership - by Democrats, obviously, but by disappointed Republicans as well. People who have been carrying water for the corrupt will not do well in the aftermath. Rush may come out unscathed because he's been around longer and has a higher profile. And sure, people like Neil Boortz who have libertarian street cred may do OK too. But for the most part, I expect to see a decline in support for right-wing commentary in the short term.
Rush and others....
And wouldn't it be nice if the exact opposite becomes reality regarding the likes of Bill Maher and Keith Olberman?
Ratings have been declining for Fox and right wing radio
for some time. I expect declines will continue.
When people are losing their jobs and homes they don't want to listen to unproductive rants. They just want the Democrats they elected to do something . . . . give them jobs, create New Deal programs to help them get back on their feet, give them affordable healthcare, do something about losing manufacturing jobs. I've got neighbors who lost very good jobs that won't be coming back. They are dealing with anger and grief right now, and Rush isn't providing the answers . . . in fact they are realizing that they elected the wrong people these past few years . . . those people didn't do anything to keep our economy strong -- in fact they broke it by not regulating Wall Street banks, subprime loans, etc, etc. Go out and talk to about a thousand of your neighbors like I just did. They feel angry and betrayed by the sitting administration and their cronies.
Rush and his ilk are singing the wrong tune right now.
Disagree guys. Rush, Hannity
Disagree guys. Rush, Hannity and Boortz are gonna have a field day feeding the disaffected conservatives with their routine fare of thinly veiled racisim, class warfare and general hatred of the liberal agenda. Dem bashing is their bread and butter.
Obama's electoral landslide isn't reflected in the popular vote. As witness Sarah Palin's meteoric popularity among her fans, there are plenty of people who will gladly tune in while R, H & B chum the waters with their usual BS.
Disaffected conservatives
What do you call a Republican who just saw his 401K chopped in half, or lost his home or job?
A Democrat. Suddenly they want their unemployment benefits extended. They want universal affordable healthcare. They want help paying for their kid's college educations. Who's gonna help them with that? Not Rush or Hannity.
We're gonna see a lot more new Democrats before this is over. It started in the 2006 cycle and just kept rolling. That's why I knew that the game was over early for McCain. Talk to your neighbors. You get some great insight into the mood of the country.
People are struggling, even the upper middle class that was part of the Republican base just a few years ago. Their kids can't find jobs.
All depends
If he's the sometimes funny Rush from the first Clinton administration, his show takes off again; if he's the bitter loser Rush, defending clearly non-conservative principles because they were espoused by Republicans, his base gets older and older and his show declines. He was successful in growing his influence when he was reliably Conservative, not when he was reliably Bush-Republican. It'll be interesting to see what path he takes going forward.
I'd look for him to start talking about all the stuff he rejected for the last 8 years: balanced budgets, libertarianism, etc. Since he controls his callers, no one will point out the hypocrisy. He is only preaching to the converted at this point. He is a smart marketer, though...he's not going to lose his base audience by trying to be too many things to too many people.
Rush, A $40M Bet, Conservatives and Ratings
Stan Collender
Capital Gains and Games
It seems odd that you would think the leftism is a trend. The only variance in this election was an increase in turnout where the increase was not important, and the pocketbooks of the uncomitted and non-political. As usual, the election was local and made by people's feelings about the economy, rather than any particular wisdom. At least that's what's in the data. And always has been - that's what people vote for in elections. People rarely understand issues, they are just positive about life or negative. Party platforms are designed to appeal to this fact alone. And even when they do vote, the country doesn't move left or right. Left are the urban, government, large company and immigrant populations, and Right are the suburban, small business, rural and established populations. Essentially those people who see government as a means of conflict resolution and those that see it as a means of conflict creation. Nothing changes much that isn't a function of those demographics. There is no 'trend', other than there is a trend to move to urban centers, that has been going on for centuries, and all such trends are demographic, not changes in belief. All the talk is just that, nonsense, which activates the left and right so that they can influence the uncommitted middle. But the demographics stay the same. Politics are a religion, and change is nearly impossible.
RUSH LIMBAUGH
Limbaugh won a $40M contract this spring because everyone in media knew the left would win the election. Rush's ratings are highest during any liberal administration because it's to conservative talk that angry small and medium business people turn. BECAUSE UNLIKE CONSUMERS AND LABOR THEY HAVE NO REPRESENTATION AS VOTERS, AND UNLIKE LARGE COMPANIES AND FINANCE, THEY HAVE NO LOBBYISTS. Rush (and every other conservative haven) will make money hand over fist for the next few years. And there will be a FRESH crop of newly recruited. And the more successful the left is, the more active will be this new body of people. This is the history of politics back to the Greeks. In effect, you have to have a change in trade routes to modify this trend. At least that's what history shows.
The current media trends refer to the death of capitalism, which, is nonsensical, because capitalism is a set of institutions (money, pricing, contract, property rights, accounting, banking, insurance, courts) and the only policy is the degree of interference in trade in order to gain competitive advantage for one group or another. If the question is redistribution, then all civilizations in their later phases, all 36 or so we can study, develop redistribution at the end of their life cycles, when political control moves first out of the hands of the nobility (military) then into the hands of the republic (middle class) the finally into the hands of the peasantry, due to increases in consumption which channel rewards.
In the end, we do not yet know how to regulate the money supply, or trade, such that we can control the decline in Hayekian (common sense) knowledge, or, perhaps, the organizing mythos behind a society without descending into poverty, chaos and mysticism. I suspect we cannot.
Cheers
Curt