To: indthkr
Perhaps, but he can (and does) quite well with only 20-30% of the "voters".
Other people can't be very successful unless they actually get 50% + 1%.
Think about the difference in the "audiences" or "voters".
Which audience is easier to reach and inform (or misinform) and keep?
To get his 20-30% of the audience and then to keep them loyal and coming back for more speaks louder for Rush than an audience which is mostly ignorant, ill-informed, and easily duped.
When compared, which audience, or "voters", are best informed and better educated? Is it Rush's or Obama's or any other politician with the 50% + 1 plurality?
I would say that it's a lot harder to attain and keep Rush's audience than to get a simple majority of voters.
437 posted on
03/03/2009 11:26:33 AM PST by
adorno
(<br><br>)
To: adorno
I would say that it's a lot harder to attain and keep Rush's audience than to get a simple majority of voters. Sure it is easier. All you have to do is wait for the party in power to fall out of favor, then your party wins 50%+1 at least.
Holding an audience for as long as possible as to charge confiscatory commercial rates, now that takes talent.
439 posted on
03/03/2009 11:33:04 AM PST by
NeoCaveman
(hey who ordered the trillion dollar crap sandwich? FUBO. Ugly and incendiary entertainer fan.)
To: adorno
"Is it Rush's or Obama's or any other politician with the 50% + 1 plurality?
I would say that it's a lot harder to attain and keep Rush's audience than to get a simple majority of voters.
I haven't heard anybody say that Rush isn't talented at what he does. He is obviously very sucessful in the eyes of his employer; I'm sure he hits his contract measurements out-of-the-park. While you or I have no way to know what his measurements really are, I doubt winning elections is one of them.
443 posted on
03/03/2009 11:58:49 AM PST by
indthkr
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson