[adorno]

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.

[NeoCaveman]

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.

[indthkr]

"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.