The problem is that, if ratings are to be believed, your opinion is in the minority of radio listeners.
Okay, so you’ve rephrased it, but you haven’t responded to Jackmannii’s questions. Why is talk radio listenership a good proxy measure for electoral support? Does it follow that, if I don’t care to listen to someone discuss increases in the minimum wage on the radio, that I don’t want to see the minimum wage increased? Or if I don’t tune in to a discussion about abortion rights, I’m not going to vote to maintain abortion rights?
In what way do you believe your question even has any footing in reality? Or do you recognize that it doesn’t? I mean, your twice noted preamble about the socratic method - why go to those lengths to say that, unless you feel sheepish about the question? Or do you usually post things that are other than honest inquiry, and wish to distinguish this one? 
I’d say that they have pretty much the same expectation of failure that intelligent Conservatives have when the country is willing to accept the current sound-bite leadership.
I think, overall, the slow and convulsive movement of national politics from the raw demogoguery of the early 19th century to the sporadic attempts to address issues in the middle of the 20th has been reversed by electronic media. I just find it unfortunate that we use the labels that sprang from considered opinion to describe the “We’re # 1!” political “discourse” we see today.
Doesn’t make them right.
Hey, I agree with you on that point, though. The alleged conservatives have pitched their tent on God, Guns, and Gays, etc., which plays fabulously with folks who’ve never seen the inside of the sausage factory. As a bonus, it doesn’t give the Democrats any “unassailable” place to pitch their tent, even if they wanted to. As an added bonus, none of this nonsense negatively affects rich old white guys materially.
Anyway, I can’t argue that it’s not an effective strategy, obviously, but what you seem to be trying to say is tantamount to saying Clay Aiken is better then Elvis Costello because he sells more records.
I guess I make some assumptions here, most prominent being the ones you allude to above: if Listener X listens to talk radio that pushes ideas – say, no minimum wage increase, and limits on legal abortion – then I infer that Listener X has a certain sympathy towards those ideas. If, as tomndebb suggested, talk radio that discusses liberal ideas intelligently is doomed to fail in a mass market, I infer that is because of a paucity of radio listeners with sympathy towards those ideas.
Now, I grant that’s not a proven assumption.
But my original thesis for this thread was: in no way is this GOOD news for the effort to spread liberal ideas in the talk radio market. It may not be terribly bad news, and you may convince me it’s not bad news at all. But in no way is it good news.
I have been accused of nefarious tricks with respect to how I ask questions. I wasn’t being sheepish - just extra careful to avoid problems.
You’re a perfect example of what I was talking about. You attacked someone with a bunch of vitriolic name calling without any specific argument or point. You could have made a reasoned argument but you didn’t. You can’t run a show on that. You’re exhibiting the same hatemongering nonsense that killed Air American. I’ll let you reflect on the definition of moonbat.
I’m saying that Clay Aiken will win “American Idol” and Elvis Costello won’t. It’s not a matter of “better” – it’s a matter of who gets more votes.
And the analogy is apt, since we choose our leaders by giving the unwashed masses one vote each.
From that same cite:
Sorry about the layout. I can’t get the coding right :smack: . Only 24% approve of abortion in all cases in one survey, 29% in another. In my book, that means it is not a majority opinion. If you ask many Republicans, they will agree that sometimes abortion is allowable, just not to the degree that Democrats are calling for.
That is an interesting twist on the idea, isn’t it? If I say yes from the idea of just maintaining a status quo, then pro-choice people would be considered conservative and pro-life would be liberal! If I say maintaining a status quo is not a conservative position, then I’m saying that the political conservatives are liberal! This is like asking, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” There is no correct answer.
Politically, changing the abortion standards is a conservative position. But what conservatives want to maintain as a status quo is not abortion but the preservation of the unborn. They are saying that they don’t want fetuses dismissed out of hand as a choice. So, rephrase the question to be, “Is the desire to maintain a status quo on the sanctity and safety of unborn children a conservative position” then I would say yes.
Couldn’t it have more to do with the way the station was run than the idea’s expressed?
No, I don’t think that’s it at all. I think what it actually suggests is that your simple construction of “liberals want change” and “conservatives want the status quo” is dubious.
I suppose. If the ratings were high but the money was being lost anyway, then I’d suspect it was as you suggest. But I suppose your interpretation is possible.
OK. Let’s look at the sequence of postings and hopefully you can see what I said and why:
Your response was based on the definition of “conservative” as maintaining the status quo. I had gone on to say:
So I had responded to both definitions of “conservative”. You chose to ignore the second portion.
My question remains unanswered.
This raised the striking possibility that you think Air America’s financial troubles bode poorly for the electoral prospects of liberals.
Are you
-
in support of this proposition (and if so, what leads you to think that talk radio listenership is a superior indicator of strength at the polls),
-
against the proposition,
-
just don’t know, or
-
unwilling to talk about it?
I hope we will hear from you on this subject. If you do not understand the question, just say so and I will attempt again to clarify it for you.
Just don’t know. I’m simply asking – I’m not advancing a proposition by means of a question. Thus my multiple denials of the Socratic method.
Let’s keep in mind that the electoral prospects for “liberals” is not the same as the electoral prospects for Democrats. “Liberal” is a term than very few politicians have used to self-identify for a long time even though political pundits are not so demure on that point. The Democrats are poised to win big in November, but I wonder if that would still be true if they embraced the term “liberal”?
I don’t really know much about Al Franken’s political philosophy but it wouldn’t surprise me if he was to the left of much of the Democratic party. Of course Rush is probably to the right of much of the Republican party, too, so maybe that doesn’t mean all that much.
And you’re a perfect example of someone who didn’t get it. I was reflecting on the irony of you calling AA folks shrill moonbats when there are ample examples of the same on the right wing side. I disagree with them and think a great number of them are moonbats. Not just because I disagree with them as much as I am incredulous that some of the utter bullshit they toss flies. Plus the hypocrisy of touting religion and the American way whilst leading lifestyles that would make rockstars blush is just a non-starter for me. If you like them, have at it.
The reasoned part of my argument was made a few posts back when I stated I thought that AA failed because in 2004 because there wasn’t enough sentiment behind it and the people who rolled it out didn’t seem to be basing it on a business model, but a mostly ideological one. It might have done better if it had been produced this year instead of 2 years ago. But I do agree that AA was too shrill, and there wasn’t enough “other stuff” to keep audiences listening.
As for pointless vitriol, you’re equally culpable in this thread, so you can go reflect on whatever you want.
The analogy is apt because they’re both jacked, unfortunately.
Why are you speaking of AA in the past tense? They’re still broadcating, you know.
Point taken. But if a tree files bankruptcy, does anyone hear it?
I was passionately devoted to Air America when it started. I also consider myself a longtime Al Franken fan, as well as a longtime talk radio fan.
The problem with AA, and with lefty radio overall, is that the people they want to appeal to don’t operate the same way the righty audience does, so it’s very difficult to find formats and stars that really work for that demographic. Righty radio is noisy, bombastic, jaw-droppingly arrogant, simplistic…and it hits all the right notes for people who like their politics plain and simple: we’re good, They’re Bad. We love our flags, our apple pie, our country, our kids, and for damn sure we love our God. Yay us.
Lefty radio was, by its very nature, (because it is the nature of the left vs. the right, hello) more gray areas, more detailed, more inclusive, more varied…in other words: mushy. At least in terms of trying to make snappy, easy-to-follow radio.
It’s not really the nature of the average liberal-minded person to seek out or enjoy programs that would boil liberal thought down to a few basic concepts and spend the rest of the time demonizing the other side. It’s contrary to liberal mindset to begin with.
Which is why liberals are much better in the blogosphere: more in depth, detailed, thoughtful, wordy.
I feared for AA from the start, but had high hopes. Randy Rhodes was the closest they could come to having the same style as righty radio, and as incredibly smart and informed as she is, as painfully brimming with really important, good information, she just ends up being irritating as hell to listen to.
It’s the nature of the two beasts. They are different, and they respond to different ways of communicating.