On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:59:15 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
speaking of numbers, FOX's numbers are more than double that of
either CNN or MSNBC (so naturally, more than both combined).

checked lately??

If by "lately," you mean in the last 10 minutes, no. OTOH, if by "lately" you
mean in the last week, yes. To be accurate, I didn't "check" them, I simply saw
them when they came via a (typical) media bulletin giving such information.

And that's not the
scary part - add in Limpdick, and you're getting into some real numbers.

yeah, but like anyone in radio, some folks who vehemently do not agree with
Rush are in those numbers.
Further, those who DO agree with him haven't been on board the Dem bus for a
while.

As are the numbers for the various FOX, MSNBC, CNN components. But what is
interesting - and being noted by the ratings services, etc. - is that the
right-leaning stuff is increasing markedly and the left-leaning stuff is
slipping somewhat. The Beck numbers were really up, although I'd suggest a fair
part of that was due more to the recent controversy than any particular leaning
on the part of the listeners.


Then
take the (more-or-less, self-identifying, etc.) "independents," and things
do
not look good for 2010 and the Dems.

by this logic, "things do not look good" EVER, for either party. Most
statewide polls show less that 40% of any state strongly affiliated with a
given party. Either party.

Again, see my remarks none of the above - I haven't looked at the statewides
in a while, so I can't speak to that, but I would offer that _in a large-sample
poll taken today_, with questions worded as absolutely neutral as humanly
possible, either party would be lucky to get even 30% "strong support" in any
statewide poll, with Alabama and California being possible exceptions, and Texas
and New York being longer-shot possible exceptions. And I'd offer that if the
2008 election were re-run today, with Romney-McCain versus Obama wheeled over
the field, Romney would take it _overwhelmingly_. For contrast, I think the
results of a McCain-Palin re-run would favor Obama as her recent past would
bring them down as much as his would him, so it would be a wash overall,
although I think it would be a bit closer in Florida (even reversed) and a
couple of other states - the end result would likely be the same.

If I had to guess now, I'd say he's a one-termer - not because of anything in
particular, but simply because he isn't as super-duper as many of his fans
think. And having folks like Van Jones and Charlie Rangel speaking for him
ain't gonna help him out. He needs to get a group of _moderates_ from both
parties solidly behind him, and do it quick, and kick the Emmanuels, Pelosis,
Reids, etc., to the fringes where they belong.

Here's an interesting scenario - kick Ramen Noodles out, bring in Joe
Scarborough and then, Haley Barbour and tell Axelrod and Barbour they can hang
out together or they hang by their balls separately - get it the **** done. Then
bring in Romney as his point man on health care - make the invite public so he
can't really say no to helping his country. Then give both Bill Clinton and Jeb
Bush high-profile positions, and bring in McCain as "of counsel."


An interesting note - there is some wondering going on about how Obama
(read -
his people) seems to have lost a lot of the "online edge" they had over
McCain,
insofar as they aren't getting the following they had in the run-up to the
election. Unfortunately, they don't get it...

Here, you touch on something I perceive as a miscalculation. Yes, Obama ran
on healthcare reform as a major platform plank. However, much of his
electoral success and online efforts were driven by a lot of sub-30 year
olds. To that group, focus can be lost if an issue doesn't concern them. By
and large, Health Insurance is not an issue with them, and thus was a poor
choice to run with, first, out of the gate, for the administration. Then
again, I'm not getting paid the big bucks to do the political calculus......

And while you're close, you missed it a bit. What they fail to realize, in
their arrogance, is that the bulk of the population is completely "instant
focus" - while Obama was all bright and shiny and new, he was interesting. Now,
he is, to a large part of that audience, just another story about Britney's
battle of the bulge or Paris Hilton's moneymaker. Combine that with the fact
that the bulk of his "social media" was, as you say, sub-30s, and the results
are inevitable. Unfortunately, his people are arrogant enough to think that
"their message" - whatever it might be at the moment - is worthy of everyone's
attention when _they_ choose to deliver it. Unfortunately, they never had
"everyone's" ear/screen, and the bulk of those they had were going to inevitably
move on to something new because they didn't care about Obama's policy(s), skin
color, or whatever, he was simply the "cool new thing." IOW, Obama has had his
15 minutes with much of that crowd. And his people have made the mistake of
confusing their ability to communicate with a "viral" spark that happened to
catch, burn hot, and then, as they all do, burn about out. And now, he and his
people are left to try to communicate with "the adults" in an "old-fashioned"
way and it's not all gushing, fawning, and "rock star adulation." And
unfortunately for them, his/their answers aren't really any better than any of
the myriad previous answers.

TC,
R


Tom

Tom