Comments on: Rush and Hannity listeners most informed about US politics

By: Strike_Twice

Strike_Twice — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:51:48 +0000

I am not familiar with D.L. Hughley nor his politics, except that he appears on CNN. Mr. Hughley made a comment earlier today in relation to Michael Steele’s apology to Rush Limbaugh that his beef with Mr. Steele is like “black on black crime. That’s what it is.”

Can someone please explain to me what Black on Black crime is? Is it less acceptable to Mr. Hughley than “Black on White” crime? More acceptable? Is Mr. Hughley a racist?

By: The_Gadfly

The_Gadfly — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:34:43 +0000

on those surveys. The cross products to get Rush and Hannity below the lib rags looks fishy to me.

By: The_Gadfly

The_Gadfly — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:33:37 +0000

they listen to Rush and Hannity actually do? I can’t believe that few of them know who is in charge of Congress and who the Secretary of State is.

By: The_Gadfly

The_Gadfly — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:28:20 +0000

alone after my gut check I would have gotten 10 out of 10.

By: DONTREADONME

DONTREADONME — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:49:58 +0000

)

By: itrytobenice

itrytobenice — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:37:09 +0000

Yeah. I’m that good.

By: IJB

IJB — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 19:16:36 +0000

…Finds out who’s running the show these days, Nan & Dingy Harry are going to be lined up against the electoral wall, so to speak.

That’s why the media plays “hide the D” so hard when scandals hit Dem politicians. They’re trying to obscure who’s really in charge.

But when things get bad enough, people (even empty-headed mushy “independents”) will go out of their way to find out who’s really in charge. And nothing the media will do can stop them.

There’s going to be an ‘epiphany’ on many peoples’ part over the next year.

That must be a scary prospect for Obama & co…

By: phred

phred — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:11:24 +0000

doesn’t know that the Democrats have the house majority.

By: Critical_Thinker

Critical_Thinker — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:30:09 +0000

You’re only paranoid if they are out to get you.

By: DONTREADONME

DONTREADONME — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:17:31 +0000

missed the one on US military deaths in Iraq, but can you blame me the media has only talked about the US economy since it was the only thing that would elect 0.

By: spaceman_spiff

spaceman_spiff — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:16:25 +0000

“Supposedly Hannity listeners are paranoid about Nancy Pelosi. “

Isn’t not paranoia when it’s true.

By: noufa

noufa — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:13:08 +0000

Supposedly Hannity listeners are paranoid about Nancy Pelosi. How does OpenLeft explain their knowledge about Gordon Brown?

From 2006-2008, Democrats have whipped up the masses to believe the worst about Republicans. Perhaps left-leaning types WANT to think the Republicans have absolute power. The 2 minute hates must be draining. They’re a little less so when they think the opposition party is omnipotent.

Won’t happen, but who would win the Senate seat in a MN re-vote? Franken probably wouldn’t win as many votes with his campaign based on sliming Bush.

There are valid criticisms of the Bush presidency. But at the end of his 2nd term, Republicans had very little interest in defending his legacy. And the general public was tired of him. Remember that for similar reasons, Clinton was kept away from Gore’s campaign in Y2K.

We become bored & cynical about politics. So we watch Entertainment Tonight rather than stick up for Bush (or Clinton). As we become less partisan, we become less informed. The survey results reflect this fact.

Not surprising that infotainment queen Katie Couric has dragged down the CBS evening news. They have the worst audience of the broadcast evening news shows. In a hyper-partisan world, CBS couldn’t afford to put that ditz on air.

Today, Clinton’s name nearly gave his wife the presidency. Just as George H.W. Bush’s legacy rebounded & propelled his son into the Oval Office 8 years ago. We rely more on superficial cues like family names. This is the post-partisan politics. It aint pretty.

By: spaceman_spiff

spaceman_spiff — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:11:13 +0000

Here is a very similar test also on Pew:

http://pewresearch.org/newsiq/

I took this test AND my results where identical. Very curious.

Also, I do remember Rush talking about this poll.

By: DONTREADONME

DONTREADONME — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:05:38 +0000

By: katesmith

katesmith — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:02:48 +0000

The survey is dated October 2008 and lists the Hannity and Colmes tv show vs the Rush radio show. I mention this because I was interested in the stats for Hannity’s radio audience which I don’t see in this study. Granted there may be some of the same who listen to both, but it’s an important distinction. Pew can’t really say this is Hannity’s radio audience vs Rush’s. Given this, I’d be willing to bet from my own listening experience that Hannity’s radio audience wouldn’t score as high as his tv audience. It’s a more folksy gathering. (Colmes of course is no longer on Hannity’s tv show, guessing that wouldn’t make a big difference).

By: DONTREADONME

DONTREADONME — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 03:50:08 +0000

before gettting to the point that you made after the post of the results of the polls, I thought what is this question about the UK prime minister? It looks as if they tried to find a way to negate the advantage of Rush and Hannity listeners in regards to domestic government knowledge. For all we know the results that were posted by Pew were done to tailor the result for what they wanted the outcome to be; therefore, for all we know they asked questions like who the Russian Prime Minister is? So what really is important here is that Rush and Hannity listeners are more informed about their own Government than that of the world, plus Hannity and Rush listeners probably could have named Tony Blair overwhelmingly about 3 years ago.

By: itrytobenice

itrytobenice — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 02:37:44 +0000

I’d be willing to wager that 99% of regular RS readers could get 100% in a cakewalk. And the other 1% are trolls.