http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/data?pid=avi...

by an election worker. After 25 years of voting they said she had moved twice (which she said she had not moved at all) and that she is now deceased. After driving all over to fix the problem she voted provisionally.

by an election worker. After 25 years of voting they said she had moved twice (which she said she had not moved at all) and that she is now deceased. After driving all over to fix the problem she voted provisionally.

http://www.gallup.com/tag/Gallup%2bDaily.a...

A little drop.

I work in research and statistical methodology for polling type studies. We don't do polls at my company, per se, but we do audience measurement which takes polling to the nth degree.

You notice that most polls start broad and get much more narrow. The Presidential polls almost always begin with the approval question which forces people into a simple yes or no for approval. But when you start asking very pointed questions to certain areas of Shrubs approval, like do you approve of the way GWB is leading the war in Iraq or when you ask about if GWB is doing a good job on the economy he typically scores lower.

Why? There's a few different reasons. I think this day in age any President would have a tough time going below 30% general approval for a few reasons.

1. There's a certain group of people in the US who just don't read, care, or engage in news/politics, etc. These people don't know enough to give a legit answer. Some sya they approve, some say they disapprove. Remember one thing though...for many people being polled it is easier for them to give a "yes" or approval than a "no" or disapproval. Many people simply do not like to disappoint by giving a negative answer. In addition, many people believe if they give a positive answer it will make the interview go much faster.

2. You have that core group of nutjobs that no matter how many babies GW eats he'll still get a positive approval.

3. You have the eternal optimists. These people sort of care what is going on and assume that supporting the president really does equate to supporting the troops. This is one reason why when you ask a broad question he gets higher marks then when you ask the more niche questions.

So add up these three categories...#1 is probably about 12% of those interviewed, #2 is probably about 15% of those interviewed and #3 is about 3 to 5% of those interviewed.

If you think about it, based on what I said above, it is really bad news to get a 30% approval rating. You really have to screw up to get to this level.

I have to make some corrections though. "Right-wing" talk radio on a national level actually was an accident. It mainly started in the mid 1980's wit Rush Limbaugh. But in the 80's Rush was not a right-wing wacko believe it or not. Matter of fact I know a lot of people who are strictly Dems who listened to Rush. He was not a bloviating nut-job like he is now. He actually took calls, debated points, respected all callers, didn't just do the RW shtick.

When Rush started AM radio was nearly dead. FM had pretty much killed AM. Many were still trying to do beautiful music, some rock, some top 40, etc. But it was dead in the ratings. Rush was good and he was cheap. People who syndicated Limbaugh also got Dr. Dean Edell as a part of the package. Their ratings were good and they started bringing some of these nearly dead AM radio stations back to life.

Couple all of this with 1992. This is the year that Rush started really going far to the right in response to Bill Clinton. Rush knew that he could play that Repuke drumbeat, the same that was going in in Congress, and be successful. He was. Then couple all of this with the consolidation of radio. Big radio groups were buying stations left and right and they were cutting costs by firing local on-air people and putting national talk shows. The thinking was "Hey, Limpbaugh's shtick works why not clone him?" Thus Hannity, Beck, Savage, Lars Larson, Michael Reagan, etc. Bottom line was that they were cheap talent and they got decent ratings. Also, they got the huge AM signals like WABC in NYC, WLS in Chicago, WIOD in Miami, WBAL WPHT in Philly, WRKO in Boston, KDKA in Pittsburgh, KABC in LA, etc.

So AAR comes on in response to the lack of progressive talkers nationally. One reason for their shitty success thus far is that they are on shitty radio stations. Come on...WLIB in NYC reaches one-third the area that WABC reaches. KTLK in LA at 1150 has a horrid signal. And WCPT in CHicago? I heard one of the squirrels running on the wheel that generates their power died. Terrible signal.

One major difference between Rush and his beginning and AAR? New media. We now have streaming and sat radio. I have been listeneing to Randi Rhodes since about 3 years before she was on AAR by streaming her station WJNO online.

Sorry for the long post. Figured some might find it interesting.
Is Our Children Learning?

I may not be very bright, but one thing I know inside and out is the radio industry, especially talk radio including Air America Radio.

The business model of Air America was doomed from the beginning. When they first went on the air they tried something unheard of. Rather then having syndicated radio programs to offer talk radio stations they actually went into a number of top markets (like NYC, Chicago, SF, etc.) and tried to purchase the radio station's airtime to broadcast their shows. That costs millions of dollars per month and it drained their finances immediately. They lost pretty much all but their NYC affiliate WLIB with this model.

Air America announced to the radio industry this week that they are making major changes to its lineup. As of next Monday they will have a new morning show called the Young Turks from XM satellite.

9AM to Noon Sam Seder
Noon to 3PM Al Franken
3PM to 6PM Randi Rhodes
Evenings will be a mix of Rachael Maddow, EcoTalk and Politically Direct.


The best thing that Air America can do (whether they file bankruptcy or not) is to "drop" all the extra programming and solely syndicate their most popular shows. Randi Rhodes, Al Franken, Sam Seder and bring back Mike Malloy. They should drop everything else. (Please don't flame me for removing AAR shows you may enjoy on weekends. These shows can exist but in a different type of business model.) 90% of AAR's current listeners come from these most popular shows.

Therefore here's the progressive shows that would be nationally syndicated.

AAR - Randi Rhodes, 3 hours; Al Franken, 3 hours; Sam Seder, 3 hours; Mike Malloy, 3 hours

Jones Radio - Thom Hartmann, 3 hours; Ed Schultz, 3 hours; Stephanie Miller, 3 hours;

WOR Radio Network - Lionel, 3 hours

That's plenty of talk shows to fill a progressive talk station lineup. Hopefully stations would also have some local progressives on the air.

Air America cannot sustain the business model that they currently operate under. Please don't think that even if they do go bankrupt that progressive talk is dead. Far from it. Also, this is not some "inconvenient timing on something that KKKarl Rove has orchestrated. AAR is long overdue for some major structural changes.

AAR pioneered progressive talk on a national level and have really broken the seal. Clear Channel Radio has been a huge part in helping make it successful because it has helped a number of their stations grow ratings and revenue. They have a vested interest in keeping progressive talk alive because it makes them money.