’)
Even though his opening night did big ratings, one year from now Hannity’s show will have a lower average rating than “Hannity & Colmes”. It will still probably do better than the shows on MSNBC and CNN, but a Colmes-less show will do worse. Why? No liberal strawman phony liberal like Colmes to knock around anymore will end up equaling a boring Hannity.
File this away in the prediction folder.
Easy call to make when you’re coming off an election year and EVERYONES numbers will be down
They need a Mega-Colmes (new comic hero?) to issue a serious beatdown on this guy. But actual political debate would mean Hannity would have to do some actual research and viewers might check actual facts and not those guys version of the facts.
The Mega-Colmes has been tried on the radio and TV. Hasn’t worked.
I’m sure you here will disagree, but I believe that they haven’t worked because of a lack of believability/credibility due to a lack of passion.
I’m not saying that Liberals aren’t passionate, they sometimes are, but most Liberals, especially ones that hold office, will run from the word Liberal and will never label themselves as such.
If you run from what you are and you shroud yourself with moderate, progressive, and centrist veneers, how can you project passion? How can you be taken seriously?
http://howisthatobamavoteworkingoutforyou.blogspot.com/
They need a Mega-Colmes (new comic hero?) to issue a serious beatdown on this guy.
Bill Maher, maybe?
SaveFarris: “Easy call to make when you’re coming off an election year and EVERYONES numbers will be down”
Except his show started after the election, so it is not being affected by the election bounce.
bryan: “They need a Mega-Colmes (new comic hero?) to issue a serious beatdown on this guy.”
Duros62: “Bill Maher, maybe?”
Hell yeah!
I would love to see that debate, because it would not even be close. Pure ass-kicking of the nth degree.
Actually, much as I love him, I wouldn’t want Maher opposite Hannity. I’d want somebody who can toss off a witty rejoinder, sure, but who also has large swaths of wonky facts and data at their disposal who can rebut all of Hannity’s canned talking points with solid information. And then smile at him innocently before Hannity realizes that there is a shiv in his back.
Rachel Maddow.
CSS, we all know that at the one year from now, the story will read:
Rachel Maddow.
Oooh, you tease.
Hannity any liberal = suck.
If they have a backbone, he just keeps repeating his four lines for that day as they calmly (or heatedly) try to make a point.
If they don’t have a backbone, he just keeps repeating his four lines for that day as they sit there politely nodding and making assenting noises.
I predict that Hannity will continue to utter bullshit nonsense and compare liberals to terrorists and label them “evil.” I’m bold that way.
SaveFarris: “CSS, we all know that at the one year from now, the story will read:”
Or is could read…
“From the start of his show to its first anniversary…”
CSS: Except his show started after the election, so it is not being affected by the election bounce.
Are you referring to just Hannity’s show? True, it didn’t start until after the election. But OW was comparing ratings to “H&C” which has been on for something like 12 years.
Farris does have a point in that ratings for these types of shows are all likely to drop after the election year we’ve just had. So comparing ratings in 2009 to 2008 and saying any drop is due to Colmes leaving leaves out at least one more significant factor. A better comparison to make would be H&C in 2005 to Hannity’s show in 2009. Or, comparing any changes in rates from 2008 to 2009 to those from 2004->2005 and 2000->2001.
Whatever. At least we can all agree that Hannity’s a fuckin idiot. Well, he is.