Left-wing MSNBC host Ed Schultz: "I'm not voting in the midterms"

[laikaNYC]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUJii0bZqhE[/ame]

Apparently Ed is upset that Democrats aren't being partisan enough. Proclaiming yesterday on his radio show:

"And I'm announcing today, I'm not going to vote in the midterms. I'm not going to do it. You can say it's un-American. No, it's rather revolutionary is what it is. I'm at that point. I'm checking out.

I'm checking out of the Democrats because they are proving to me that they don't know how to handle these big babies over on the right that say no. You know what you do? You get in the driver's seat, you hit the throttle, and you run over 'em."

Now if only his dismal audience of progressive bobbleheads would join him in his boycott (not that their vote would have any significance). Does anyone else plan on not voting this November?

 

[BostonPirate]

Now if only his dismal audience of progressive bobbleheads would join him in his boycott (not that their vote would have any significance).

you had me until you threw in that insult.

My opinion? Ed is dumb for promoting such a ridicuous idea, and hoping that people won't vote is unamerican and against all the values we hold.

 

[altlover85]

I like Ed, but he's definitely wrong on this one.

 

[rareboy]

Now if only his dismal audience of progressive bobbleheads

And then you go running off boohooing because someone says something mean about teabaggers.

 

[Lostlover]

you had me until you threw in that insult.

My opinion? Ed is dumb for promoting such a ridicuous idea, and hoping that people won't vote is unamerican and against all the values we hold.

So waste your vote on a candidate that has no chance of winning?

Obama's forgotten that people elected him to be a liberal and to swat down bad ideas. He's even embraced some of these bad ideas like pay as you go, a policy Regan proposed but never did.

I'm tilting towards not voting because I don't believe Obama is doing what I elected him to do. Part of what I wanted from Obama was for his policies to represent a clear repudiation of broken ideas of the right. And you know what, he didn't do it. He's still dreaming of "not a red or blue America".

And his half-assed stimulus package where he was worried about PR concerns over signing in a robust package that is needed really did him in with my support. But yet, he found time to appear on a show with 5 wealthy women and is campaigning on "it could have been worse." We know that. That's why we didn't elect McCain.

No thank you.

PS: Schultz is wrong in harping on unemployment benefits. This is a symptom of bad economic policy, not the cause.

 

[cityboy-stl]

I'm sure a lot of folks may take that attitude. It kind of depends on where you live and who's running. Finally Kit Bond is retiring in MO and we have a highly contested race. There is no freaking way I'm sitting out and helping to elect senator Roy Blunt

when I can vote for the wonderful Robin Carnahan.

 

[jackoroe]

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it really make a sound? If Ed says he's not going to vote in the midterms and he has no listeners, who really cares?

I mean you can yell out your front window and get more of an audience than this clown!

 

[palemale]

So waste your vote on a candidate that has no chance of winning?

Obama's forgotten that people elected him to be a liberal and to swat down bad ideas. He's even embraced some of these bad ideas like pay as you go, a policy Regan proposed but never did.

I'm tilting towards not voting because I don't believe Obama is doing what I elected him to do. Part of what I wanted from Obama was for his policies to represent a clear repudiation of broken ideas of the right. And you know what, he didn't do it. He's still dreaming of "not a red or blue America".

And his half-assed stimulus package where he was worried about PR concerns over signing in a robust package that is needed really did him in with my support. But yet, he found time to appear on a show with 5 wealthy women and is campaigning on "it could have been worse." We know that. That's why we didn't elect McCain.

No thank you.

PS: Schultz is wrong in harping on unemployment benefits. This is a symptom of bad economic policy, not the cause.

It's not about Obama, it's about your Senator, Congressperson, mayor, city council person, etc. Obama isn't on the ballot. I always vote. It the Democrat on the ballot is so unacceptable to me, and the alternative isn't horrible, I vote for a third party candidate as a protest. If everyone who fails to vote voted for a third party candidate, it would register voter discontent and demonstrate where the discontent was coming from ideologically. Also, in New York, we do have viable third party candidates who win office from time to time. Mayor Lindsey, for example, won re-election as the candidate of the Liberal Party when he was beaten in the Republican Primary. He defeated a conservative Republican and conservative Democrat. James Buckley was elected to the Senate as the Conservative Party nominee, defeating a liberal Republican who was opposed to the Vietnam War (and appointed by Gov Rockefeller to fill Robert Kennedy's seat when he was assassinated) and a liberal Democrat. He squeaked in with 38% of the vote.

 

[BostonPirate]

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it really make a sound? If Ed says he's not going to vote in the midterms and he has no listeners, who really cares?

I mean you can yell out your front window and get more of an audience than this clown!

I honestly don't know anyone on either side of the spectrum that watches him, and the people in the middle could care even less...lol.

He's too tabloid politics. I don't like the nonsense when Rush does it, and I don't like it when this Ed guy does it.

 

[jackoroe]

I found some info on a blog that quoted numbers from Nielson on Ed's viewership. Couldn't get the info direct from the source, so take it for what it's worth. He's lost half his audience in the 25-54 demographic and went from 750,000 to about 500,000 overall in a very short time.

He's just trying to scare up some viewers, I guess. He's not a horrible person, just painful to listen to. And I don't think anybody buys the schtick about him watching out for us working folk anymore than they do about O'Reilly.

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/ed-schultz-msnbc-show-ratings-down

 

[TickTockMan]

I honestly don't know anyone on either side of the spectrum that watches him, and the people in the middle could care even less...lol.

He's too tabloid politics. I don't like the nonsense when Rush does it, and I don't like it when this Ed guy does it.

Like Beck I use to be a big listener. Something happened to both of them. They are nothing like what they once were.

 

[Jack Springer]

I'm sure a lot of folks may take that attitude. It kind of depends on where you live and who's running. Finally Kit Bond is retiring in MO and we have a highly contested race. There is no freaking way I'm sitting out and helping to elect senator Roy Blunt

when I can vote for the wonderful Robin Carnahan.

Wonderful Robin Carnahan. She annouced running for US Senate less than a week after she was sworn in as Secretary of State.

She and her family are parasites to Missouri.

 

[Lostlover]

I found some info on a blog that quoted numbers from Nielson on Ed's viewership. Couldn't get the info direct from the source, so take it for what it's worth. He's lost half his audience in the 25-54 demographic and went from 750,000 to about 500,000 overall in a very short time.

He's just trying to scare up some viewers, I guess. He's not a horrible person, just painful to listen to. And I don't think anybody buys the schtick about him watching out for us working folk anymore than they do about O'Reilly.

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/ed-schultz-msnbc-show-ratings-down

I'm more popular than you. Sounds like high school.

Let's ask serious questions. Do you think it's a coincidence that they top three republicans on the radio dropped out of school? And yet somehow they know what do with the economy?

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm tilting towards not voting because I don't believe Obama is doing what I elected him to do. Part of what I wanted from Obama was for his policies to represent a clear repudiation of broken ideas of the right. And you know what, he didn't do it. He's still dreaming of "not a red or blue America".

Instead of not voting, cast a vote toward his dream and see what effect it has: vote for a party that isn't red or blue. To get the message across, it doesn't really matter what not-red or not-blue party you pick; you could even alternate on the way down the ballot.

If enough disgruntled Americans did that, the Democrats would see that people are seriously unhappy with them -- but not enough to vote Republican.

Let's ask serious questions. Do you think it's a coincidence that they top three republicans on the radio dropped out of school? And yet somehow they know what do with the economy?

Heh -- I like that question.

 

[jackoroe]

I'm more popular than you. Sounds like high school.

Let's ask serious questions. Do you think it's a coincidence that they top three republicans on the radio dropped out of school? And yet somehow they know what do with the economy?

The snake oil that our Harvard educated genius has been selling hasn't stemmed the tide of foreclosures and millions have lost their jobs on his watch. Maybe the ruling class isn't quite as smart as they would have us believe.

As to the three top republicans who you refer to, I don't know anything about their educations, nor do I really much care. The important thing to note, is that they are all successful business people. They are all multi-millionaires.

Barry doesn't know anything about business, nor do the vast majority of those who work for him as they've never met a payroll.

The salient question is this. If you need advice on fixing the economy, do you listen to somebody who has read many books and has a sheepskin to prove how smart he is? Or somebody who has actually made a go of it in terms of business success?

 

[MoltenRock III]

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it really make a sound? If Ed says he's not going to vote in the midterms and he has no listeners, who really cares?

I mean you can yell out your front window and get more of an audience than this clown!

Nice to see you can stick to the facts and not resort to ad hominem attacks.

 

[jackoroe]

^The facts are he has no audience and is desperate to draw some attention. He's on the verge of being cancelled.

If you have information to the contrary, we'd love for you to share it!

 

[MoltenRock III]

^The facts are he has no audience and is desperate to draw some attention. He's on the verge of being cancelled.

If you have information to the contrary, we'd love for you to share it!

LMAO! You seem to be the desperate one making up things you have no facts to support. Remember dear friend, the burden of proof is upon you who are making said charges.

Do you personally know NBC/MSNBC television executives whom have confided in you that they are thinking of or going to cancel The Ed Show? Do you have any credible sources stating he's about to be cancelled? What are his ratings year-over-year? Are they up? Are they down? Are they better / worse than the show he replaced?

Please do your homework before making baseless personal attacks.

www.tvbythenumbers.com/2010/08/02/cable-news-ratings-for-friday-july-30-2010/58859#more-58859

 

[laikaNYC]

LMAO! You seem to be the desperate one making up things you have no facts to support. Remember dear friend, the burden of proof is upon you who are making said charges.

Do you personally know NBC/MSNBC television executives whom have confided in you that they are thinking of or going to cancel The Ed Show? Do you have any credible sources stating he's about to be cancelled? What are his ratings year-over-year? Are they up? Are they down? Are they better / worse than the show he replaced?

Please do your homework before making baseless personal attacks.

www.tvbythenumbers.com/2010/08/02/cable-news-ratings-for-friday-july-30-2010/58859#more-58859

Are you seriously trying to convince anyone that Ed's ratings are good? If he wasn't such a partisan hack he might actually appeal to a larger audience. But instead he only attracts one small demo of voters.

 

[jackoroe]

LMAO! You seem to be the desperate one making up things you have no facts to support. Remember dear friend, the burden of proof is upon you who are making said charges.

Do you personally know NBC/MSNBC television executives whom have confided in you that they are thinking of or going to cancel The Ed Show? Do you have any credible sources stating he's about to be cancelled? What are his ratings year-over-year? Are they up? Are they down? Are they better / worse than the show he replaced?

Please do your homework before making baseless personal attacks.

www.tvbythenumbers.com/2010/08/02/cable-news-ratings-for-friday-july-30-2010/58859#more-58859

The fact that you would even defend his ratings is laughable. He's getting about 500,000 people all told watching his show. 120,000 in the prime demographic. As has been discussed previously, his ratings are down significantly. His ratings are lower than the show he replaced which was cancelled for low ratings.

So the salient question this time is this. If a show gets cancelled for poor ratings and is replaced by a show with lower ratings, does a rational business model keep that show in production or cancel it in the hopes of doing better?

I know we're talking about MSNBC here. They aren't particularly rational in their business practices, which would account for their abysmal ratings. But try and think rationally, just for fun.