Why would someone listen to something all day every day that just repeats the same stuff even if they did agree with most of it?  Wouldn't you want a different point of view every once in a while?

Limbaugh says his listeners came to him b/c he was the first person who validated their conservative opinions.  They had, for years, heard no one on TV or Radio who had similar political views to themselves.  They felt all alone in a hostile environment.  When they heard Limbaugh, they said:  "Yeah!  Finally!  Someone in media who agrees with me!"

Limbaugh's listeners remain with him, I believe, for several reasons.

First:  Limbaugh delivers information which is not delivered by the mainstream media(MSM).  

When I first learned to move around the internet, I was shocked at how skewed MSM reporting was.  I had never believed the stories about the MSM, until I saw the mountains of evidence for myself.  I read, on the net, texts of speeches which were unrecognizable in the MSM stories about which ostensibly covered them.  I began to see news on the net which was simply ignored in the MSM - because the news did not fit the political agenda of the MSM.  The Duke Lacrosse non-rape fits this description.  The Jena, LA non-racial non-incident fits this description.  The tremendous success of the "surge" in Iraq fits this description.  As late as Gen Patreaus Sept. '07 Congressional testimony, Sen. Clinton could call Gen. Patreaus a liar with a straight face, b/c the majority MSM coverage of Iraq was not accurately portraying the on-the-ground reality.

Anyway, for people who do not consistently read  internet news sources, Limbaugh remains a good source of information which is covered up and hidden by the MSM.  Limbaugh is sort of like a political newspaper.  He looks around at the news of the day, and delivers it to his listeners.  It is often news they could not get from their newspaper, or from CBS Evening News, or from ABC Radio News, or from NPR.

Second, as alluded to by another commenter:  Limbaugh is an entertainer.  

Limbaugh is a consumate radio professional.  He understands people will not listen to consistent technical political talk. Therefore, Limbaugh delivers humor throughout his shows.  One really must listen for an hour or two to get a sense of what he does.  If you just graze through, you will hear inside jokes and tongue in cheek references which are gleefully designed to piss off the American left.  You might think these things are serious.  They are not.  They are humor, and any long-time Limbaugh listener knows that.

Failure to understand this is, I suspect, mostly responsible for the failure of Air America.  They believed they could do political rants for hour after hour and still keep their audience.  They were not the talented radio technicians which Limbaugh is.  Limbaugh loves radio.  He is a radio professional.  Air America personnel were political ranters.  Between the two, there's a big difference in entertainment value.

Third, it's a mistake to believe Limbaugh's listeners are acolytes who blindly agree with his opinions.  

Surveys show that conservative radio listeners have solidly more education and solidly higher incomes than the averages American.  Limbaugh is making arguments which appeal to their logic and reason, and also to their principles and values.  They are critically listening, studying whether his opinions are valid or not.  I know this is exactly opposite from the stereotype which is commonly believed, yet is simply is fact.  Radio, rightly so, obsessively studies their listeners. They must, in order to sell advertising.  Conservative talk radio is a gold mine of wealthier and more educated listeners.

I suspect conservative radio listeners enjoy the greater intellectual engagement which is available (relative to typical radio or to MSM reporting) on conservative radio.  And, maybe they just enjoy the subject, as I do. At heart, conservative vs. liberal is a metaphysical argument about whether man's nature is good or evil.  

If man's nature is good(liberal belief), then pain/suffering/injustice are caused by inadequate religion/ philosophy/ principles/ standards/ government.  The solution is to change to more effective philosophy/ principles/ government.  America's Founding Fathers really have little to say about modern government.  Pelosi/ Reid/ Ruth Bader Ginsburg/ American Bar Association have much better ideas about how modern governmennt ought to function.

If man's nature is evil(conservative belief), then pain/ suffering/ injustice will always be with us, b/c man will always fall short of upholding his principles/ religion/ government ideals.  The principles/ religion/ government do not fail man.  Rather, he fails them.  Pain/ suffering/ injustice is not so much a bug as a feature.  It's not that we ought seek them out (we shouldn't).  However, their existence does turn our eyes towards the eternal and spiritual; and their existence does allow us to delineate and comprehend pleasure/ comfort/ justice, for instance.  

Liberal vs. Conservative politics flows from this fundamental question:  is man's nature good or evil?  Many political disagreements can be directly traced back to the disagree-ers divergent opinions about this fundamental principle of existence.  It's interesting.  On good conservative talk radio(Hugh Hewitt, for example), you can listen in on discussions which analyze both sides of a modern day issue, then trace the issue back to it's roots (even if those roots go all the way back to this fundamental), then run back up to the modern day of the issue.  Done well, it's compelling radio - especially when compared with the radio alternatives available.

Personal note 1:  if you are a self-decribed moderate, take care not to substitute faith in "moderation" for actual understanding of the issues.  

I've no respect for your moderate self description, b/c it is often a mask for lack of understanding.  I respect you if you have reasoned out an understanding of an issue.  Usually, moderates are too busy patting themselves on the back to actually understand a contentious issue.  Usually, moderates are more smug than Prius drivers.  If you self-describe as "moderate", then you've got larger hurdles to clear if you are to gain my respect.  I've more respect for leftists who are dead wrong, yet at least are trying to understand the issue they are wrong about.

Personal note 2: if you are a leftist (who is dead wrong - heh), take care to understand both sides of whatever issue you are spouting about.

Know that I understand your side (the left side) of the issue.  If I don't understand it, I will be asking you for more information, b/c I want to understand it.  If you make a good argument, I will join you on the left side of the issue!  Absolutely.  I am not trying to "win" an issue.  I am trying to ascertain:  true, or false?  right, or wrong?  If I am wrong about something, or have incorrect info about something, I want to know it even more than you want me to know it.  I will change my opinion.  Don't ever doubt it.

I find, however, that although I can explain both my side of an issue and your side of an issue, you cannot do the same.  You've little or no idea why I believe the way I do.  

The biggest reason for this is that you have demonized me and dismissed me a) as a viable intellect, and b) as a viable person of good intention.  I want to help poor and oppressed people just as much as you do.  I've serious  reasons for believing your policies will only keep those people poor and oppressed, and will not provide opportunity for them to raise themselves out of poverty.  You do not acknowledge to yourself that my intentions are just as honorable as yours.  

Thus, you dismiss me.  I understand.  I would not give 2 seconds consideration to Hitler's preferred Social Security policy.  However, if you can find it within your worldview to consider that I may not be Hitler, then you would further benefit from understanding my side of an issue.  I know you are not in favor of your own ignorance.  You will be less ignorant if you understand my side of the issue.

And you will sharpen your reasoning and debating skills.  As it is, your only weapons often seem to be ad hominem, straw man, appeal to authority, and petulance.  Know that, listening to you, it certainly appears that your reasoning and debating skills are detoriating, due to lack of use.  Use it or lose it! Your reasoning ability is getting dull.  Your demonization of me, and your knee jerk flinging of ad hominem is not serving you well.  

And, that's it.  I certainly could've tip toed around my opinions in more careful fashion ... but what fun would that have been?  Let the temper-tantrums and the snark begin, if you are so inclined.  I hope you have found some value in this, if you have read or skimmed this far.

I (very) occasionally tune in and get a laugh by listening to Rush, but usually I can't deal with more than about 5 minutes of him. He is a good showman, but he never allows anyone to challenge his beliefs. He just pounds his POV into the heads of his listeners. It's a not very thoughtful presentation.

That's pretty much the case with Hannity, O'Reilly, Ingraham, all the rest from my experience. They all demonize the opposition, calling Democrats traitors and all that bullshit.

You can tell you are debating with a committed Rush listener because they get red-faced and angry when you discuss politics with them. They can't accept that people who disagree with them have anything but impure motives. On the rare occasion that they do have someone with a contrary opinion on the program, they basically just berate the person and call them an idiot. I have a friend who was a phone-in "guest" on Laura Ingraham's show. My buddy is an advocate on behalf of undocumented immigrants and he was trying in good faith to present the pro-immigrant point of view and explain some of the benefits that legal and illegal immigrants contribute to the economy, backed up with facts. Ingraham basically shouted him down and wouldn't let him explain his position. Independent thought is strictly prohibited, and I just can't see the appeal of it. Also, the freaking commercial break every 2 minutes also kills me.

At the risk of sounding like an ass:

Read a book!

It's just, people are so accustomed to the liberal bias in media. For example, this whole absolutely ridiculous Obama atrocity/blowjob fest isn't even really noticed for the total puppetry it is by the averager person.

Well, it's the same way CNN doesn't have a mainstream reputation for being liberal, even though it's twice as liberal as Fox is conservative. But of course Fox is constantly attacked and villified for daring to go against the grain a little bit.