Fox Goes from 24 Million viewers to 13 million even though the election is closer in time

[candycorn]

Cartoon network enjoyed the bump in ratings tho!

Are you saying all conservatives would rather watch cartoons than politics?

Apparently that's what your OP is saying, innit?

I didn't know presidential primary debates were supposed to be like watching Olympus has Fallen.

 

[candycorn]

I was busy watching Top Chef. lol

Is that Marcel character still on there?

 

[NYcarbineer]

One would think more people are going to pay attention to the election now that the primaries are coming up. But something happened to FOX NEtwork. They got almost half of the viewers than before? What happened?
Oh, let me guess. The popular candidate wasn't there. Boom! Fox got had!

Thanks for the link dumbass.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I popped in on the debate just long enough to hear Rubio say this:

"Today, we are on pace to have the smallest Army since the end of World War II, the smallest Navy in 100 years, the smallest Air Force in our history. You cannot destroy ISIS with a military that's being diminished."

In other words Rubio doesn't think we have enough military to defeat ISIS.

He's insane, and a menace. He must not be elected.

 

[KingOfCars]

The only person that captivated my attention last night was Rand Paul. The rest, meh. Too bad he's un-electable.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I popped in on the debate just long enough to hear Rubio say this:

"Today, we are on pace to have the smallest Army since the end of World War II, the smallest Navy in 100 years, the smallest Air Force in our history. You cannot destroy ISIS with a military that's being diminished."

In other words Rubio doesn't think we have enough military to defeat ISIS.

He's insane, and a menace. He must not be elected.

So, like Obama, you think the key to defeating ISIS is to give them visas and enrol them in bomb making classes in the major cities?

 

[SwimExpert]

One would think more people are going to pay attention to the election now that the primaries are coming up

And why would you think that? After so many debates, most people have a clear idea who they prefer. They have a clear idea about what each candidate represents. As a result, interest is declining.

 

[defcon4]

I was busy watching Top Chef. lol

Hey baby, what do you think of the guy on "Movable Feasts?"

 

[g5000]

One would think more people are going to pay attention to the election now that the primaries are coming up. But something happened to FOX NEtwork. They got almost half of the viewers than before? What happened?
Oh, let me guess. The popular candidate wasn't there. Boom! Fox got had!

Trump only had two and a half million viewers, and that is adding BOTH networks which aired it.

The Fox debate had the second highest viewership of the season.

So I guess we know who got had.

 

[JoeMoma]

Cartoon network enjoyed the bump in ratings tho!

Are you saying all conservatives would rather watch cartoons than politics?

Only the ones who think ratings are more important than facts. And their little dogs, too.

Well, all the candidates running for president like to brag if they draw a large crowd for an event because hopefully large crowds correlates to large (winning) vote counts.
Being responsible for high ratings for a TV event is similar to drawing a large crowd to attend an event in person. I sure Hillary would be crowing about filling up a stadium with a hundred thousand people if she were to do that. Well, Trump is going to brag if he is responsible for 12 million viewers when it comes to the ratings.

 

[Pogo]

One would think more people are going to pay attention to the election now that the primaries are coming up. But something happened to FOX NEtwork. They got almost half of the viewers than before? What happened?
Oh, let me guess. The popular candidate wasn't there. Boom! Fox got had!

Bullshit. That's not what ratings mean unless what you're broadcasting is a circus.

Ratings are for the purpose of selling things. They do not apply to a public service broadcast like a political debate. They have no function there. None.

Well, yes it did. Apparently 9,000,000 fewer viewers saw what the GOP has to offer.

For a morally bankrupt republican battleaxe to be cheering it is something straight out of Crazy koo-koo land.

Worshiping a messiah makes people do strange things.

If that 9 million represent the Rumpbots (an extremely shaky theory, but if) .... then the end result would be merely a migration of muddled minds who weren't watching for the issues in the first place, so --- nothing ventured, nothing gained.

The positive would be that the remaining players in the debate get more time to chew on actual nuts-and-bolts issues without dealing with blusterfluff noise. Whether they take that opportunity is another question but at least it's potential.

I would have liked to see them put an empty chair up there and fire questions at it, but that would have been taking it back to an entertainment show.

 

[Pogo]

Cartoon network enjoyed the bump in ratings tho!

Are you saying all conservatives would rather watch cartoons than politics?

Apparently that's what your OP is saying, innit?

I didn't know presidential primary debates were supposed to be like watching Olympus has Fallen.

I have no idea what that is.

 

[mdk]

I was busy watching Top Chef. lol

Is that Marcel character still on there?

No. He looks like Eddie Munster. lol

 

[mdk]

I was busy watching Top Chef. lol

Hey baby, what do you think of the guy on "Movable Feasts?"

Too white bread. lol

 

[Pogo]

Cartoon network enjoyed the bump in ratings tho!

Are you saying all conservatives would rather watch cartoons than politics?

Only the ones who think ratings are more important than facts. And their little dogs, too.

Well, all the candidates running for president like to brag if they draw a large crowd for an event because hopefully large crowds correlates to large (winning) vote counts.
Being responsible for high ratings for a TV event is similar to drawing a large crowd to attend an event in person. I sure Hillary would be crowing about filling up a stadium with a hundred thousand people if she were to do that. Well, Trump is going to brag if he is responsible for 12 million viewers when it comes to the ratings.

And of course the crucial question Rump will never ever attach to that is the psychology of WHY they're watching.

People will be drawn to watch fires, floods, terrorist attacks, naked people left on an island to fend for themselves or a tractor trailer jackknifed on the road they're driving; none of that means the "agree" with any of it.

In other words --- all that attention doesn't necessarily translate into votes. Voting and watching are two different things.

 

[Arianrhod]

Cartoon network enjoyed the bump in ratings tho!

Are you saying all conservatives would rather watch cartoons than politics?

Only the ones who think ratings are more important than facts. And their little dogs, too.

Well, all the candidates running for president like to brag if they draw a large crowd for an event because hopefully large crowds correlates to large (winning) vote counts.
Being responsible for high ratings for a TV event is similar to drawing a large crowd to attend an event in person. I sure Hillary would be crowing about filling up a stadium with a hundred thousand people if she were to do that. Well, Trump is going to brag if he is responsible for 12 million viewers when it comes to the ratings.

Sitting on your ass in front of the TV is the same as driving x-number of miles in all weathers and standing on line for x-hours in order to hear a candidate speak in person? Wow, who knew?

No need to attend any public event in person, then.

 

[blackhawk]

No one has denied Trump can draw a crowd and bring in ratings of course in 2008 Barak Obama drew big crowds and brought in ratings as well something to think about.

 

[Jackson]

Cartoon network enjoyed the bump in ratings tho!

Are you saying all conservatives would rather watch cartoons than politics?

Only the ones who think ratings are more important than facts. And their little dogs, too.

Well, all the candidates running for president like to brag if they draw a large crowd for an event because hopefully large crowds correlates to large (winning) vote counts.
Being responsible for high ratings for a TV event is similar to drawing a large crowd to attend an event in person. I sure Hillary would be crowing about filling up a stadium with a hundred thousand people if she were to do that. Well, Trump is going to brag if he is responsible for 12 million viewers when it comes to the ratings.

And of course the crucial question Rump will never ever attach to that is the psychology of WHY they're watching.

People will be drawn to watch fires, floods, terrorist attacks, naked people left on an island to fend for themselves or a tractor trailer jackknifed on the road they're driving; none of that means the "agree" with any of it.

In other words --- all that attention doesn't necessarily translate into votes. Voting and watching are two different things.

Another thread, answers that. Labor Leaders Fear Trump May Draw Large Numbers of Union Voters

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Trumps says what people are thinking.[/FONT]

 

[JoeMoma]

No one has denied Trump can draw a crowd and bring in ratings of course in 2008 Barak Obama drew big crowds and brought in ratings as well something to think about.

And he won two presidential elections.

 

[Arianrhod]

No one has denied Trump can draw a crowd and bring in ratings of course in 2008 Barak Obama drew big crowds and brought in ratings as well something to think about.

Trump also paid actors to fill seats at his first rally in NYC. I'm sure other candidates have done this as well, but not as clumsily as Trump.

Then there was his falling for the "Saudi Prince Owns 50% of FOX" prank.