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

[my2¢]

I'd consider 13 million for the 7th debate as very good making me very hopeful of the Republicans chances this fall. .

 

[Rexx Taylor]

maybe the other 12 million needed to go to K mart?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I had it wrong, 11 million fewer viewers

11 million fewer than when?

 

[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.

I had it wrong, 11 million fewer viewers

11 million fewer than when?

I believe that number is the difference between the two Fox debates. Inasmuch as Fox's own site describes yesterday's as their second-largest audience ever, the other debate would have to be the largest, which would also be the one that started Rump whining about mean ol' Megyn last --- August, was it?

Of course, that number expressed as a "drop" makes the giant-leap ass-umption that the audience number for yesterday's event should exactly match those of the earlier event, all factors being equal, and that therefore with the Rump factor becoming a variable, that means Rump is worth 11 million. Which is very very specious reasoning, based on a specious premise.

 

[OKTexas]

Now as Paul Harvey would say, and now for the rest of the story.

Thursday’s debate, held four days before Monday’s Iowa caucuses, drew 12.5 million viewers, slightly more than the 11 million that tuned into the GOP debate two weeks ago from North Charleston, S.C. Those were the lowest of the campaign season and continue a general downward trend for the Republican contests. An Oct. 28 GOP debate on CNBC drew 14 million viewers, a Nov. 10 throwdown on Fox Business Network scored 13.5 million, and 11 million tuned into the Jan. 14 gathering on the same network.
Thursday’s viewership was way down from the 25 million people who watched the first debate in August — that first sparring session was the most-watched nonsports program in cable news history. Overall, ratings for prime-time Republican debates — fueled by Trump’s popularity and unpredictability — have been three to four times higher than they were in 2011.
While Thursday’s ratings were lower, the debate far outdrew coverage of the event Trump held a few miles away at the same time in Des Moines. He scheduled the benefit for veterans charities, which he said raised $6 million, in an attempt to counterprogram the debate and recapture the media spotlight after refusing to participate in the debate because of a tiff with Fox.
Trump counterprogramming failed, as CNN and MSNBC, the two cable networks that carried large swaths of his rally live, together drew only 2.7 million viewers.

So this debate drew about 1.5 million more than the last one where Trump was present. The only one that drew really big numbers was the first debate in August.

Ratings for Trump-less GOP debate lower, but top Trump vets event

 

[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.

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?

You just agreed with Rubio that our current military can't defeat ISIS. You are as retarded as he is.

 

[jasonnfree]

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!

No one wants to watch Rinos put on a fake debate...
Lol

I love how the fake conservative Tea Partiers are doing the best to get Moderate GOP to vote for a Moderate Dem Hillary...

The Moderate fiscal Conservatives are now closer on more issues with Hillary than they are with Trump... Clintons have a history of balancing budgets while Trump is proposing big expensive wars and a wall which will even do what it is intended too... Trump is also going to blanket ban 1/5 of the world from entering the country(how he is going to identify muslims?), this is going to severely affect business...
Trump is Spend Spend Spend....

Hillary will just say did you like under Bill welcome to Clinton II.

Na, not really

Those Fiscal Conservatives (Real Conservatives) will engage later and they will see Trump's little fascist government plan... Also the tapes are going all over Europe of Trumps rants and his vindictive behaviour.. This boy vindictive and a bully... He loves nothing more than harassing the little guy..

Fascism = Wanting to be selective about who enters our country. Got it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thats your problem right there... You think that this a TV ratings competition...

Trump is reality tv, people tune into him for the same reason people was Honey Boo Boo...

Talking about actually policies around the Economy and Healthcare is never going to be as popular as picking a demographic and telling you that they are the reason things aren't right...

So, you are saying Trump = Hitler?

Hitler Lite. Like American beer compared to German beer.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I had it wrong, 11 million fewer viewers

11 million fewer than when?

I believe that number is the difference between the two Fox debates. Inasmuch as Fox's own site describes yesterday's as their second-largest audience ever, the other debate would have to be the largest, which would also be the one that started Rump whining about mean ol' Megyn last --- August, was it?

Of course, that number expressed as a "drop" makes the giant-leap ass-umption that the audience number for yesterday's event should exactly match those of the earlier event, all factors being equal, and that therefore with the Rump factor becoming a variable, that means Rump is worth 11 million. Which is very very specious reasoning, based on a specious premise.

The first debate in Aug drew a huge number of lookie loos, every debate since was down a minimum of 10 million from the first one when the Donald was still a mystery. This one did pretty well considering it was the 7th for the GOP.

 

[Pogo]

Now as Paul Harvey would say, and now for the rest of the story.

Thursday’s debate, held four days before Monday’s Iowa caucuses, drew 12.5 million viewers, slightly more than the 11 million that tuned into the GOP debate two weeks ago from North Charleston, S.C. Those were the lowest of the campaign season and continue a general downward trend for the Republican contests. An Oct. 28 GOP debate on CNBC drew 14 million viewers, a Nov. 10 throwdown on Fox Business Network scored 13.5 million, and 11 million tuned into the Jan. 14 gathering on the same network.
Thursday’s viewership was way down from the 25 million people who watched the first debate in August — that first sparring session was the most-watched nonsports program in cable news history. Overall, ratings for prime-time Republican debates — fueled by Trump’s popularity and unpredictability — have been three to four times higher than they were in 2011.
While Thursday’s ratings were lower, the debate far outdrew coverage of the event Trump held a few miles away at the same time in Des Moines. He scheduled the benefit for veterans charities, which he said raised $6 million, in an attempt to counterprogram the debate and recapture the media spotlight after refusing to participate in the debate because of a tiff with Fox.
Trump counterprogramming failed, as CNN and MSNBC, the two cable networks that carried large swaths of his rally live, together drew only 2.7 million viewers.

So this debate drew about 1.5 million more that the last one where Trump was present. The only one that drew really big numbers was the first debate in August.

Ratings for Trump-less GOP debate lower, but top Trump vets event

That's much clearer. I knew it had something to do with comparing two different Fox debates, and what I read was the CNN spin page Cereal_Killer put in is thread, where they were trying to make the case that "well we really didn't 'lose' '".

In reality the point I keep making is that ratings don't apply to a debate anyway, since it's not part of a competition like normal programming is. Some o' these guys are stuck on the idea of quantifying everything in terms of money. Rump of course is one of those guys.

 

[OKTexas]

Now as Paul Harvey would say, and now for the rest of the story.

Thursday’s debate, held four days before Monday’s Iowa caucuses, drew 12.5 million viewers, slightly more than the 11 million that tuned into the GOP debate two weeks ago from North Charleston, S.C. Those were the lowest of the campaign season and continue a general downward trend for the Republican contests. An Oct. 28 GOP debate on CNBC drew 14 million viewers, a Nov. 10 throwdown on Fox Business Network scored 13.5 million, and 11 million tuned into the Jan. 14 gathering on the same network.
Thursday’s viewership was way down from the 25 million people who watched the first debate in August — that first sparring session was the most-watched nonsports program in cable news history. Overall, ratings for prime-time Republican debates — fueled by Trump’s popularity and unpredictability — have been three to four times higher than they were in 2011.
While Thursday’s ratings were lower, the debate far outdrew coverage of the event Trump held a few miles away at the same time in Des Moines. He scheduled the benefit for veterans charities, which he said raised $6 million, in an attempt to counterprogram the debate and recapture the media spotlight after refusing to participate in the debate because of a tiff with Fox.
Trump counterprogramming failed, as CNN and MSNBC, the two cable networks that carried large swaths of his rally live, together drew only 2.7 million viewers.

So this debate drew about 1.5 million more that the last one where Trump was present. The only one that drew really big numbers was the first debate in August.

Ratings for Trump-less GOP debate lower, but top Trump vets event

That's much clearer. I knew it had something to do with comparing two different Fox debates, and what I read was the CNN spin page Cereal_Killer put in is thread, where they were trying to make the case that "well we really didn't 'lose' '".

In reality the point I keep making is that ratings don't apply to a debate anyway, since it's not part of a competition like normal programming is. Some o' these guys are stuck on the idea of quantifying everything in terms of money. Rump of course is one of those guys.

Yep, what the OP didn't bother to say is there have been a total of 4 debates put on by the Fox networks, this one compared pretty well with 2 of the other 3.

 

[candycorn]

Obviously the next debate should have face paiting, rides, funnel cakes and let the clowns err, I mean candidates tie balloon animals to amuse their supporters...after all that is what the GOP primary season is now about...

 

[Dot Com]

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!

I wouldn't be doing your end zone dance yet Jackson

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

I tried watching CNN but they kept talking over it. I don't want to hear the reporters talking so I turned it off and got a direct stream. Posted the link for direct stream on several Trump pages and web sites so everyone would know where to get it. Those streaming weren't counted.

 

[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!

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.

I tried watching CNN but they kept talking over it. I don't want to hear the reporters talking so I turned it off and got a direct stream. Posted the link for direct stream on several Trump pages and web sites so everyone would know where to get it. Those streaming weren't counted.

Those streaming the debate wouldn't be counted either.
Whatever.

 

[regent]

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!

Yep as soon as I heard Trump was bypassing the debate I didn't watch. I only watch to see Trump use his ego to make an ass of himself. His pouty faces are a bonus.

 

[Lakhota]

Thats your problem right there... You think that this a TV ratings competition...

Trump is reality tv, people tune into him for the same reason people was Honey Boo Boo...

Talking about actually policies around the Economy and Healthcare is never going to be as popular as picking a demographic and telling you that they are the reason things aren't right...

So, you are saying Trump = Hitler?

The propaganda tactics he is using comes straight from Gobbles.

First tell every that things are real bad... Then find a group or groups at fault (Hitler:Jews, non-Whites) (Trump: Mexicans, Muslims). Then attack them by saying you are the only one to sort them out...

Hitler told loads of lies about these people and also bolstered himself with BS... Guess what:
View attachment 61555

Now he relies on people like to no question anything.. He will feed your fears and claim he is the only one who can solve them... This is a pretty old playbook and relies on the electorate being misinformed...

Putin does the same trick in Russia...

But the big thing is he needs guys like JAckson here to be too afraid of Muslims & Mexicans to actually question anything.

There is plenty of examples of him being abusive and a bully.

We need a Fuhrer in these turbulent times to deal with the Mexicans and Muslims who want to kill us. Trump, a white nationalist, is that man, and White America will make it so, especially the silent majority.

In other words - we need Saddam Hussein - like Iraq needed...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Look at the troll digging up old threads. Fucking losers

 

[sarahgop]

Thats your problem right there... You think that this a TV ratings competition...

Trump is reality tv, people tune into him for the same reason people was Honey Boo Boo...

Talking about actually policies around the Economy and Healthcare is never going to be as popular as picking a demographic and telling you that they are the reason things aren't right...

So, you are saying Trump = Hitler?

seems to me clinton=hitler as she supports importing jew hating muslims into the country without any way to know who they are. She also supports the communist agitator animals killing cops.

 

[sarahgop]

The question i ask is how many people are trump supporters murdering compared to how many people clinton supporters are murdering? vote for adolph clinton and you vote for cop killing animals running the country.