GOP debate second highest rated show in FOX News history

by FoxNews.com  |  published on January 29, 2016

Thursday night’s Republican presidential debate on FOX News Channel scored 12.5 million viewers, making it the second-highest rated telecast in the network’s history.

The debate topped all television shows — including broadcast programs — on Thursday night in total viewers. It also pulled in 3.5 million viewers in the advertiser-friendly demo of adults aged 25-54, according to Early Nielsen Research.

The debate beat CNN and MSNBC combined in both total viewers and the 25-54 demo. Those networks aired segments of a Donald Trump rally, which was scheduled after the GOP contender withdrew from the Fox News debate.

  • Robert Early

    If you really believe these ratings figures, then your IQ must be below 50. You are just like those who believe poll numbers.
    I have a close friends who works for a Fox Affiliate; and he said they were definitely hurt. Fox is now trying to put a smile on their misery.

    • Dave N.

      Nielsen Research rates all of the channels so if you are saying this information is bogus, then none of the ratings are of any value and everything is just one big conspiracy.

      • Robert Early

        What I’m saying, Dave, is a huge power struggle is on and mega-bucks are involved; worse than any other time in America’s political history. So, be extra careful about what you believe. Be skeptical about all number crunching sources of info. In other words, in more normal times, Nielsen might indeed be a trusted source. However, in today’s corrupt political environment, the actions of individuals and institutions are questionable (not necessarily bogus). As normal human beings, you and I tend to most believe what we personally have observ ed. I have an on-line network of 40 professionals I communicate with on a regular basis. Only one of these watched the debate. These are my ratings.

        • Robert Early

          Are my ratings to be held as true universally. Of course not. But perhaps you can understand why I can’t easily trust the Nielsen ratings.

        • bobnstuff

          Nielsen is the Bible in the media buying world. There is no way they would use bogus numbers for anyone. It would be suicide. Their business is based on trust and any, and I mean any sign that they violated that trust would destroy them. Nielsen sells facts and they do not profit in any way by lying. I have twenty friend and non of them will watch the Super Bowl this year because the Steelers aren’t playing so the Super Bowls being the top rated show must be a lie.

          • Robert Early

            Well, obviously Bob, you are a believer. I sincerely wish you well.

          • bobnstuff

            I owned an advertising agency and work in the media. Nielsen has no dog in this fight, nothing to gain and everything to loss. Unlike conservatives, the people that pay Nielsen want the truth, good or bad but always the truth. Nielsen is held to very high standards because one or two points in a rating can equal millions of dollars.

          • Robert Early

            Thanks Bob.
            Perhaps you can tell me how many of those 12.5 million viewers were actually curious Democrats?? Did Nielsen dig that deep? I only know for certain that few of my GOP friends were watching.
            My Son is a long time contract “Branding” Pro for several ad agencies. Perhaps you understand that far better than I.
            Your faith in Nielsen is admirable. I can’t even trust the Pope. Just count it all as my problem. Okay?

          • bobnstuff

            Overnight is just raw numbers. They don’t track party under normal data even in the book. I would trust Nielsen before the Poe. Your son has a good job if he can handle the clients but be nice to him because he puts up with a lot of stupid people. I ran a small agency so I had to do it all. I also work for a Radio Station, WIXZ. This is the station Rush started at. He didn’t go by that name back then and he was a Rock n Roll DJ. He had moved on to KQV by the time I got there. I should think that Democrats were watching, in some states they can vote either party in the primary and the republican candidate was on that stage.

        • Dave N.

          I watched the debate and so did most of my friends and family. That being said I’m always skeptical about anything put out for public consumption and these or any other numbers are always a bit suspect. But in this case there aren’t any other numbers to use so we got what we got. Going with a complete guess based on feelings as individuals would provide nothing of value.

          • bobnstuff

            The Nielsen numbers aren’t really meant for the public, they are industry numbers used in buying advertising and determining advertising rates. The Book is the bible in the industry. When the Book comes out it breaks down to sub groups so you can target your market. There are some other rating services but they don’t do overnights and are aimed at local stations. I don’t know why people wouldn’t watch the debate without Mr. Trump. He my be leading but the race is really just getting ready to start. He doesn’t have it sewn up by a long shot. Also what else was there really to watch for the political junkie.

          • Dave N.

            I fit into the news and political junkie group. Clearly I spend too much time following up on news in general. You can take any given news item and get a different story from virtually every source, sometimes its hard to find the truth. Biggest problem is there is way too much opinion out there even in the hard news. I would prefer they would just publish the facts and I’ll decide what I think.

          • bobnstuff

            I also waste way to much time chasing down facts. For every bit of reliable information I unearth I get fifty pieces of junk. The main stream media is mostly fillers just taking up airtime. The twenty four hour news cycle gives then to much airtime to fill so you get talking heads trying to tell you what to think. The internet is full of want to be news outlets that are very weak on facts. One of the things that bother me is the lack of historical knowledge. You see stories of people jumping up and down about something that one person or another has done as if it was new or different and then when you check the history you find that it’s just business as usual or worse the fact say that things are better now then in the past. One such fact is that there are less police officers dying in the line of duty now then in the past. Who know? If you believe the media and the cover of the abortion issue you would think abortions were on the rise but it’s the opposite, they are going down and the rate is less where Planed Parenthood has offices then where they don’t. We hear for the biggest mouths not the wisest brains. Give me hard facts and sound numbers, that’s all I ask for.

          • Robert Early

            Interesting Dave. I think you and I would agree far more than disagree. About 25 years ago, I began an experiment of sorts. Since retirement, I am a struggling
            writer. As such, I keep a detailed daily journal. Some decisions I’ve teached by pure (purish) reasoning and logic. Other decisions were based on little more than feeling or sensitivity. Logic proved me correct about 60% of the time. On the other hand, my feelings were substantiated about 90% of the time. Perhaps guesses based on feelings have little value to you; but they have proven to be of great value to me.

  • Kenneth Bednar

    Did Trump keep the money collected where he could keep an eye on it? BUSTED: Donald Trump’s Veterans’ Funds Went Straight To His Foundation. http://reverbpress.com/politics/busted-donald-trumps-veterans-funds-went-straight-to-his-foundation/ Was it because of the scandal with the wounded warrior project? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/26/wounded-warriors-project-under-fire.html At least with Trump elsewhere the other candidates were not bullied or spoken over by Trump. The video clips FOX edited were incomplete in details so Megyn Kelly had to run an interview with Cruz to find out he hand put a “Poison Pill” amendment in the bill to keep illegals from obtaining citizenship.Cruz’s amendment — which called for stripping out a pathway to citizenship, but keeping a path for legalization — would have done precisely that.
    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/ted-cruz-immigration-record-216919#ixzz3yk2YtbTd

    • Robert Early

      Friend,
      There was no collection of $6M cash ar the rally. It was mainly in pledges. The only money in Trump’s account is the million he pledged.
      Also be cautious of Politico. It is one big lie machine.

      • Kenneth Bednar

        Typical lie by omission. What some would ca a half truth. But still a shady deal. And very dishonest to not disclose the full facts.

  • Dave N.

    It would appear Trump didn’t provide the bump in ratings he thought, running a veteran’s fund raiser in opposition to the Fox Debate didn’t seem to hurt Fox either. Maybe he’s already peeked and no one realized it until the numbers were in. Glad he did the fund raiser regardless of all the rhetoric, vet’s need every break they can get.

Google Analytics Alternative