BREAKING: MOST WATCHED DEBATE IN CABLE NEWS HISTORY

[itsrobert]

Tuesday Jan 22, 2008
Dems on CNN: Most Watched Primary Debate in Cable News History
Last night's Democratic Debate in South Carolina on CNN (from 8pm-10:05pmET) was the No. 1 most-watched primary debate in cable news history among total viewers and all key demos.

The debate averaged 4.9 million Total Viewers and nearly 2 million in A25-54. This is according to Nielsen Fast Nationals (Live + SD).

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/dems_on_cnn_most_watched_primary_debate_in_cable_news_history_75518.asp

[DS1]

1. If it breaks any harder it might snap in two!

:scared:



/hates that phrase

[water]

2. Impressive, and Edwards did the best, in my opinion. :)

[THUNDER HANDS]

3. i totally forgot that Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles was on

I'm upset now. But I'm still glad I caught the debate. It was one for the ages.

[robbedvoter]

4. Faux always starts some new series when a debates go on - it'll be canceled

before you get to regret missing it.

[THUNDER HANDS]

10. it's a good show

it really is, if you like action/sci-fi

[NJSecularist]

5. Wow. The population of South Carolina is 4.3 million

That's amazing. I'm not saying that every person in South Carolina watched the debate last night, but you would have to say a good majority of SC democrats and independents watched it.

[Yael]

6. Good to hear!

[Seabiscuit]

7. Now that the U.S. is sliding into a bad recession and it hits people personally

I think that people are starting to wake up and pay attention to this election and our candidates. I hope that's the case. Its also good to see a high number in debate viewership.

[HughMoran]

8. It was a good one too

Well worth the effort IMHO.

[Meshuga]

9. Shit, with all the drama the debates are going to be a hit

The debates are as brutal as the reality shows with all the backstabbing and fights.

They should play the re-runs on the Reality TV network

[pauldg0]

11. Is there a statistic on how many viewers watched in

....south carolina?

Edwards 08

[Thrill]

12. Good because if Obama or Edwards don't win the nomination

I'm voting Independent. This debate should sway things in their direction

[Triana]

26. Never underestimate the stupidity, obliviousness, and ignorance of 'Merican...

...voters though.

You've been warned. I think they're about to make yet another monumental blunder unto themselves.

Too bad the rest of us have to live (or die) with it every time they do that.

Ugh.

[Unsane]

13. Bad news for Hillary....

[William769]

14. Thats great since two of the candidates were playing to America

And not just South Carolina.

[ClassWarrior]

15. Good. I'm glad my candidate was on his best behavior.

:evilgrin:

NGU.

[OneGrassRoot]

16. The focus groups after both the Nevada and SC debates...

said they felt JRE won and they liked him, but they wouldn't necessarily vote for him because they weren't confident he was electable in the General Election.

For the average person who gets most information from MSM and doesn't research issues and candidates to the degree most of us here do, I don't blame them for thinking that.

Months before primaries began, we only heard about Clinton and Obama. A snarky remark on shows (newsy and otherwise) about Dennis and UFOs here and there, but that's about it.

Then Iowa came, and Edwards came in second, and people STILL only heard the vast, vast majority of media talk and print being about Clinton and Obama.

The storyline was set long ago that this race is between Clinton and Obama.

I wish people could understand they DO indeed have a choice. I truly don't say this in a condescending way, but I believe the average viewer assumes that the "news" people know more than they do about politics, so if they are saying it's a race between Clinton and Obama (which we've been hearing for months), there must be a good reason. I used to think that way long ago, before the Internet and before seeing how corrupt the media had become.

Therefore, they'll go along with what the "news" people are saying even if someone else did really well in the debates, spoke to their issues and resonated with them.

[AdHocSolver]

20. The Democrats anointed Kerry the nominee in 2004 because he was "electable"...

and that politically savvy logic got us four more years of George Bush.

Why do people think that if they like a candidate, the rest of the country won't like him, so they have to vote for whom they BELIEVE is the more electable candidate (based on media spin), rather than who is the BEST candidate.

Why not assume that if you like Edwards, other people will like him as much as you do?

On the other hand, why do Clinton supporters think that she is so electable considering the large animosity towards Hillary by a sizable part of the electorate?

Part of the problem is that rank and file party members think that only Republicans pull "dirty tricks" on Democrats, but that Democrats don't pull dirty tricks in primaries.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We supported Howard Dean in 2004. A relative went to Iowa to work on the Dean campaign in the primary. She came home totally disillusioned by the dirty tricks pulled on Dean by the campaigns of other Democratic candidates.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are each supported by factions of insiders in the Democratic party. Neither of these factions is progressive. Neither of these candidates is truly progressive.

John Edwards is the only prgressive with a populist message that can resonate with independents and moderate Republicans, as well as a large segment of Democrats. Clinton is corporate and Obama is progressive-lite. They would both be eaten alive by the Republican party.

The only electable Democrat in a GENERAL election is John Edwards. The only "electable" Democrat who will fight for progressive causes is John Edwards. Edwards had to convince juries consisting of "ordinary" Americans to decide in his client's favor against some of the toughest corporate lawyers, and he won. Edwards got his Senate seat by campaigning against a conservative Republican incumbent in a "red" state, and he WON.

Only Edwards and Kucinich have talked about the grip that corporate America has on the American economy and foreign policy. The "gentle touch", hands-across-the-table approach to this issue suggested by Obama will bring nothing but laughter and contempt from the corporate world. Clinton is already on board with the corporate agenda, as evidenced by hubby Bill's pushing through NAFTA, media deregulation, MFN status for China, so-called welfare reform, and other corporate friendly policies.

Edwards policies for helping people survive the coming economic crisis and turning the situation around are the only ones that will help. It is not enough just to "win". We have to elect a president who will actually make a difference, and currently John Edwards is the ONLY electable candidate who will actually make a difference.

[knight_of_the_star]

21. Americans are funny that way

According to one of my PolySci teachers American voters are rather odd in that unlike most other electorates they worry as much about winning as about the candidate.

[OneGrassRoot]

23. It is odd to me...the thought process of some. n/t

[OneGrassRoot]

24. For those anti-Edwards people who continue to claim lack of media...

has had no effect on his campaign, I simply couldn't disagree more.

They often say he didn't do well in Iowa even though the voters there had plenty of information on him.

Well, okay, I can accept that.

But just because voters in Iowa may not have been behind him, doesn't mean voters in other states have a clue what his message is, and the MSM keeps the message in check while promoting the storyline they chose long ago. He came in second in Iowa; I really don't care when the pundits and others here say that, based on his strategy, that was a huge blow. The media still should have covered him as though he came in second in Iowa!

Once again, my point isn't really about Edwards (it could apply at any given point in time about any candidate).

My point is that the media has essentially excluded him from coverage, and thus the average voter in states beyond Iowa had a deficit of information about him compared to the other two candidates if they only get their information through MSM.

The other talking point is about Edwards being a known commodity and people know everything they need to know about him based on 2004 and that's why he didn't do well.

I don't accept that one. First of all, most attention spans - especially if the person isn't a political junkie (and very few really are) - are short. Secondly, some people do have the ability to evolve through experience, both personal and professional. Those who support Edwards believe he has evolved tremendously since 2004.

[Stevepol]

25. Kerry won the 04 election by a comfortable margin. He ran a good campaign.

Better not to blame his "electability" as the reason for his defeat. Blame it on Diebold and ES&S primarily.

[oasis]

22. Great news.(eom)

[saltpoint]

17. Didn't know this & appreciate your putting it up for us, itsrobert.

[balantz]

18. Yes, thanks for this news itsrobert!

[Justice Is Comin]

19. Wow that says something.

I don't know exactly what yet. But it sure says something.

[Renew Deal]

28. It says people are interested.

They're starting to pay attention.

[Barack_America]

27. Bad for Hillary + Great for Edwards = Good for Obama!

All of those white voters, unwilling to vote for a black man, probably just remembered why they hate Hillary so much. Yea!

[balantz]

29. Kick

[amandabeech]

30. Does anybody know if this will be replayed?

I was out shopping for a birthday gift for my Mom. It took longer than I had expected.

[balantz]

31. Hi

Here's a youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RtlNQGZrYk

[amandabeech]

32. Thanks. n/t

[Infinite Hope]

33. Bodes well for Obama and especially Edwards, poorly for Clinton. n/t