Overnight ratings indicate CNN debate a ratings winner

[WI_DEM]

The Democratic presidential debate on CNN appears to have set a ratings record for the party, according to preliminary figures.

An average of 11 percent of U.S. households with TVs tuned into the primetime debate Tuesday night in Las Vegas, CNN reported based on initial Nielsen ratings.

The previous record for a Democratic presidential debate was in 2008, when about 8 percent of households tuned in to see Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama face off on ABC.

In addition to TV viewers, CNN reported seeing another 980,000 concurrent live streams of the debate Tuesday. The network's GOP debate saw 921,000 live streams at its peak.


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/256886-cnn-debate-sets-democratic-record

[hrmjustin]

1. Glad to see it got high ratings.

People saw adults debating.

[virtualobserver]

2. considering that the previous record was in 2008, the actual election year...it is especially....

impressive.


Couldn't match the ratings of the debates of the circus clowns, though.

That is sad.

[Robbins]

3. Good news for bernie

higher perchange who watch better for him.

and then goes the memo people aren't intrested in Democratic debate with no trump show.

[beac]

4. Great news! Thanks for the link.

Wonder what Trump thinks about being the "LOSER" in live streaming numbers?

[workinclasszero]

5. Good job Democrats!

[askew]

6. This shows there is interest in more debates.

If only Debbie would stop being a biased jackass and let Dems debate, we could change the narrative of the race.

[PatSeg]

8. She is really pissing off

a lot of people. At this time in 2007 there had already been nine debates.

[askew]

11. Yep the media treats it as a joke.

But in article after article with voters they are pissed off and want more debates. Not having them hurts the party and hurts Hillary b/c she is reason we don't have more.

[PatSeg]

12. John Heilemann

interviewed the co-chairs and they all refuted Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's version of what happened with Tulsi Gabbard. Pretty much they are calling her a liar. I guess she must be hoping for a really good spot in a Clinton White House, because she's lost her credibility with pretty much everyone.

<Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz did not consult with other committee officials before deciding to the limit the number of primary debates, Bloomberg Politics managing editor John Heilmann reported Wednesday.

His reporting confirms what DNC vice chair Tulsi Gabbard has been saying for the last several days and contradicts Wasserman Schultz’s long-standing claim.

Heilemann, appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Wednesday, also said it is true that Wasserman Schultz disinvited Gabbard after she publicly protested the debate limit.

“Tulsi Gabbard is telling the truth … as far as I can tell,” Heilemann said. “I mean, the difference between what the chairwoman Wasserman Schultz is saying and what Tulsi Gabbard are saying about the disinvitation is just a matter of semantics. It’s clear that Rep. Wasserman Schultz’s chief of staff called up and basically said if Rep. Gabbard wants to keep talking about there needing to be more debates, maybe she should reconsider going to the debate in Las Vegas.”>



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/14/heilemann-dnc-chair-is-lying-about-consulting-with-vice-chairs-on-number-of-debates-video/#ixzz3oahD7m9X

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/14/heilemann-dnc-chair-is-lying-about-consulting-with-vice-chairs-on-number-of-debates-video/

[Gothmog]

7. This is great news

[StevieM]

9. It's impressive that they beat the 2008 debate by so much, given that the other one was on network

television. That generally garners higher ratings.

[procon]

10. Remember to quote these numbers next time your loudmouthed

Teabagger brother in law starts braying about how conservatives are soooo much more enthusiastic than Democrats.

[GummyBearz]

13. Please don't

The democratic debate ratings beat previous DEMOCRATIC debates. The REPUBLICAN debates ratings are still higher. So your teabagger brother in law will easily beat you in that argument, using the facts cited in the OP's link.