Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mediabistro)   For perhaps the first time ever, MSNBC actually beat Fox and CNN in viewership for a night   (mediabistro.com) divider line 87
    More: Cool, CNN, MSNBC, Reagan Library, political conventions, DNC  
•       •       •

1009 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Sep 2012 at 11:53 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-06 08:19:45 AM  
Perhaps people are tired of Fox's crap, for once.
 
2012-09-06 08:45:08 AM  
This is the first political convention night and first head-to-head programming win for the network since it launched in July, 1995.

Noice!
 
2012-09-06 09:18:49 AM  
Good for them.
 
2012-09-06 09:23:20 AM  
I watched on C-Span (Hell Yeah C-Span) so I can only assume that after Bill Clinton spoke, Wolf Blitzer sat there for five straight minutes with an overwhelmed look on his face, and that Fox had switched to old Dennis Miller shows halfway into Bill's speech.
 
2012-09-06 09:33:38 AM  

BunkoSquad: I watched on C-Span (Hell Yeah C-Span) so I can only assume that after Bill Clinton spoke, Wolf Blitzer sat there for five straight minutes with an overwhelmed look on his face, and that Fox had switched to old Dennis Miller shows halfway into Bill's speech.


You would think Fox would be all "errmagerd, Clinton, blow job, HURRRRRRRR" but they were, for the most part, at a loss to find anything to b-b-b-but Clinton about.
I really think their analysts have accepted an Obama victory in November.
 
2012-09-06 10:02:56 AM  
This does not shock me.
 
2012-09-06 10:10:03 AM  
* MSNBC last won primetime Sept. 7, 2011 when the network aired a GOP primary debate from the Reagan Library. This is the first political convention night and first head-to-head programming win for the network since it launched in July, 1995.

Subby gets partial credit.
 
2012-09-06 10:11:17 AM  
n the 10pm hour, NBC led the way followed by MSNBC, which drew a combined 9.1 million viewers. MSNBC was the only network to grow vs. 2008, with NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and FNC down.

10pm, Sept. 4, 2012. Night one of the DNC:
NBC: 5,021,551 viewers (1,929,345 in A25-54)
MSNBC: 4,106,622 viewers (1,431,929 in A25-54)
CNN: 3,887,789 viewers (1,367,998 in A25-54)
ABC: 3,236,553 viewers (1,142,927 in A25-54)
CBS: 3,268,520 viewers (1,056,844 in A25-54)
FNC: 2,397,710 viewers (550,149 in 25-54)

22 million watched the 10pm hour on the commercial broadcast and cable networks last night. In comparison, night one of the RNC a week ago was watched by 20.5 million, mostly on Fox News Channel, which averaged 5.15 million viewers in primetime.

10pm, Aug. 28, 2012. Night one of the RNC:
FNC: 6,878,804 viewers (1,679,763 in 25-54)
NBC: 4,770,050 viewers (1,725,282 in 25-54)
CBS: 3,118,927 viewers (938,237 in 25-54)
ABC: 2,862,656 viewers (920,346 in 25-54)
CNN: 1,473,885 viewers (413,467 in 25-54
MSNBC: 1,468,348 viewers (411,738 in 25-54)


Very interesting.... other than FNC, which dipped way down from RNC to DNC night 1 coverage... every other network was up RNC to DNC, especially MSNBC.

% of audience that the supposedly "partisan" cable channels had of their own sides convention coverage:
FNC on RNC: 33.5% of the total audience.
MSNBC on DNC: 18.6%

I guess people would say that Fox is the only channel for the RNC, and all of the other channels are liberal leaning for the DNC, so, that is how that would be spun.

But, in general.. more interest in general for the DNC over the RNC on TV... we'll see how that plays out over the next two months. There have been many articles about how the pollsters are basically making the race "tighter" than it really is for the benefit of the news networks.... a race that is essentially as "in the bag" as something like the 1984 or 1996 elections felt is not what those networks want for the month leading into the election.
 
2012-09-06 10:18:01 AM  
At the end of the day it's still shiatty 24 hour news network. People should listen to NPR and watch public television for info, and read the rest on the internets.
 
2012-09-06 10:28:00 AM  

dletter: a race that is essentially as "in the bag" as something like the 1984 or 1996 elections felt is not what those networks want for the month leading into the election.


"In the bag" for who?
 
2012-09-06 10:28:55 AM  

MeinRS6: dletter: a race that is essentially as "in the bag" as something like the 1984 or 1996 elections felt is not what those networks want for the month leading into the election.

"In the bag" for who?


That's funny
 
2012-09-06 11:32:53 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: MeinRS6: dletter: a race that is essentially as "in the bag" as something like the 1984 or 1996 elections felt is not what those networks want for the month leading into the election.

"In the bag" for who?

That's funny


I hate to admit it, but he's right.

I know its a media driven narrative that this is a close race, but the reality is that this race comes down not only to a few states, but a few regions within those few states.

It is only September. Romney has lots and lots of money; way more than the dems. If Obama supporters start kicking back with an "its in the bag" mentality at this point, they are likely going to wake up the day after the election to President Romney.
 
2012-09-06 11:35:44 AM  

BunkoSquad: I watched on C-Span (Hell Yeah C-Span) so I can only assume that after Bill Clinton spoke, Wolf Blitzer sat there for five straight minutes with an overwhelmed look on his face, and that Fox had switched to old Dennis Miller shows halfway into Bill's speech.


Fox put Bill in a split screen and turned down his audio, and in the other screen was a scroll of the people Bill Clinton "personally murdered" read by a crying, behandstanded Victoria Jackson
 
2012-09-06 11:38:05 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Fox put Bill in a split screen and turned down his audio, and in the other screen was a scroll of the people Bill Clinton "personally murdered" read by a crying, behandstanded Victoria Jackson


If she was doing a handstand while she read the list, what was she using to play the ukelele?

Wait, don't answer that. I'd rather not know.
 
2012-09-06 11:52:36 AM  
The MSNBC pundits were beside themselves with glee-and rightfully so. Chris Matthews was even more animated than usual: Between needling a clearly discomfited Michael Steele at every opportunity and feeding off the energy of the crowd,I was afraid he'd keel over in ecstasy.
 
2012-09-06 11:56:16 AM  

BunkoSquad: I watched on C-Span (Hell Yeah C-Span) so I can only assume that after Bill Clinton spoke, Wolf Blitzer sat there for five straight minutes with an overwhelmed look on his face


What like this face?

cache.gawkerassets.com
 
2012-09-06 11:56:28 AM  
CNN is twittarded
 
2012-09-06 11:57:29 AM  
Not me, I listened to David Brooks whine all night on PBS.
 
2012-09-06 11:57:47 AM  
Do you think Fox viewers are interested in viewing/listening to anything that isn't a right-wing opinion piece? That audience wouldn't know what to do with themselves without someone telling them how they should feel about what is being said. Much less even understand most of what is being said...
 
2012-09-06 11:58:01 AM  
Wait, you mean liberals are going to be more apt to watch the Democratic National Convention on their own channel? Like conservatives were more apt to watch the Republican National Convention on their own channel?
 
2012-09-06 11:59:24 AM  

gilgigamesh: Lionel Mandrake: MeinRS6: dletter: a race that is essentially as "in the bag" as something like the 1984 or 1996 elections felt is not what those networks want for the month leading into the election.

"In the bag" for who?

That's funny

I hate to admit it, but he's right.

I know its a media driven narrative that this is a close race, but the reality is that this race comes down not only to a few states, but a few regions within those few states.

It is only September. Romney has lots and lots of money; way more than the dems. If Obama supporters start kicking back with an "its in the bag" mentality at this point, they are likely going to wake up the day after the election to President Romney.


That's even more impressive considering President Romney would normally be sworn in on January 20th. I guess the time machine would get passed along.

/I know what you meant and I agree
//I just like being snarky and pedantic
 
2012-09-06 11:59:42 AM  
That's nothing -wait until November when Obama will beat Romney like a drum for a whole day.
 
2012-09-06 12:00:22 PM  

DarnoKonrad: Not me, I listened to David Brooks whine all night on PBS.


Brooks is why I switched from PBS to MSNBC (though, the latter also has Chris Hayes). David Brooks is truly horrible, both analytically and stylistically. He is the personification of BSABSVR.
 
2012-09-06 12:00:23 PM  

WTF Indeed: Wait, you mean liberals are going to be more apt to watch the Democratic National Convention on their own channel? Like conservatives were more apt to watch the Republican National Convention on their own channel?


I watched the RNC on the liberal channel. What channel were conservatives watching the DNC on?

I guess when you already formed your opinions based on what you imagine your opponent to be there's no point in watching them speak.
 
2012-09-06 12:00:25 PM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: CNN is twittarded


Candy Crowley looked like she needed a nap last night.
 
2012-09-06 12:00:41 PM  
Viewership compared to 2008 is what actually caught my attention...

"Enthusiasm gap" my arse!
 
2012-09-06 12:02:07 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: DarnoKonrad: Not me, I listened to David Brooks whine all night on PBS.

Brooks is why I switched from PBS to MSNBC (though, the latter also has Chris Hayes). David Brooks is truly horrible, both analytically and stylistically. He is the personification of BSABSVR.


I usually like his banter with Sheilds, but last night he was being pretty farking insufferable.
 
2012-09-06 12:04:51 PM  

xsive: Viewership compared to 2008 is what actually caught my attention...

"Enthusiasm gap" my arse!



About 4 million more people watched the first night of the DNC as compared to the RNC.
 
2012-09-06 12:05:15 PM  

CPennypacker: WTF Indeed: Wait, you mean liberals are going to be more apt to watch the Democratic National Convention on their own channel? Like conservatives were more apt to watch the Republican National Convention on their own channel?

I watched the RNC on the liberal channel. What channel were conservatives watching the DNC on?

I guess when you already formed your opinions based on what you imagine your opponent to be there's no point in watching them speak.


Fox News basically beat Clinton's speech into the ground in what I can only assume was a critique based on a speech nega-Clinton gave in another dimension of reality. They had talking points at the ready, talking about Bill's crooked fingers. Stuff like that is really not far off from the type of propaganda certain European factions used in the 1930s to talk about certain ethnic groups. Yes I went there.
 
2012-09-06 12:06:53 PM  
I watched everyone up to Bill Clinton on msnbc and watched Bill Clinton via xbox live.

Don't even try to poll me, suckas.
 
2012-09-06 12:08:23 PM  

DarnoKonrad: xsive: Viewership compared to 2008 is what actually caught my attention...

"Enthusiasm gap" my arse!


About 4 million more people watched the first night of the DNC as compared to the RNC.


yes that was expected, what Im talking about though, is the "he's not got that new car smell anymore" type line that i keep hearing about the 2008 voter's opinion of obama, however if we're seeing more viewership than last year it might not be so true.
 
2012-09-06 12:08:54 PM  

gilgigamesh:
It is only September. Romney has lots and lots of money; way more than the dems. If Obama supporters start kicking back with an "its in the bag" mentality at this point, they are likely going to wake up the day after the election to President Romney.


Confidence begets confidence, and people want to go out and vote for a winner.

Things are looking pretty bad for Romney right now: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/romney-gop-michigan-pennsylv ania-pull-out.php?ref=fpa

He has given up on Pennsylvania and Michigan, he will literally have to win every other swing state to win the election (well maybe there is a scenario where he could lose one of them and still win). Ohio is looking bad for him too, games almost over folks unless they can do some serious turning around.
 
Ehh
2012-09-06 12:09:07 PM  
I flipped channels. I may be libby lib lib, but I still don't really want to hang out with Al Sharpton.
 
2012-09-06 12:10:19 PM  
I liked how FOX had a ticker running the first night repeating how many gay delegates there were.
 
2012-09-06 12:10:49 PM  
I watched it on C-span. They had this smoking hot, chubby little blonde anchorwoman roaming the convention floor talking about fire marshalls and shiat. Was nice.
 
2012-09-06 12:11:14 PM  

CPennypacker: I watched the RNC on the liberal channel. What channel were conservatives watching the DNC on?

I guess when you already formed your opinions based on what you imagine your opponent to be there's no point in watching them speak.


So as a liberal who is interested in politics you choose to watch it on the channel that most reflects your beliefs. Just like I'm sure conservatives interested in politics were more apt to watch the DNC convention on Fox News. It's almost like basic sociology plays are part TV viewership.
 
2012-09-06 12:12:11 PM  

xsive: DarnoKonrad: xsive: Viewership compared to 2008 is what actually caught my attention...

"Enthusiasm gap" my arse!


About 4 million more people watched the first night of the DNC as compared to the RNC.

yes that was expected, what Im talking about though, is the "he's not got that new car smell anymore" type line that i keep hearing about the 2008 voter's opinion of obama, however if we're seeing more viewership than last year it might not be so true.




Was that expected? Obama is a known entity. Presumably after 4 years voters don't need more information about Obama, they do need to know about this Romney fella however.

I'm somewhat surprised the RNC had lower ratings than in 2008, much less lower than the DNC this year.
 
2012-09-06 12:12:41 PM  
What are the numbers for online viewing??? It must be pretty easy to poll. Why not include them???

I bet more people watched it on CSPAN online than any other- No boring commentary, no ads, no cutaways. The BBC had some interesting numbers from online viewing of the Olympics why can't the networks in Am'urica do the same???
 
2012-09-06 12:12:44 PM  

WTF Indeed: CPennypacker: I watched the RNC on the liberal channel. What channel were conservatives watching the DNC on?

I guess when you already formed your opinions based on what you imagine your opponent to be there's no point in watching them speak.

So as a liberal who is interested in politics you choose to watch it on the channel that most reflects your beliefs. Just like I'm sure conservatives interested in politics were more apt to watch the DNC convention on Fox News. It's almost like basic sociology plays are part TV viewership.


Right. But the point is I watched it
 
2012-09-06 12:14:17 PM  

wotthefark: What are the numbers for online viewing??? It must be pretty easy to poll. Why not include them???

I bet more people watched it on CSPAN online than any other- No boring commentary, no ads, no cutaways. The BBC had some interesting numbers from online viewing of the Olympics why can't the networks in Am'urica do the same???


I think they'd rather pretend the internet is not killing their business model.
 
2012-09-06 12:15:02 PM  

gilgigamesh: Lionel Mandrake: MeinRS6: dletter: a race that is essentially as "in the bag" as something like the 1984 or 1996 elections felt is not what those networks want for the month leading into the election.

"In the bag" for who?

That's funny

I hate to admit it, but he's right.

I know its a media driven narrative that this is a close race, but the reality is that this race comes down not only to a few states, but a few regions within those few states.

It is only September. Romney has lots and lots of money; way more than the dems. If Obama supporters start kicking back with an "its in the bag" mentality at this point, they are likely going to wake up the day after the election to President Romney.


I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. No need for you to even vote.
 
2012-09-06 12:17:41 PM  

StinkyFiddlewinks: I liked how FOX had a ticker running the first night repeating how many gay delegates there were.


I'm surprised they didn't have a Gay Clock showing how many more people in the US declared they were gay since 2 seconds ago.
 
2012-09-06 12:17:50 PM  

DarnoKonrad: xsive: DarnoKonrad: xsive: Viewership compared to 2008 is what actually caught my attention...

"Enthusiasm gap" my arse!


About 4 million more people watched the first night of the DNC as compared to the RNC.

yes that was expected, what Im talking about though, is the "he's not got that new car smell anymore" type line that i keep hearing about the 2008 voter's opinion of obama, however if we're seeing more viewership than last year it might not be so true.



Was that expected? Obama is a known entity. Presumably after 4 years voters don't need more information about Obama, they do need to know about this Romney fella however.

I'm somewhat surprised the RNC had lower ratings than in 2008, much less lower than the DNC this year.


The RNC wasn't about Rmoney, it was about the RNC. After listening to Rinsed P3nis had enough shiat.

You think with a name like that he could wash his dick better alas it's not soap and p3nis it's only rinsed.
 
2012-09-06 12:18:21 PM  
Crazy! Next you'll tell me last night's convention ratings were very low in Dallas and New York. Proving Obama is losing red states and the wealthy wall streeters!
 
2012-09-06 12:20:26 PM  

Ehh: I flipped channels. I may be libby lib lib, but I still don't really want to hang out with Al Sharpton.


The guy is almost disturbingly skinny now. He almost looks like some sort of Jeff Dunham puppet.
 
2012-09-06 12:20:38 PM  

DarnoKonrad: wotthefark: What are the numbers for online viewing??? It must be pretty easy to poll. Why not include them???

I bet more people watched it on CSPAN online than any other- No boring commentary, no ads, no cutaways. The BBC had some interesting numbers from online viewing of the Olympics why can't the networks in Am'urica do the same???

I think they'd rather pretend the internet is not killing their business model.


+1 Smart
 
2012-09-06 12:21:38 PM  

wotthefark: What are the numbers for online viewing??? It must be pretty easy to poll. Why not include them???

I bet more people watched it on CSPAN online than any other- No boring commentary, no ads, no cutaways. The BBC had some interesting numbers from online viewing of the Olympics why can't the networks in Am'urica do the same???


Becasue the American news media's current business model is "CLAP LOUDER!"
 
2012-09-06 12:21:49 PM  

DarnoKonrad: wotthefark: What are the numbers for online viewing??? It must be pretty easy to poll. Why not include them???

I bet more people watched it on CSPAN online than any other- No boring commentary, no ads, no cutaways. The BBC had some interesting numbers from online viewing of the Olympics why can't the networks in Am'urica do the same???

I think they'd rather pretend the internet is not killing their business model.


The smart thing to do would be embrace the internet model. Throw an ad in the top corner every once in a while but don't cut away. These are network executives though, all over 60 and less use of the computer box with the "tubes".
 
2012-09-06 12:29:19 PM  
I admit it. I kinda wish Olberrmann had been there.

OT: I'm glad this happened, always liked MSNBC just because they've got good pundits for this kinda thing.
 
2012-09-06 12:34:32 PM  

Straight to doom: I admit it. I kinda wish Olberrmann had been there.

OT: I'm glad this happened, always liked MSNBC just because they've got good pundits for this kinda thing.


I was pleasantly surprised with Steve Schmidt. He's got some chops and didn't go all herpy on anything. I sort of expected some iota of resentful backlash, being in the same room with Maddow, Hayes and Schultz.
 
2012-09-06 12:36:47 PM  

wotthefark: The smart thing to do would be embrace the internet model. Throw an ad in the top corner every once in a while but don't cut away. These are network executives though, all over 60 and less use of the computer box with the "tubes".



Agreed.  Most commercials are not there to disseminate actual information, but to keep the brand in people's heads.  I'm sure 90% of people tune out the actual content of McDonalds ads... but its important to keep people seeing the golden arches frequently.
 
That's why Nike, Adidas, Under Armour spend millions just to have their logo on sports uniforms.  No critical information as to why they're better, cooler, etc.  Just the logo.
 
2012-09-06 12:38:18 PM  

MeinRS6: dletter: a race that is essentially as "in the bag" as something like the 1984 or 1996 elections felt is not what those networks want for the month leading into the election.

"In the bag" for who?


For you. It's a bag of dicks.
 
2012-09-06 12:39:10 PM  
I guess people like to watch Lockup:Boston and To Catch a Predator 10 times a day.
 
2012-09-06 12:46:18 PM  

downstairs: I'm sure 90% of people tune out the actual content of McDonalds ads...


I try to tune out racism, yes.

/because two black women discussing how 'they gon' shake what they momma's gave'm" is relevant to a damn chicken sandwich
 
2012-09-06 12:54:13 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Fox put Bill in a split screen and turned down his audio, and in the other screen was a scroll of the people Bill Clinton "personally murdered" read by a crying, behandstanded Victoria Jackson


They did that for all the speeches that were on while I was at my gym on Tuesday. They were running commercials while the DNC speeches were presented.
 
2012-09-06 12:54:13 PM  

Epoch_Zero: Straight to doom: I admit it. I kinda wish Olberrmann had been there.

OT: I'm glad this happened, always liked MSNBC just because they've got good pundits for this kinda thing.

I was pleasantly surprised with Steve Schmidt. He's got some chops and didn't go all herpy on anything. I sort of expected some iota of resentful backlash, being in the same room with Maddow, Hayes and Schultz.



I think Schmidt gives a reasonable, rational response to the dems' point of view. So reasonable, in fact, that I suspect he would be the "LIBRULL" clod if he was on Fox News.

The only issue with Schmidt is that every time I see him I think about Woody Harrelson reading his lines.
 
2012-09-06 12:56:48 PM  

Craptastic: MeinRS6: dletter: a race that is essentially as "in the bag" as something like the 1984 or 1996 elections felt is not what those networks want for the month leading into the election.

"In the bag" for who?

For you. It's a bag of dicks.


This killed me. You magnificent bastard or biatch.
 
2012-09-06 12:57:26 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: BunkoSquad: I watched on C-Span (Hell Yeah C-Span) so I can only assume that after Bill Clinton spoke, Wolf Blitzer sat there for five straight minutes with an overwhelmed look on his face, and that Fox had switched to old Dennis Miller shows halfway into Bill's speech.

Fox put Bill in a split screen and turned down his audio, and in the other screen was a scroll of the people Bill Clinton "personally murdered" read by a crying, behandstanded Victoria Jackson


Not just him. They minimized the screen when a speaker was on, muted the audio and played commercials on the larger side of the screen. Then they cut to a full screen of Bill O and pundits.

My father claims, however, that Fox News did the exact same thing during the republican convention. If that is true, it shows that FN just.farking sucks, regardless of politics.
 
2012-09-06 12:58:31 PM  

Gotfire: Do you think Fox viewers are interested in viewing/listening to anything that isn't a right-wing opinion piece? That audience wouldn't know what to do with themselves without someone telling them how they should feel about what is being said. Much less even understand most of what is being said...


I've often thought it would be great if FOX trolled its viewers and switched allegiances for a month and went as far left as they are currently right.
 
2012-09-06 12:59:11 PM  
I watched football.
 
2012-09-06 12:59:53 PM  
I wonder if Keith Olbermann watched MSNBC.
 
2012-09-06 01:01:22 PM  
Me and Chris Matthews go back to the mid 1980s when he was interviewed on Larry King's radio program. He was so smart and passionate way back then. I've always loved and admired Chris even if he gets too excited and interrupty for some on his TV program.

/loves me some Rachel Maddow too!
 
2012-09-06 01:03:00 PM  

Epoch_Zero: downstairs: I'm sure 90% of people tune out the actual content of McDonalds ads...

I try to tune out racism, yes.

/because two black women discussing how 'they gon' shake what they momma's gave'm" is relevant to a damn chicken sandwich


McDonald's: Because we know you people don't like leaving tips and love dressing all crazy and whatnot. 
 
2012-09-06 01:05:00 PM  

NeverDrunk23: My father claims, however, that Fox News did the exact same thing during the republican convention. If that is true, it shows that FN just.farking sucks, regardless of politics.


They did the exact opposite from what I saw while i was at the gym. RNC speakers were on the larger side of the screen, and commercials would run on the left side. They might have flipped the screens a bit more.

WHen the DNC speakers weren't being shown, the camera angle Fox chose was for a section with some empty seats in it, apparently in the corner.
 
2012-09-06 01:07:00 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Epoch_Zero: downstairs: I'm sure 90% of people tune out the actual content of McDonalds ads...

I try to tune out racism, yes.

/because two black women discussing how 'they gon' shake what they momma's gave'm" is relevant to a damn chicken sandwich

McDonald's: Because we know you people don't like leaving tips and love dressing all crazy and whatnot.



Woah.  Is that real??
 
2012-09-06 01:13:04 PM  

The_Great_Hambino: Epoch_Zero: Straight to doom: I admit it. I kinda wish Olberrmann had been there.

OT: I'm glad this happened, always liked MSNBC just because they've got good pundits for this kinda thing.

I was pleasantly surprised with Steve Schmidt. He's got some chops and didn't go all herpy on anything. I sort of expected some iota of resentful backlash, being in the same room with Maddow, Hayes and Schultz.


I think Schmidt gives a reasonable, rational response to the dems' point of view. So reasonable, in fact, that I suspect he would be the "LIBRULL" clod if he was on Fox News.

The only issue with Schmidt is that every time I see him I think about Woody Harrelson reading his lines.


....aaaand ruined. Forever. Thanks.
 
2012-09-06 01:15:22 PM  

downstairs: rufus-t-firefly: Epoch_Zero: downstairs: I'm sure 90% of people tune out the actual content of McDonalds ads...

I try to tune out racism, yes.

/because two black women discussing how 'they gon' shake what they momma's gave'm" is relevant to a damn chicken sandwich

McDonald's: Because we know you people don't like leaving tips and love dressing all crazy and whatnot.


Woah.  Is that real??


Quite real.

Link
 
2012-09-06 01:17:15 PM  
MSNBC pundits actually have talking points based on reality, at least Matthews and Maddow do. Maddow is one of the best on TV, frankly. I like Ed too, mainly because he pulls a "left wing Limbaugh" kinda deal which I think the left needs more of.
 
2012-09-06 01:17:27 PM  
Headso: At the end of the day it's still shiatty 24 hour news network. People should listen to NPR and watch public television for info, and read the rest on the internets.

Thats what I did, and it was much more entertaining and informative.

http://www.youtube.com/user/PBSNewsHour

They had every speech up right after on youtube without commercials. Thoughtful interviews with people on the floor. And no bloviating pundits spewing lies, and spinning in circles.
 
2012-09-06 01:18:01 PM  
I watched on PBS last night - until David Brook's whining made me want to reach through the TV and smack him. Then I switched to CSPAN.
 
2012-09-06 01:26:03 PM  
Hey,

Headso: At the end of the day it's still shiatty 24 hour news network.


That closes on the weekends to show Prison TV. Which gets higher ratings than MSNBC does.

Hey, if you want a watch a commie convention, where else better to watch it than with those dudes Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow? Comrades.

CSPAN is the only way to watch these things, and then mute the sound when they take phone calls.
 
2012-09-06 01:31:12 PM  

trotsky: MSNBC pundits actually have talking points based on reality, at least Matthews and Maddow do. Maddow is one of the best on TV, frankly. I like Ed too, mainly because he pulls a "left wing Limbaugh" kinda deal which I think the left needs more of.


Perhaps you're not familiar with Rush's work. Ed's a cheerleader but he's no Limbaugh.
If you like Maddow you should check out Chris Hayes on the weekends. Kind of early but available online a little while after broadcast.
 
2012-09-06 01:38:09 PM  
Where's PBS's ratings - am I really the only one out there watching it on PBS? All the other channels were breaking in and commenting so much it was annoying. CNN was split-screening with a commercial on one side... yeah. I'll pass.
 
2012-09-06 01:51:55 PM  

barneyfifesbullet: Hey,Headso: At the end of the day it's still shiatty 24 hour news network.

That closes on the weekends to show Prison TV. Which gets higher ratings than MSNBC does.

Hey, if you want a watch a commie convention, where else better to watch it than with those dudes Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow? Comrades.

CSPAN is the only way to watch these things, and then mute the sound when they take phone calls.


OR. . . . you could watch the Democrat convention streamed by the DNC. No pundits, no ads, no commentary, just the speakers and performers, live and uncensored.
 
2012-09-06 01:56:56 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Epoch_Zero: downstairs: I'm sure 90% of people tune out the actual content of McDonalds ads...

I try to tune out racism, yes.

/because two black women discussing how 'they gon' shake what they momma's gave'm" is relevant to a damn chicken sandwich

McDonald's: Because we know you people don't like leaving tips and love dressing all crazy and whatnot.


wait... who's that guy with the woman and her kids?
 
2012-09-06 02:05:04 PM  

MeinRS6: dletter: a race that is essentially as "in the bag" as something like the 1984 or 1996 elections felt is not what those networks want for the month leading into the election.

"In the bag" for who?


CNN:
Obama: 48
Romney: 48

Can't you see that Obama has simply got this one in the bag? He is clearly crushing Romney in the polls, except those manipulated by racists at places like WaPo, CBS, and Democracy Corp.
 
2012-09-06 02:06:25 PM  

skullkrusher: wait... who's that guy with the woman and her kids?


sh*t like this is why I just can't quit you.
 
2012-09-06 02:08:59 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: skullkrusher: wait... who's that guy with the woman and her kids?

sh*t like this is why I just can't quit you.


had to run with the theme of the ad ;)

/no colored people African Americans were hurt in the construction of this joke
 
2012-09-06 02:09:22 PM  

skullkrusher: rufus-t-firefly: Epoch_Zero: downstairs: I'm sure 90% of people tune out the actual content of McDonalds ads...

I try to tune out racism, yes.

/because two black women discussing how 'they gon' shake what they momma's gave'm" is relevant to a damn chicken sandwich

McDonald's: Because we know you people don't like leaving tips and love dressing all crazy and whatnot.

wait... who's that guy with the woman and her kids?


Parole officer?
 
2012-09-06 02:14:48 PM  

beta_plus: MeinRS6: dletter: a race that is essentially as "in the bag" as something like the 1984 or 1996 elections felt is not what those networks want for the month leading into the election.

"In the bag" for who?

CNN:
Obama: 48
Romney: 48

Can't you see that Obama has simply got this one in the bag? He is clearly crushing Romney in the polls, except those manipulated by racists at places like WaPo, CBS, and Democracy Corp.


Actually, that is the point the articles are making.... are the pollsters "skewing" the data to make a close race for the news cycle. That is the point... whether you believe them or not, is a different story. But, from the POV of is it in the best interest for the networks to "create" a close race even if there is not one, you can't deny that.

And the poll you are quoting... the national numbers, is one of the things that makes it seem "close", but, in reality, has nothing to do with reality (see: 2000 election). If Obama is ahead enough and consistently in the key "swing states" that would get him 270 electoral votes, doesn't matter if nationally they are tied or even if Romney is up a point.

Right now, from how it has looked.... if the race is essentially tied nationally, that probably spells out that Obama will win enough swing states to win. Romney basically needs to swing the national numbers to get to about 2 points in his favor to make the swing states he needs over to his column.
 
2012-09-06 02:25:27 PM  

dletter: But, from the POV of is it in the best interest for the networks to "create" a close race even if there is not one, you can't deny that.


I wouldn't deny that part. However, I would question anyone that thinks at this point that Obama has this election "in the bag" when the economy and the jobs picture are both bags of shiat. I don't think the networks have to bribe the pollsters to make this one close. The libs at the networks probably pay extra to have Obama poll better than he should, and they do that by sampling a higher percentage of Dems in their polls.

I think we'll know who has it in the bag around 11pm EST on election night and not much before. I don't care what any poll or exit poll says prior to that. The real deal is what counts.
 
2012-09-06 02:58:30 PM  

MeinRS6: The libs at the networks probably pay extra to have Obama poll better than he should, and they do that by sampling a higher percentage of Dems in their polls.


Statistics have a liberal bias!
 
2012-09-06 03:26:30 PM  

Mrtraveler01: MeinRS6: The libs at the networks probably pay extra to have Obama poll better than he should, and they do that by sampling a higher percentage of Dems in their polls.

Statistics have a liberal bias!


They do if you game them. GI/GO.
 
2012-09-06 03:30:20 PM  
Would like to see The Daily Show's ratings these past two weeks. And I'm guessing that for CSPAN, the convention weeks are there best ratings weeks all year.
 
2012-09-06 03:39:56 PM  

MeinRS6: I wouldn't deny that part. However, I would question anyone that thinks at this point that Obama has this election "in the bag"


At this point, I don't think it is "in the bag"... but, I think one of the best barometers out there is Nate Silver's analysis on the 538 blog, just because it uses a lot of data and in the right places to make its predictions. In his analysis, he gives, at this moment, Obama a 75% chance of winning the election (which is even more pessimistic than some other websites, like 270towin.com, which I don't believe has as much statistical analysis, and right now if you set their map to just "battleground states"... it gives Obama an 84% chance of winning).

Now, I certainly wouldn't say that someone having a 25% of winning something (or even 10%) is down for the count... too many heads up's in poker lost in my time to claim that. But, based on those types of analysis, you would have to make the statement that as it sits right now, Obama is the "heavy favorite"... and you do not hear that out of any of the media.
 
2012-09-06 03:54:32 PM  

dletter: Now, I certainly wouldn't say that someone having a 25% of winning something (or even 10%) is down for the count... too many heads up's in poker lost in my time to claim that. But, based on those types of analysis, you would have to make the statement that as it sits right now, Obama is the "heavy favorite"... and you do not hear that out of any of the media.


The incumbent is almost always the favorite in US politics. This election is no different.

With Romney being half-a-lib, he will suppress some of the Repub voter turnout. However, every time Obama and his minions open their mouths, they increase Repub voter turnout. Hard to know how things will pan out in the swing states right now. Obama might go to Florida and say something like "Castro isn't all that bad" off the cuff. There are a lot of days between now and election day.
 
2012-09-06 10:15:50 PM  
And my dad-in-law is nowhere to be found on this thread. Amazing!
 
Displayed 87 of 87 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report