Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: andreisdaman on December 30, 2012, 11:11:09 AM
-
According to the latest Neilsen ratings, The Sean Hannity Show has lost 50% of its audience in the wake of Obama's election victory...this is attributed by the experts to Sean's audience feeling they were lied to by Hannity since Hannity had spoon-fed his audience the impossibility of Obama winning another term and this has shattered his credibility tremendously....
Rachel Maddow lost none of her audience and now regularly beats Hannity in the ratings....WOW..talk about a turnaround....the funny thing is I used to NEVER watch Rachel Maddow but now I catch it as much as I can...very good show...and Rachel backs up everything she says with facts and shows you the sources where she got them....
-
According to the latest Neilsen ratings, The Sean Hannity Show has lost 50% of its audience in the wake of Obama's election victory...this is attributed by the experts to Sean's audience feeling they were lied to by Hannity since Hannity had spoon-fed his audience the impossibility of Obama winning another term and this has shattered his credibility tremendously....
Rachel Maddow lost none of her audience and now regularly beats Hannity in the ratings....WOW..talk about a turnaround....the funny thing is I used to NEVER watch Rachel Maddow but now I catch it as much as I can...very good show...and Rachel backs up everything she says with facts and shows you the sources where she got them....
Good.
-
Good.
agreed....tired of seeing Hannity making a fortune by scaring people and demonizing Obama...its good to see that even Republicans are getting tired of him and seeing through his act
-
someone on here is going to be mad,but i'm sure he'll have a 1000 an 1 excuses :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
i've never heard of either of them...
sound irrelevant to me
-
i've never heard of either of them...
sound irrelevant to me
you should not be on the politics board then ???
-
According to the latest Neilsen ratings, The Sean Hannity Show has lost 50% of its audience in the wake of Obama's election victory...this is attributed by the experts to Sean's audience feeling they were lied to by Hannity since Hannity had spoon-fed his audience the impossibility of Obama winning another term and this has shattered his credibility tremendously....
Rachel Maddow lost none of her audience and now regularly beats Hannity in the ratings....WOW..talk about a turnaround....the funny thing is I used to NEVER watch Rachel Maddow but now I catch it as much as I can...very good show...and Rachel backs up everything she says with facts and shows you the sources where she got them....
That's funny! According to TVbythenumbers.com, Hannity still beats Maddow at the 9pm slot.
For example,
Dec. 20: Hannity - 1.9 million; Maddow - 1.3 million
Dec. 19: Hannity - 1.9 million; Maddow - 1.4 million
Dec. 18: Hannity - 1.8 million; Maddow - 1.1 million
Dec. 17: Hannity - 1.6 million; Maddow - 1.2 million
Dec. 14: Hannity - 2.5 million; Maddow - 1.2 million
Dec. 13: Hannity - 1.9 million; Maddow - 1.3 million
My guess is you quoted a source that only counts the 25-54 demographic, which (in some cases) Maddow was ahead of Hannity, particularly shortly after the election. But, Hannity still had the lead overall and has hardly lost 50% of his audience, according to these numbers.
This is hardly the first time the left has used this tactic, with regards to promoting MSNBC shows. But, after a couple of months or so, the Fox shows go back on top in that demo, while still staying on top overall.
-
you should not be on the politics board then ???
i have a political science degree
i follow canadian and international politics directly... not some jerkoff's grade 8 education interpretation...
i like my own spin
-
i have a political science degree
i follow canadian and international politics directly... not some jerkoff's grade 8 education interpretation...
i like my own spin
then why not go to a Canadian board where you can blather on about Canada's irrelevant politics???
-
That's funny! According to TVbythenumbers.com, Hannity still beats Maddow at the 9pm slot.
For example,
Dec. 20: Hannity - 1.9 million; Maddow - 1.3 million
Dec. 19: Hannity - 1.9 million; Maddow - 1.4 million
Dec. 18: Hannity - 1.8 million; Maddow - 1.1 million
Dec. 17: Hannity - 1.6 million; Maddow - 1.2 million
Dec. 14: Hannity - 2.5 million; Maddow - 1.2 million
Dec. 13: Hannity - 1.9 million; Maddow - 1.3 million
My guess is you quoted a source that only counts the 25-54 demographic, which (in some cases) Maddow was ahead of Hannity, particularly shortly after the election. But, Hannity still had the lead overall and has hardly lost 50% of his audience, according to these numbers.
This is hardly the first time the left has used this tactic, with regards to promoting MSNBC shows. But, after a couple of months or so, the Fox shows go back on top in that demo, while still staying on top overall.
dude....you need a psychiatrist...everythin g out of your mouth is some conspiracy by leftists.....you are sounding more and more like 3333 when he talks about "communists"
-
Yeah except you retards were wrong about his audience.....its not even close. Yet again you libs distort facts like you do about eveything. Its the only way to win becuase you always loose on facts.
-
That's funny! According to TVbythenumbers.com, Hannity still beats Maddow at the 9pm slot.
For example,
Dec. 20: Hannity - 1.9 million; Maddow - 1.3 million
Dec. 19: Hannity - 1.9 million; Maddow - 1.4 million
Dec. 18: Hannity - 1.8 million; Maddow - 1.1 million
Dec. 17: Hannity - 1.6 million; Maddow - 1.2 million
Dec. 14: Hannity - 2.5 million; Maddow - 1.2 million
Dec. 13: Hannity - 1.9 million; Maddow - 1.3 million
My guess is you quoted a source that only counts the 25-54 demographic, which (in some cases) Maddow was ahead of Hannity, particularly shortly after the election. But, Hannity still had the lead overall and has hardly lost 50% of his audience, according to these numbers.
This is hardly the first time the left has used this tactic, with regards to promoting MSNBC shows. But, after a couple of months or so, the Fox shows go back on top in that demo, while still staying on top overall.
it is this demographic he is talking about, this is correct. The fact remains he did lose 50% of this audience, the most important demographic in news and has lost to Maddow on numerous occasions, something that has never previously occured. Also, it bears out some interesting implications, he is becoming less relevant, people realize how much of a stooge he is when his predictions were 100% wrong.
I know you will say the right said Romney, the left Obama, but that's not true. The right were in fantasy land and the left called it correctly, one dealt with facts another with emotion.
-
My most-hated political commentator.
-
it is this demographic he is talking about, this is correct. The fact remains he did lose 50% of this audience, the most important demographic in news and has lost to Maddow on numerous occasions, something that has never previously occured. Also, it bears out some interesting implications, he is becoming less relevant, people realize how much of a stooge he is when his predictions were 100% wrong.
I know you will say the right said Romney, the left Obama, but that's not true. The right were in fantasy land and the left called it correctly, one dealt with facts another with emotion.
Losing on numerous occasions? Maddow has had her show since 2008. Hannity has been beating her for over four years. Relatively speaking, winning a few nights here and there, when you been losing for years (key demo and all) is hardly what I'd call "numerous occasions".
Furthermore, if Hannity lost "50%" of his audience, that would mean he was averaging 3.5-4 million viewers per night. That's hardly the case. Even O'Reilly doesn't get those numbers on the regular (though, he can crack the 3 million mark fairly often).
Andre didn't state that Maddow was beating Hannity in that demographic. His statement implied that she's beating him, overall, which is false. He has NO numbers, to back his claim of Hannity's loss of half his audience.
And, over the last couple of months, it's been back and forth in the 25-54 demographic, with the most recent numbers showing Hannity back in the lead.
That has more to do with the election than anything else, which is hardly a surprise. This happened about this time a few years back. It even happened when Olbermann was around; for a minute or two, he bested O'Reilly in the key demo. But, O'Reilly clobbered him, overall.
When the political season ended, O'Reilly got the demo back and kept it, for years on end, until Olbermann got bounced from MSNBC. The same thing pretty much happened with Maddow vs. Hannity.
And, I will say the right said Romney and the left Obama, because that's what happened. Even on Fox, all the liberal commentators picked Obama. I named them specifically the last time this issue came up. Yet, as usual, you ignored that and pretended that every single Fox commentator said Romney would win it.
-
dude....you need a psychiatrist...everythin g out of your mouth is some conspiracy by leftists.....you are sounding more and more like 3333 when he talks about "communists"
You think this is the first time the left has boasted about MSNBC shows "beating" Fox News shows in the ratings, when in reality, they were only beating them in that demographic (and for a short period of time)?
They've were yapping about Olbermann beating O'Reilly in that demo, here and there, during the BUSH years (even though O'Reilly had been cleaning his clock in the overall numbers about 5 years straight).
MSNBC has been shuffling its lineup FOR YEARS, trying to get a formula to CONSISTENTLY beat Fox News (not win a few onesies-twosies in the 25-54 demographic). But, they've yet to get it done. With Olbermann gone, Maddow is their heavy hitter. Yet, she can't even get past Hannity; she's barely getting Van Strustren numbers (the most vanilla of the Fox primetime lineup). Put her against O'Reilly and she gets slaughtered.
And, contrary to yet another claim of yours, Hannity didn't spoon-feed any narrative that it was impossible for Obama to win. In fact, he was a huge skeptic of Rove and Morris, when they kept mentioning their predictions. He never bought into the whole landslide routine and kept pleading with voters to get to the polls, because every vote would matter.
-
I can't watch either show. That Rachael lady is by far the most annoying person allowed to have a TV show. Hannity isn't far behind.
8)
-
My most-hated political commentator.
I'd have to say it's a multi way tie
dont forget Mark [the great one] Levin
El Rushbo
and bringing up the rear, Andrew Wilkow. The next generation of radical righties.
-
What's the point of the argument? Maybe I'm missing something.
-
I can't watch either show. That Rachael lady is by far the most annoying person allowed to have a TV show. Hannity isn't far behind.
8)
The idea is to have very annoying personalities, in order to sink the knife in further, to hedge against any possibility that citizens may work in the center together.
Some of the younger people may not realize that this is all a relatively new political backdrop. If it continues, it will kill democracy, it will kill freedom. No bullshit.
-
Losing on numerous occasions? Maddow has had her show since 2008. Hannity has been beating her for over four years. Relatively speaking, winning a few nights here and there, when you been losing for years (key demo and all) is hardly what I'd call "numerous occasions".
irrelevant, the point was that things are changing, the past is as relevant as my foreskin
Furthermore, if Hannity lost "50%" of his audience, that would mean he was averaging 3.5-4 million viewers per night. That's hardly the case. Even O'Reilly doesn't get those numbers on the regular (though, he can crack the 3 million mark fairly often).
This is a comprehension issue, 50% of that demographic was cited
Andre didn't state that Maddow was beating Hannity in that demographic. His statement implied that she's beating him, overall, which is false. He has NO numbers, to back his claim of Hannity's loss of half his audience.
correct
And, over the last couple of months, it's been back and forth in the 25-54 demographic, with the most recent numbers showing Hannity back in the lead.
source?
That has more to do with the election than anything else, which is hardly a surprise. This happened about this time a few years back. It even happened when Olbermann was around; for a minute or two, he bested O'Reilly in the key demo. But, O'Reilly clobbered him, overall.
When the political season ended, O'Reilly got the demo back and kept it, for years on end, until Olbermann got bounced from MSNBC. The same thing pretty much happened with Maddow vs. Hannity.
you seem to cite the past as evidence quite a bit, I mean could you conceive that the political landscape is changing? we know you were way wrong during the election so perhaps you are also wrong here? For example on the fiscal cliff issue the country supports Obama and blames the GOP in opinion polls
And, I will say the right said Romney and the left Obama, because that's what happened. Even on Fox, all the liberal commentators picked Obama. I named them specifically the last time this issue came up. Yet, as usual, you ignored that and pretended that every single Fox commentator said Romney would win it.
thats stupid, you don't pick your team you use raw data to make the predictions, this isn't a fanclub. This type of mentality is the issue, repubs shouldn't pick repubs nor the opposite, the data does the talking, it's why Nate Silver was so accurate, he uses something called facts. Facts you see override belief anytime.
-
irrelevant, the point was that things are changing, the past is as relevant as my foreskin
That wasn't the point. The point was Andre, making a questionable, if not flat-out FALSE claim, about Hannity's numbers and those of Maddow, perhaps with the wishful thinking by him (and you) that MSNBC overtakes Fox in the ratings.
This is a comprehension issue, 50% of that demographic was cited
One, Andre didn't spell out that demographic.
Two, even within that demo, he put NO numbers forward to suggest that Hannity's share had been cut in half.
source?
I already gave it to you: TvByTheNumbers.com
you seem to cite the past as evidence quite a bit, I mean could you conceive that the political landscape is changing? we know you were way wrong during the election so perhaps you are also wrong here? For example on the fiscal cliff issue the country supports Obama and blames the GOP in opinion polls
Who doesn't cite the past as evidence to predict the future? You win some; you lose some. But, you've made my point from earlier. This is wishful thinking from you and Andre that Maddow's occasional bumps in the 25-54 demo means MSNBC is going to overtake Fox as cable news' top dog.
Yet, that didn't happen, even with Olbermann (whose ratings were consistently higher than what Maddow gets now).
As for the fiscal cliff, what a shocker ::) : People support Obama taking OTHER PEOPLE'S money but not their own. They're of the misguided belief that doing such won't adversely affect them.
thats stupid, you don't pick your team you use raw data to make the predictions, this isn't a fanclub. This type of mentality is the issue, repubs shouldn't pick repubs nor the opposite, the data does the talking, it's why Nate Silver was so accurate, he uses something called facts. Facts you see override belief anytime.
And with raw data, you make assumptions and your predictions are based on such. The predictions on Romney were based on the assumption that turnout would be lower for Obama's base (which it was, overall), that Romney would win independents (which he did).
The problem was the assumption that Romney would, at least, replicate the turnout McCain got (which he didn't).
-
That wasn't the point. The point was Andre, making a questionable, if not flat-out FALSE claim, about Hannity's numbers and those of Maddow, perhaps with the wishful thinking by him (and you) that MSNBC overtakes Fox in the ratings.
One, Andre didn't spell out that demographic.
Two, even within that demo, he put NO numbers forward to suggest that Hannity's share had been cut in half.
I already gave it to you: TvByTheNumbers.com
Who doesn't cite the past as evidence to predict the future? You win some; you lose some. But, you've made my point from earlier. This is wishful thinking from you and Andre that Maddow's occasional bumps in the 25-54 demo means MSNBC is going to overtake Fox as cable news' top dog.
Yet, that didn't happen, even with Olbermann (whose ratings were consistently higher than what Maddow gets now).
As for the fiscal cliff, what a shocker ::) : People support Obama taking OTHER PEOPLE'S money but not their own. They're of the misguided belief that doing such won't adversely affect them.
And with raw data, you make assumptions and your predictions are based on such. The predictions on Romney were based on the assumption that turnout would be lower for Obama's base (which it was, overall), that Romney would win independents (which he did).
The problem was the assumption that Romney would, at least, replicate the turnout McCain got (which he didn't).
I'm not going to dispute your analysis.....I only do tons of research on topics that are near and dear to my heart....this wasn't that important to me, and I as just throwing out a topic of conversation...I simply stated that Hannity had lost 50% of his audience and that Rachel Maddow is now beating him a lot of the time...it wasn't meant to be a thesis....
But the fact is that the Republican pundits have been thoroughly destroyed in terms of their credibility.....not so much for being wrong but due to their being so incredibly smug in their predictions and then being sore losers afterwards
-
I'm not going to dispute your analysis.....I only do tons of research on topics that are near and dear to my heart....this wasn't that important to me, and I as just throwing out a topic of conversation...I simply stated that Hannity had lost 50% of his audience and that Rachel Maddow is now beating him a lot of the time...it wasn't meant to be a thesis....
Both of those statements are incorrect. And, I don't need a thesis to prove that. Simply looking at the numbers, which you apparently failed to do, shows it.
But the fact is that the Republican pundits have been thoroughly destroyed in terms of their credibility.....not so much for being wrong but due to their being so incredibly smug in their predictions and then being sore losers afterwards
Pundits make right picks and they make wrong picks. I don't recall any Democrat pundits being "thoroughly destroyed" after Bush got re-elected in 2004. Wasn't there a guy on MSNBC who called Kerry "Mr. President" (Shrum) before the votes were even tallied?
Were the MSNBC pundits' credibility "thoroughly destroyed", when they thought Scott Walker was going to get recalled back in June and they were still claiming the race wasn't over, even when their own network called it for Walker?
What about the 2010 midterms, when the libs on MSNBC were beyond crestfallen, after the Dems lost the House?
I'm having a tough time, remember the last occasion where the Democrats lost and were good sports about it.
-
then why not go to a Canadian board where you can blather on about Canada's irrelevant politics???
because making you queers meltdown is part of my routine
-
because making you queers meltdown is part of my routine
mission unsuccessful........go back to your old routine of masturbating to gay porn sites
-
That's funny! According to TVbythenumbers.com, Hannity still beats Maddow at the 9pm slot.
For example,
Dec. 20: Hannity - 1.9 million; Maddow - 1.3 million
Dec. 19: Hannity - 1.9 million; Maddow - 1.4 million
Dec. 18: Hannity - 1.8 million; Maddow - 1.1 million
Dec. 17: Hannity - 1.6 million; Maddow - 1.2 million
Dec. 14: Hannity - 2.5 million; Maddow - 1.2 million
Dec. 13: Hannity - 1.9 million; Maddow - 1.3 million
My guess is you quoted a source that only counts the 25-54 demographic, which (in some cases) Maddow was ahead of Hannity, particularly shortly after the election. But, Hannity still had the lead overall and has hardly lost 50% of his audience, according to these numbers.
This is hardly the first time the left has used this tactic, with regards to promoting MSNBC shows. But, after a couple of months or so, the Fox shows go back on top in that demo, while still staying on top overall.
Is there some way we could send them both, Hannity and Madcow, to the Hadron Collider for an experiment to search for the shithead particle? Collide them both at high speed type of shit? I would pay per view for that. ;D
-
I'm not going to dispute your analysis.....I only do tons of research on topics that are near and dear to my heart....this wasn't that important to me, and I as just throwing out a topic of conversation...I simply stated that Hannity had lost 50% of his audience and that Rachel Maddow is now beating him a lot of the time...it wasn't meant to be a thesis....
But the fact is that the Republican pundits have been thoroughly destroyed in terms of their credibility.....not so much for being wrong but due to their being so incredibly smug in their predictions and then being sore losers afterwards
Many people are fed up w politics and there is nothing we can do for awhile about that ghetto maggot and her husband at 1600 pa ave. you voted for communism now tu got it.
-
mission unsuccessful........go back to your old routine of masturbating to gay porn sites
i was just doing that butt came back here to see the latest info.
-
i was just doing that butt came back here to see the latest info.
Go back to banging dudes at truck stops.
-
Many people are fed up w politics and there is nothing we can do for awhile about that ghetto maggot and her husband at 1600 pa ave. you voted for communism now tu got it.
no one voted communist and the only ghetto maggots are in your neighborhood
-
I can't watch either show. That Rachael lady is by far the most annoying person allowed to have a TV show. Hannity isn't far behind.
8)
You clearly have never seen Nancy Grace. ;D
-
You clearly have never seen Nancy Grace. ;D
Heh, true. At least Sean and Rachel get laid every once in a while.
-
I can't watch either show. That Rachael lady is by far the most annoying person allowed to have a TV show. Hannity isn't far behind.
8)
Chris Matthews... How does everyone forget that he's THE ABSOLUTE WORST... God I hate that guy.
-
Go back to banging dudes at truck stops.
hey, don;'t give away all our secret meeting places!!!! ;D
-
I don't think an unsourced, factually incorrect claim should be the basis of a thread.
It's never stopped him before.
-
Dec. 20: Hannity - 1.9 million; Maddow - 1.3 million
Dec. 19: Hannity - 1.9 million; Maddow - 1.4 million
Dec. 18: Hannity - 1.8 million; Maddow - 1.1 million
Dec. 17: Hannity - 1.6 million; Maddow - 1.2 million
Dec. 14: Hannity - 2.5 million; Maddow - 1.2 million
Dec. 13: Hannity - 1.9 million; Maddow - 1.3 million
woah.
-
Chris Matthews... How does everyone forget that he's THE ABSOLUTE WORST... God I hate that guy.
I can see your point on this
-
You clearly have never seen Nancy Grace. ;D
very nice point.....you deserve a kiss for this one :-*
-
I can see your point on this
Christine Matthews is the perfect example of a white liberal panzie commie dirtbag I talk about. Worst of the worst.
-
I don't think an unsourced, factually incorrect claim should be the basis of a thread. Andre, can you modify your original post?
there would be no threads in getbig if that standard were applied...but here
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/31/sean_hannity_lost_half_his_tv_audience_after_the_election/
http://www.ibtimes.com/why-sean-hannity-lost-half-his-viewers-rachel-maddow-didnt-989788
http://www.newshounds.us/sean_hannity_s_ratings_cratered_after_the_election_01022012
-
there would be no threads in getbig if that standard were applied...but here
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/31/sean_hannity_lost_half_his_tv_audience_after_the_election/
http://www.ibtimes.com/why-sean-hannity-lost-half-his-viewers-rachel-maddow-didnt-989788
http://www.newshounds.us/sean_hannity_s_ratings_cratered_after_the_election_01022012
It facilitates argument ("discussion") if you link to such items in the OPs of the threads you create. 3333 does this, even though most of his content is imaginary; surely you can do the same.
-
It facilitates argument ("discussion") if you link to such items in the OPs of the threads you create. 3333 does this, even though most of his content is imaginary; surely you can do the same.
uh oh...another 3333 defender......linking your mind to his is not a good idea dude...
-
uh oh...another 3333 defender......linking your mind to his is not a good idea dude...
If you ever decide to read my posts you'll see that what you're saying is absurd. I'm simply pointing out that despite the content of his posts, he links to sources, as should everyone else.
-
Hmm, if you ever decide to read my posts you'll see what you're saying is absurd. I'm simply pointing out that despite the content of his posts, he inks to sources, as should everyone else.
my apologies..you are right about the contenets of your posts...however, have you ever really loooked at his sources???..they are not exactly topnotch..they are often people's blogs and crazy guys on youtube.
-
my apologies..you are right about the contenets of your posts...however, have you ever really loooked at his sources???..they are not exactly topnotch..they are often people's blogs and crazy guys on youtube.
Your sources aren't "topnotch", either. All of them are left-winged editorials, which I knew from the start. And, it appears that the other two just parroted what was written in Salon.
Notice that they don't cite the actual numbers to show this alleged drop by 50% on Hannity's end.
"Why Hannity Lost Half Of His Viewers And Rachel Maddow Didn't"? PLEASE!!! That is a bald-faced lie, undoubtedly perpetrated to advance the wishful thinking that Obama's re-election spells the end for Fox News as cable news' top dog.
Anyone who follows the ratings knows that Hannity normally DOES NOT amass 3.6 million viewers. His numbers usually range between 1.7 to 2 million a night. In other words, after the election, things simply returned to normal.
Furthermore, Hannity has NEVER advanced a narrative that Romney would win in a landslide. How many times did Hannity go on the show and say Republicans need to act like it's the 4th quarter and they're down two TDs? How many times did Hannity plea with voters to show up (which, at least as the GOP base goes, they didn't; hence Obama won)?
Yes, he had Rove and Morris, who made such pics. He also had Pat Caddel, who said Romney ran the worst campaign he'd ever seen. He had Scott Rasmussen who said it'd be close and that Romney could possibly win the popular vote but lose the election.
He had Larry Sabato, who picked Obama to win at least 290 EC votes. And, that's the short list.
The guy who wrote the IBT article acts as if 3.6 million is standard fare for Hannity. Heck, even O'Reilly doesn't hit that mark on a regular basis. And, he's been the top cable news guy for 12 years.
-
Cable News Ratings for Thursday, January 3, 2013
Net 9PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC Hannity 1,740 357 703
CNN Piers Morgan Tonight 433 127 158
MSNBC Rachel Maddow Show 1,189 334 590
CNBC BILLIONS BEHIND BARS 287 151 182
HLN WHAT WOULD YOU DO 283 126 155
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/01/04/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-january-3-2013/163793/
-
CNN + MSNBC > FOX.
Interesting. There's only one conservative news network. There are a few POS lib netowrks that split up viewers.
That means conservative viewers clearly are outnumbered by libbies.
interesting.
-
CNN + MSNBC > FOX.
Interesting. There's only one conservative news network. There are a few POS lib netowrks that split up viewers.
That means conservative viewers clearly are outnumbered by libbies.
interesting.
There may be two, if Glenn Beck can get his mits on one. He failed to get Current TV from Al Gore. Maybe he's waiting for OWN to go belly up.
Plus, you assume that, if CNN/HLN were go away, their viewers would all automatically go to MSNBC.
-
There may be two, if Glenn Beck can get his mits on one. He failed to get Current TV from Al Gore. Maybe he's waiting for OWN to go belly up.
Plus, you assume that, if CNN/HLN were go away, their viewers would all automatically go to MSNBC.
lol @ conservatives who watch CNN. That many of them, huh? and they also vote obama, seeing the recent election results.
So they vote dem and watch dem, but conservatives are the majority?
-
lol @ conservatives who watch CNN. That many of them, huh? and they also vote obama, seeing the recent election results.
So they vote dem and watch dem, but conservatives are the majority?
If CNN were gone, perhaps some of those folks would either watch something else entirely.
I never said most would go to Fox (a handful might).
According to a 2009 poll that Pew Research did. Fox News viewers are 39% Republican, 33% Democrat, and 22% Independent.
CNN - 51% Dem, 18% GOP, 27% Independent;
MSNBC - 47% Dems, 18% GOP, 27% Independent.
-
Your sources aren't "topnotch", either. All of them are left-winged editorials, which I knew from the start. And, it appears that the other two just parroted what was written in Salon.
Notice that they don't cite the actual numbers to show this alleged drop by 50% on Hannity's end.
"Why Hannity Lost Half Of His Viewers And Rachel Maddow Didn't"? PLEASE!!! That is a bald-faced lie, undoubtedly perpetrated to advance the wishful thinking that Obama's re-election spells the end for Fox News as cable news' top dog.
Anyone who follows the ratings knows that Hannity normally DOES NOT amass 3.6 million viewers. His numbers usually range between 1.7 to 2 million a night. In other words, after the election, things simply returned to normal.
Furthermore, Hannity has NEVER advanced a narrative that Romney would win in a landslide. How many times did Hannity go on the show and say Republicans need to act like it's the 4th quarter and they're down two TDs? How many times did Hannity plea with voters to show up (which, at least as the GOP base goes, they didn't; hence Obama won)?
Yes, he had Rove and Morris, who made such pics. He also had Pat Caddel, who said Romney ran the worst campaign he'd ever seen. He had Scott Rasmussen who said it'd be close and that Romney could possibly win the popular vote but lose the election.
He had Larry Sabato, who picked Obama to win at least 290 EC votes. And, that's the short list.
The guy who wrote the IBT article acts as if 3.6 million is standard fare for Hannity. Heck, even O'Reilly doesn't hit that mark on a regular basis. And, he's been the top cable news guy for 12 years.
Jesus..tone it down..you are really becoming a lapdog for FOX news and the conservatives...chill out and take it easy...Hannity did tout that they were going to win and basically guaranteed it.....you really have got the cheerleading outfit on today...put away the pom poms dude....
-
Jesus..tone it down..you are really becoming a lapdog for FOX news and the conservatives...chill out and take it easy...Hannity did tout that they were going to win and basically guaranteed it.....you really have got the cheerleading outfit on today...put away the pom poms dude....
Hannity did no such thing. I've watched the show and the guests. I heard what Hannity said and posted it here. How do you go from "it's the 4th quarter and we're down two touchdowns" to a guaranteed landslide victory?
You're posting BS, based on left-winged sources. And you're calling ME a lapdog? PLEASE!!
Show me ONE QUOTE where Hannity guarantees a landslide Romney victory, not Hannity's guests (Rove, Morris, etc.) but Sean Hannity himself.
-
Jesus..tone it down..you are really becoming a lapdog for FOX news and the conservatives...chill out and take it easy...Hannity did tout that they were going to win and basically guaranteed it.....you really have got the cheerleading outfit on today...put away the pom poms dude....
lost tape
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
^^^
Racist post reported
-
Hannity did no such thing. I've watched the show and the guests. I heard what Hannity said and posted it here. How do you go from "it's the 4th quarter and we're down two touchdowns" to a guaranteed landslide victory?
You're posting BS, based on left-winged sources. And you're calling ME a lapdog? PLEASE!!
Show me ONE QUOTE where Hannity guarantees a landslide Romney victory, not Hannity's guests (Rove, Morris, etc.) but Sean Hannity himself.
I have no idea about Hannity but FOX deliberetly faked the poll numbers.
How do you feel about that?
-
^^^
intentionally whork?
please cite your sources
-
^^^
intentionally whork?
please cite your sources
FOX is my source.
They had Romney winning in their polls.
Who is pres again?
-
LMFAO so that means the INTENTIONALLY faked the polls?
hahahaha only mental pygmys make that jump in illogic
-
LMFAO so that means the INTENTIONALLY faked the polls?
hahahaha only mental pygmys make that jump in illogic
I won't go as far as to say that FOX faked poll numbers but it is VERY VERY suspicious that FOX NEWS WAS THE ONLY MAJOR NEWS ENTITY THAT CALLED IT FOR ROMNEY....very wishful thinking???....or deliberately making a fake prediction???
whork may have a point....although he will never be able to prove it
-
Hannity did no such thing. I've watched the show and the guests. I heard what Hannity said and posted it here. How do you go from "it's the 4th quarter and we're down two touchdowns" to a guaranteed landslide victory?
You're posting BS, based on left-winged sources. And you're calling ME a lapdog? PLEASE!!
Show me ONE QUOTE where Hannity guarantees a landslide Romney victory, not Hannity's guests (Rove, Morris, etc.) but Sean Hannity himself.
He didn't predict a landslide but he predicted a win...and didn't just predict...he basically GUARANTEED IT...this is one of the reasons why he and all of FOX NEWS was butthurt after election day..then he hypocritically said that he was NOW for the DREAM ACT after he relentlessly criticized Obama for months for being for it.......
JUST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>WOW
-
LMFAO so that means the INTENTIONALLY faked the polls?
hahahaha only mental pygmys make that jump in illogic
Yes FOX known for its honesty and credibility just happened to make a mistake in favor of the GOP nominee.
You are the mental pygmy here Tony if you really believe that.
-
Yes FOX known for its honesty and credibility just happened to make a mistake in favor of the GOP nominee.
You are the mental pygmy here Tony if you really believe that.
I would hope to GOD that FOX wouldn't be so biased as to fake polls......but FOX has an obvious agenda
-
I would hope to GOD that FOX wouldn't be so biased as to fake polls......but FOX has an obvious agenda
We both know, Tony included that they would do this.
Best case they are not faking but is incompetent.
-
Yes FOX known for its honesty and credibility just happened to make a mistake in favor of the GOP nominee.
You are the mental pygmy here Tony if you really believe that.
LMFAO is Fox biased, absolutely they are just like MSNBC and CNN
does that mean that either of the three fake poll numbers?
If your logic is that b/c fox is biased they fake poll numbers do you also agree that MSNBC and CNN fake poll numbers as well b/c they are biased?
-
I would hope to GOD that FOX wouldn't be so biased as to fake polls......but FOX has an obvious agenda
all news outlets around now have an agenda, MSNBC just took a story about a women defending her children with a gun and titled it "Trigger happy Atlanta mom shoots intruder in the face 5 times"
That doesnt mean they are out their faking poll numbers.
-
We both know, Tony included that they would do this.
Best case they are not faking but is incompetent.
Whether they would isnt the issue so would MSNBC but that doesnt mean you can say THEY DID DO THIS BRAINCHILD
-
He didn't predict a landslide but he predicted a win...and didn't just predict...he basically GUARANTEED IT...this is one of the reasons why he and all of FOX NEWS was butthurt after election day..then he hypocritically said that he was NOW for the DREAM ACT after he relentlessly criticized Obama for months for being for it.......
JUST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>WOW
Hannity didn't guarantee anything. Obviously, he wanted Romney to win. He repeatedly called himself "cautiously optimistic".
Furthermore, all of Fox News was not "butthurt" after election day. Beckel wasn't "butthurt"; neither were Williams, Powers, Marshall, Holder, Jackson, Colmes, Hill, Rivera, or any of the other liberals who are on the network. Or did you forget that there are plenty of liberals who work for Fox News?
That's to be expected. Two years ago, the MSNBC bunch were "butthurt", after the midterms. They were also "butthurt", after Scott Walker won the recall election.
-
Hannity didn't guarantee anything. Obviously, he wanted Romney to win. He repeatedly called himself "cautiously optimistic".
Furthermore, all of Fox News was not "butthurt" after election day. Beckel wasn't "butthurt"; neither were Williams, Powers, Marshall, Holder, Jackson, Colmes, Hill, Rivera, or any of the other liberals who are on the network. Or did you forget that there are plenty of liberals who work for Fox News?
That's to be expected. Two years ago, the MSNBC bunch were "butthurt", after the midterms. They were also "butthurt", after Scott Walker won the recall election.
HA!...you still have the pom poms out.....after the election, FOX spent some time insinuating that Obama may have been helped by election fraud.....and FOX began doing some investigation into this...THE ONLY NEWS ENTITY TO DO SO.....a case of being a sore loser...
come on McWay..get over it..move on
-
fox news smart
-
LMFAO is Fox biased, absolutely they are just like MSNBC and CNN
does that mean that either of the three fake poll numbers?
If your logic is that b/c fox is biased they fake poll numbers do you also agree that MSNBC and CNN fake poll numbers as well b/c they are biased?
I wouldnt be that surprised if CNN and MSNBC faked their poll numbers.
However their polls were correct and FOX's was not.
So FOX faked the poll numbers.
Its really not that hard.
-
HA!...you still have the pom poms out.....after the election, FOX spent some time insinuating that Obama may have been helped by election fraud.....and FOX began doing some investigation into this...THE ONLY NEWS ENTITY TO DO SO.....a case of being a sore loser...
come on McWay..get over it..move on
This has nothing to do with pom-poms. This is about refuting your blatantly false statements.
I didn't hear you complaining about "sore losers" when MSNBC was still whining about Walker, after he survived his recall. And don't even get me started about whining about election fraud. Libs have been complaining about this (especially on lib networks), since 2000.
Heck, even when both MSNBC and NBC called the recall race for Walker, Ed Schultz and his crew were still talking about fraud and the race not being over and such (with Schultz almost driven to tears).
-
Whether they would isnt the issue so would MSNBC but that doesnt mean you can say THEY DID DO THIS BRAINCHILD
MSNBC is a bunch of retards but their poll data was correct.
They dont blatantly lie like FOX.
-
This has nothing to do with pom-poms. This is about refuting your blatantly false statements.
I didn't hear you complaining about "sore losers" when MSNBC was still whining about Walker, after he survived his recall. And don't even get me started about whining about election fraud. Libs have been complaining about this (especially on lib networks), since 2000.
Heck, even when both MSNBC and NBC called the recall race for Walker, Ed Schultz and his crew were still talking about fraud and the race not being over and such (with Schultz almost driven to tears).
I honestly only started watching MSNBC after the election..up until then I thought they were democratic shills...so I figured whats the point..........I have always watched some FOX NEWS so I am more familiar with their points of view.....but you are blatantly biased for FOX..in your eyes they can do no wrong
-
I honestly only started watching MSNBC after the election..up until then I thought they were democratic shills...so I figured whats the point..........I have always watched some FOX NEWS so I am more familiar with their points of view.....but you are blatantly biased for FOX..in your eyes they can do no wrong
jesus what do you expect from someone that gets his news from hannity and rush
-
Always amazed about how those who claim Fox isn't valid news know so much about what's on it, the programming, what Hannity says on his shows.
lol...Fox owns your small feeble minds.
-
Always amazed about how those who claim Fox isn't valid news know so much about what's on it, the programming, what Hannity says on his shows.
lol...Fox owns your small feeble minds.
It shows that people who criticize FOX has done their research.
You should try it sometime.
It would make you more informed.
-
THEY DON'T HAVE TO THEY JUST HAVE TO PARROT WHAT HANNITY SAYS :D :D :D :D
-
It shows that people who criticize FOX has done their research.
You should try it sometime.
It would make you more informed.
lol...dude, you all waaay beyond research.
You're a closet viewer
And that's just pathetic.
-
No need to use both your gimmicks on me.
-
I honestly only started watching MSNBC after the election..up until then I thought they were democratic shills...so I figured whats the point..........I have always watched some FOX NEWS so I am more familiar with their points of view.....but you are blatantly biased for FOX..in your eyes they can do no wrong
Hardly!! The bottom line is your claims that Hannity guaranteed a Romney win is FALSE and that all of Fox News was "butthurt" by Obama's win.
Not to mention the crux of this thread is also false. I've demonstrated that multiple times with the numbers and the statements on that show.
-
jesus what do you expect from someone that gets his news from hannity and rush
you got me there :)
-
you got me there :)
hahaha, it true they parrot him almost word for word :D :D
-
Always amazed about how those who claim Fox isn't valid news know so much about what's on it, the programming, what Hannity says on his shows.
lol...Fox owns your small feeble minds.
Pretty much! I'm still waiting for Andre to show Hannity's word, guaranteeing a Romney win or his initial claim that Hannity lost half his audience.
-
Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow are entertainers. I even doubt that what you see on TV or hear on the radio from them and their ilk are what they truly believe in. Why they continue to be quoted and referenced to in regards to current events is a shame. You may as well ask Brittney Speers what her thoughts are on the formation of a new separatist nation in Sudan.
-
hahaha, it true they parrot him almost word for word :D :D
It appears you watch this channel more than this whole board combined.
-
It appears you watch this channel more than this whole board combined.
sure,for comical value :D :D