'

Cable News Ratings for Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Categories: '

Written By

August 9th, 2012

 

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for Wednesday, August 8, 2012

P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
Total Day
FNC       1,104            231            481
CNN         276             80            103
MSNBC         437            147            199
CNBC         184             63            101
FBN           65             16             33
HLN         195             85            118
Primetime P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC       2,151            394            839
CNN         353            104            132
MSNBC         852            236            363
CNBC         260            102            158
FBN           51             14             34
HLN         196             62            113
Net Morning programs (6-9 AM) P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC FOX & Friends         891            261            471
CNN Early Start/Starting Point         196             90             87
MSNBC Morning Joe         336            136            188
CNBC Squawk Box         138             39             81
HLN Morning Express w/ Meade         255            155            201
Net 5PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC FIVE, THE       1,642            347            681
CNN Situation Room         538            109            194
MSNBC S OLY PM         585            179            258
CNBC S OLY PM         360            115            183
HLN EVENING EXPRESS         118             27             53
Net 6PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC SPECIAL RPT W/BRET BAIER       1,630            268            634
CNN Situation Room         368             91            129
MSNBC POLITICS NATION         603            186            296
CNBC S OLY PM         398            185            218
HLN EVENING EXPRESS           88             23             52
Net 7PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC The Fox Report W/S.SMITH       1,522            264            580
CNN ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT         359            107            132
MSNBC Hardball WITH C. MATTHEWS         816            221            367
CNBC S OLY PM         514            218            286
HLN JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL         245             84            152
Net 8PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC THE OREILLY FACTOR       2,823            467         1,071
CNN Anderson Cooper 360         382             85            134
MSNBC Ed Show         865            218            387
CNBC AMER GREED THE FUGITIVES         337            115            205
HLN Nancy Grace         305             99            178
Net 9PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC Hannity       1,971            436            847
CNN Piers Morgan Tonight         371             98            133
MSNBC Rachel Maddow Show         922            292            392
CNBC AMER GREED THE FUGITIVES         253             92            147
HLN Dr. Drew         156             40             78
Net 10PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC ON THE RECORD W/GRETA       1,654            278            597
CNN Anderson Cooper 360         307            127            130
MSNBC Last Word W/ L. ODONNELL         767            196            309
CNBC AMERICAN GREED         189             98            123
HLN Nancy Grace         129             48             83
Net 11PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC THE OREILLY FACTOR       1,163            262            533
CNN ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT         297             90            129
MSNBC Ed Show         458            153            192
CNBC Mad Money           85             41             48
HLN SHOWBIZ TONIGHT         114             34             59

-
For other days cable news ratings click here.

P2+ = viewers over the age of 2

(25-54) = Adults 25-54 viewing

(35-64) = Adults 35-64 viewing

Prime Time = 8-11pm

LIVE+SD: The number that watched a program either while it was broadcast OR watched via DVR on the same day [through 3AM the next day] the program was broadcast. For more information see Numbers 101.

Scratch = when a show's audience fails to meet minimum Nielsen reporting levels. For more information go here.

Nielsen Cable Network Coverage Estimates (as of July, 2011)

CNN/HLN: 101.12 million HHs

CNBC: 98.62 million HHs

FNC: 99.15 million HHs

MSNBC: 95.72 million HHs

Fox Business: 58.15 million HHs

Nielsen TV Ratings Data: ©2012 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.

 
  • d.d.

    Obama now leads Romney by 11 among independents in new CNN and Fox News polls

    ————————————–

    California Democrats Including Maxine Waters Attend Meeting Where Muslim Group Urges Support For Sharia Law…

    A town hall meeting at the Islamic Society of Orange County earlier this year declared there is no conflict between sharia law, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Several lawmakers and officials in The Golden State — including Democratic U.S. Congresswomen Maxine Waters and Loretta Sanchez; Los Angeles Police Department Deputy Chief Michael Downing; and Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca — urged support for sharia law.

    ——————–

    BBT Have a nice night,all.

  • Kevin in NC

    Rachael Maddow beat F&F, Brett Baier, Shepard Smith, and Gretta Van—–, in the Demo. Look out Hannity, Rachel is coming for you next.

  • Matthew

    @d.d.: “Arthur Laffer: The Real ‘Stimulus’ Record

    Those interested might like to view the chart.”
    ____________________________________

    I did read the chart, and with your own level of knowledge in economics, and (presumably) statistics, you should be able to determine immediately why Laffer’s article is self-serving hucksterism. First of all, correlation does not imply causation; Second of all, Laffer’s data doesn’t even present correlation, much less causation. Even the countries whose government spending grew by less than 1% saw their GDP decline massively, some in excess of 10%.

    His data also comes from 2007 – 2009, AKA the height of the decline. A dishonest person could collect two sets of variables from that time period to create just about any sort of correlation they want between Variable A (Whatever) and Variable B (decline in GDP), because there was massive global decline in GDP during that period. “Look at this! The volume of dog farts increased by 5% between 2007 and 2009, and over that same period, global GDP declined!”

    The comment section for that article sheds more light on this than I could, thanks to some helpful, obsessive people with Excel and some time on their hands. Not only is there not a causative relationship between GDP decline and spending, there isn’t even a correlation in around half of the countries, since some countries were running surpluses or practicing austerity, and still had massive GDP decline.

  • Matthew

    @Hillbilly: “You can continue to use % of GDP & the rest of your gobbly gook.”
    ____________________________

    Sorry, but what you call “gobbly gook” is what any person who remotely understands economics would call ‘context.’ You have consistently displayed a tendency toward judging a number’s size in a vacuum, without any concern whatsoever for the actual implications of the number. “$450 billion! There sure are a lot of zeros in that number!” Want an example of why context matters? YES, HAVE SOME:

    In 1943, the government ran a $55 billion federal deficit. Using your logic of only judging the number by it’s total size, we would consider a $55 billion deficit to be small, even laughable compared to a 2012 deficit of $1.3 trillion. The thing is, though, that that $55 billion deficit was 28% of GDP. That would be the modern equivalent of running a $4.4 trillion single year deficit. CONTEXT MATTERS. THE PERCENT OF GDP MATTERS.

    If you feel that I am being condescending or aggressive (you’re right, I am), it’s because the argument you’re making is, in essence “This is bad because I feel that it’s bad.” You acknowledge low interest and inflation rates, then proceed to say we’re in trouble anyway, because of the size of the number. Our deficits are high, but they’re also in line with past wartime deficits, which is important; We may not talk about it much, but we ARE at war, and that’s in addition to the economic recession.

  • Matthew

    @d.d.: More about the Laffer article
    _________________________

    Okay, okay, just one more Bad Post That Nobody Will Read, because it cannot be overstated how incorrect Laffer’s ‘conclusions’ are. One of his primary examples in his article of “failed stimulus” is Estonia, when Estonia is pretty much the poster child for why he’s full of sh*t. Not only did Estonia NOT practice stimulus during the recession, they actually cut government spending. Estonia’s total public debt (debt, not deficit) is only 6.7% of GDP. That would be the equivalent of the United States having only around $1 trillion in total debt. In other words, Estonia practiced austerity.

    Here’s an example of how Laffer creates the phony perception that some countries were practicing stimulus, even while they were actually practicing austerity: Let’s say, in 2007, the government of Matthewtopia has government spending of $100 billion, and a GDP of $1 trillion, making government spending 10% of GDP. The economic downturn comes, and Matthewtopia is hit hard, and decides to implement austerity. In 2009, government spending is $90 Billion, and GDP is $700 billion, making government spending 13% of GDP.

    Despite practicing austerity, if you were to chart this the way Laffer did, it would show that Matthewtopia INCREASED government spending by 23%, while at the same time it’s economy declined by 30%. This would allow me to make the phony argument that a government that was actually practicing austerity implemented a failed stimulus plan, when nothing of the sort actually happened. Funny guy, that Art Laffer.

  • Coffee Steve

    Nice discussion on the economy

    My take, I’ll keep it simplistic and in laymen terms

    We’re spending more than any time in history, more than half are on some kind of government assistance, and we have a President and a congress that doesn’t have a rat’s butt idea on what they are doing.

    We have Democrats and Republicans who couldn’t care less that live inside their own little bubbles and don’t even realize what it means to a family that has to put 60 bucks in their cars each week just to drive to work.

    We have coming skyrocket food prices, higher gas prices, higher taxes, and we have a debt of almost 16 Trillion. I’d type the zeros but maybe would need a new page.

    It’s stupid. We’re spending ourselves into oblivion and no one seems to understand a basic concept of a budget. SPEND only what you HAVE. Just look at the rest of the globe, they have tried it that way and look where they are at. Near total economic collapse and we’re following that lead? Good Grief.

    It may be different, granted if we actually had people who had a clue.

    Night Everyone, Don’t take no wooden pickels.

  • Stan T

    Tony
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 2:29 PM
    Wow, Fox & Friends is not doing well. Less than 900K viewers.

    *****************************************
    Not doing well? They are only 32k shy of the combined total of all thier competition…if they aren’t doing well, then their competition should just air a test pattern….

  • Stan T

    Tony
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 2:29 PM
    Wow, Fox & Friends is not doing well. Less than 900K viewers.
    ******************************

    I can play that game too…Bill O’Reilly beat the ever loving crap out of Rachel maddow…

  • Stan T

    @Coffee Steve

    Yeah, I laugh at the lefties. The European countries have been doing this leftist spending for decades, if it were going to work, surely it would have worked by now. But what do you expect…Obama admits he’s designed his green energy program on Spain. You know, the country with permanent 20% unemployment, and he’s doing pretty good, if you look at the REAL unemployment rate of 15.4%. I also love their “spend your way to prosperity” plan…we tried that too, doesn’t work worth a damn, just means we owe about $6 trillion more in debt by the end of the year….Obama said if he spent his $847 billion stimulous unemployment wouldn’t go over 8%. It hasn’t been under 8% since.

    I also love how he attacked Bush for spending $4 trillion in 8 years, even though over half of it was after the dems took over congress in 2007. And he’s heading for $6 trillion in 4 years….so Obama must be at least twice as bad as Bush, by his own definition.

  • Matthew

    @Hillbilly

    Stricken by insomnia, the Intrepid Poster returns with a few (I promise, only a few) more words about interest on the debt: I was incorrect when I said that around half of the U.S. debt is owed to ourselves. It’s actually 62.2%, which means that a majority of those interest payments are also going to U.S. entities (and thus, the U.S. economy), and not simply flying off the face of the Earth.

  • Hillbilly

    The negative ads by Obama’s PAC’s are working. Even Charles Krauthammer sees the damage done by this type of Chicago style sleaze advertising to Romney.

    Willard can fix some of this in the debates if he has the gonads. When asked a question say – I’ll answer it but first I would ask Prez Nobama to condemn ads saying I killed folks & gave them cancer.

  • Hillbilly

    @Matthew

    Using the pejorative words “chronic inability to understand the difference ” is akin to talking to NC Jeff.

    You have not once described any way in which the national debt is related to our present economic problems, or how making it a priority will do anything other than worsen the present economy.

    Interests payments on the debt. Business uncertainty on how the govt will deal with the debt. Credit ratings agencies saying their going to reduce our credit rating because we have no plan to get the debt under control.

    I believe I have explained, quite thoroughly, why problems typically associated with a high national debt (inflation, interest on the debt) are not significant factors in the current downturn, and you have not offered anything to contradict this.

    That’s your opinion. I disagree with all do respect. Your theory because we’re in a down turn inflation, interest on the debt aren’t priorities/significant is hog wash IMO

    You also fail to acknowledge the fact that I have, on several occasions, mentioned that we have a long-term debt problem related to the viability of Medicare and Social Security,

    I didn’t know i was suppose to mention your thoughts of the past on Medicare and Social Security.

    which is completely unrelated to short-term debt resulting from the massive destruction of wealth that occurred in 2008. I have never said we shouldn’t solve the long-term debt, I’ve said it’s a matter of priorities.

    Short-term debt gets rolled over to long term debt. We have to borrow money to pay/cover short term debt.

    There’s not a single proposed major GOP plan that creates surpluses, or even comes close.

    There’s at least 4. I guess that depends on what you mean by “major.” Three by Senators (not sure in C Mack is still in the senate) & one by a member of the house.

    “We can’t raise taxes, it’ll hurt the economy.” In other words, “The economy is a greater priority than the debt, and we’re okay with deficit driven recovery.”

    Your assuming taxes have to be raised to fix the problem. Then trying to tie that to “we’re okay with deficit driven recovery.” Some in the GOP disagree. I didn’t know you was the spokesperson for the GOP. Ditto for your defense theory.

    It’s all still ‘Starve the Beast,’ which is the exact opposite of fiscal responsibility: It’s fiscal irresponsibility for the express purpose of achieving a fanatical goal.

    Again your opinion. Folks have to decide on the size & reach of the fed govt they want. This is in theory decided on election day. In 2010 small govt won. We shall see who wins in 2012.

  • Hillbilly

    So the “short term priority” should be getting the economy growing. Define what short term means? We been spending like crazy since 2008. 4 years not long enough? Haven’t spent our way to prosperity in 4 years so just keep at it. :roll: In the mean time the debt continues to grow. When (not if) interest rates go up & the cost of paying the interest on the debt goes up we can all thank those who said the % of GDP said it was OK.

  • Hillbilly

    Is this better than what Nobama is running on? IMO YES! Does everybody agree this is the right approach? NO! That’s why we have elections.

    Governor Romney approaches the deficit and debt crisis from a spending standpoint. He does not belief that the government needs to take in more money, but that it needs to simplify it’s tax system and reform entitlement spending.

    Cut federal spending and cap it at 20 percent of GDP
    Block grant Medicaid and pursue further entitlement reform
    Reduce the federal workforce
    Restructure the federal government
    Pursue a Balanced Budget Amendment

  • Hillbilly

    Yep the debt & deficit should be put on the back burner. It’s much more important to keep borrowing money. Just keep increasing both because the % of GDP is at some arbitrary level.

    The new borrowing took total public debt to $14.58 trillion, over end-2010 GDP of $14.53 trillion, and putting it in a league with highly indebted countries like Italy and Belgium.

  • Hillbilly

    I’ll take this guys advice on the budget over what some other folks are talking about.

    Here is his Wiki page. His plan to balance the budget is hyper-linked on there too. It’s not as aggressive as I’d prefer, but nobody agrees on 100% of everything.

    Every person running (in my memory) has a budget plan. Usually it appeals to their base while trying to attract independents. I have never seen anybody get 100% of said plan passed into law. So scoring said plans is not IMO something to be taken to seriously. Nobama & Willard can say anything they want while running. Congress has a larger say on the budget.

    Time spent living beyond one’s means necessitates a future period of living below one’s means.

  • Hillbilly

    Matthew – It’s actually 62.2%, which means that a majority of those interest payments are also going to U.S. entities (and thus, the U.S. economy), and not simply flying off the face of the Earth.

    ——————————

    So even more spending (You seem to think it all goes back into the economy) that hasn’t got us out of the fix we’re in. When will folks admit spending is not the answer?

  • Hillbilly

    Matthew – In 1943, the government ran a $55 billion federal deficit. Using your logic of only judging the number by it’s total size, we would consider a $55 billion deficit to be small,

    ——————————

    NO! In 1943 it would have been considered big.

    THE PERCENT OF GDP MATTERS.

    It’s not the ONLY thing that matters. Do you really think if the GDP shrinks the interests payments will shrink with it? GDP is not guaranteed to grow every year. Interests payments won’t go away or get smaller until the debt is gone. To work on the debt we have to get rid of the deficit. When (not if) GDP shrinks we will have less money to pay the bills.

    You acknowledge low interest and inflation rates, then proceed to say we’re in trouble anyway, because of the size of the number.

    You seem to be ignoring the fact they will rise. When (not if) they do the interests payments will rise too. How much would the payment be today if interests rates were 6-8%? I don’t even want to think what they would be if interests rates were in the double digits.

    C’ya

  • Hillbilly

    ****Correction****

    Interests payments won’t go away or get smaller until the debt is gone.

    Should be – Interests payments won’t go & will only get smaller if the deficit is reduced.

    It’s to late to be typing this stuff. :???:

  • Coffee Steve

    Good Morning Everyone
    @d.d.
    The negative ads by Obama’s PAC’s are working. Even Charles Krauthammer sees the damage done

    I love Charles d.d., and he is just trying to smack Romney and his camp into waking up and knowing the slim he is running against (Campaign). The numbers simply do not show any effect. While Fox has President Obama up by 9, they honestly do not have a very good record on polling. (See mid-term elections)

    In almost every market the race is a dead heat. Even Karl Rove’s electorial map has closed the gap. Karl may be alot of things, but when it comes to numbers, theres none better.

    He now has it 179-111 (Obama) 76 Toss Up with 101 Leaning Obama and 71 Leaning Romney. Also there are about 8 States that they expect to lean or go Romney that they have no polling data because no one as of yet have done any polling.

    I do agree with Charles though, Romney is going to at least start going to the gutter and get mean or the ad’s may have an effect. Obama’s economy is heading toward a depression, and he will do anything he can to distact and dis-tort and Romney had better open his eyes and grow up.
    ****************************************************************************
    Just food for thought

    Richard Trumka: Romney just isn;t one of us, he doesn’t understand what we go through

    Hmmm Trumka makes $300,000 a year before bonues. But I’m glad he understands the common worker.

© 2014 Tribune Digital Ventures