Second Presidential Debate Draws 65.6 Million Viewers, Down 1.6 Million From First Debate

Categories: 1-Featured,Broadcast TV,Cable TV

Written By

October 17th, 2012

via nielsenwire.

An estimated 65.6 million people tuned in to watch the second debate between incumbent President Barack Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney on Tuesday, October 16.

The town hall-style debate, hosted by Hofstra University in New York and moderated by CNN’s Candy Crowley, was carried across 12 networks.

While coverage varied by network, 10 networks aired live coverage from approximately 9:00PM to 10:45PM while Univision and Telemundo aired coverage on tape delay. The chart below highlights the sum of the average audience for these networks.

The second presidential debate, and third overall, in this political season’s debate quartet netted 2.4 million more viewers than the second presidential debate between then Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain in 2008.


-
2012 Networks Included:
Debate 1 – ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, TEL, UNI, PBS, CNN, FOXNC, MSNBC, CurrentTV and CNBC
Debate 2 – ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, TEL, UNI, PBS, CNN, FOXNC, MSNBC, CurrentTV and CNBC

2008 Networks Included:
Debate 1– ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, Telefutura, Telemundo, BBC-America, CNBC, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC
Debate 2 – ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, Telemundo, Univision, BBC-America, CNBC, CNN, FOX News Channel, and MSNBC

 
  • thebobm

    So the video and the report on the video via social networking had no effect on the people?

    A spontaneous riot is a bad time to initiate a planned attack on a consulate.?…better to just try it at night in the dark with no disturbances. Or maybe daylight is good.
    The two events are not mutually exclusive…to believe they are is unsupportable by any of the facts now available.

    It took 25 years to get the report out about saving 6 Americans during the student riots in Iran. You see, somethings should be secret. And sometimes events are complicated, information is hard to come by and sometimes conflicting information is received.

    And let’s see, the day after Benghazi and the President in the Rose Garden uses the word Terrorism in a speech, and it was only related to 9/11 … wow, some people speak in full thoughts and expect you to follow.

  • RG-X

    Viewers were Down because those 1.6M people have voted – they decided after that debate!

  • RG-X

    “AN ACT OF TERROR” = usually random, wreckless, unplanned, done by anyone, a “knee jerk” reaction.

    “A TERRORIST ATTACK” = Planned, Thought out, strategic, usually done by those against America & Isreal.

    Obama at best called it an “Act of Terror”. Clinton & Rice went on TV campaigns and said it was A Random act, unplanned & a reation to a movie posted over 60 days prior.

  • craigcuk

  • craigcuk

    I love the way this seems to rabidly polarise certain segments of society.

    1. Did Obama intend to talk about general Terrorism in the Rose Garden statement? I think I would have to say yes to this, he did say “Act of Terror” but I think was talking in general terms.

    2. Did Romneys premature announcement reek of political opportunism not actually based on hard intelligence? I think I would have to say yes to this as well.

    3. Did the attack use the opportunistic cover of the ‘Film Riots’ to successfully misdirect the actual motive for the attack? This seems to certainly be true.

    4. Would it be appropriate now to wait till all the facts are in before either side continues to sound off? I wish on so many levels.

  • The End

    @RG-X

    Incorrect, that would imply 1.6 million people are tracked by Nielsen which isn’t true.

  • Jason

    Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney has done or said anything that would indicate either man has any intention of dismantling the ubiquitous surveillance society/police state that is engulfing our country. Just the opposite. Both men have committed themselves to the tyrannical provisions of the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the NDAA, etc. Neither man has any intention of dismantling the Warfare State that is leading the United States smack dab into the middle of World War III. In fact, I predict that if Romney is elected (which I think he will be), he will escalate America’s policies of military interventionism to heights never before seen. He will make G.W. Bush’s preemptive war incursions look like child’s play. (And I think the globalists know this and fully intend to put Romney in power for this very purpose.)
     
    Noted researcher and analyst Joel Skousen quotes Daniel Indiviglio, Reuter’s Breakingviews columnist, as saying that Mitt Romney’s future wars will be a budget buster: “Mitt Romney’s foreign policy doesn’t match his thrifty approach to other spending. The U.S. Republican presidential candidate’s speech on Monday suggests a George W. Bush-like interventionist streak, another step away from the party’s pre-World War Two isolationism. That could lead to more Middle East conflict and defense spending. It’s also just as risky as President Barack Obama’s stance.”

    And Skousen (himself a Mormon), after excoriating Obama, says this about Mitt Romney: “But that isn’t to say Romney would save us from much of the Obama agenda. He’s already sending messages that he would retain most of Obamacare even if repealed. Romney’s problem is that he has too much ambition and is trying desperately to please the establishment. He has hired virtually all establishment and neocon advisors. I hope he loses–not because I want Obama back, but because the conservative movement suffers under Republican presidents who do the establishment bidding while convincing conservatives it’s the ‘right thing to do.’ It’s not.”

© 2014 Tribune Digital Ventures