Journalism
Drudge has the cable news returns for Tuesday's election.
FOXNEWS HANNITY 6,809,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 6,399,000
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 5,228,000
FOXNEWS BECK 3,446,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 3,338,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 3,241,000
CNN KING 1,681,000
CNN COOPER 1,508,000
CNN BROWN 1,308,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,274,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,236,000
CNN BLITZER 1,135,000
CNNHN BEHAR 845,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 798,000
Let me do the math for you:
Fox: 28,461,000
CNN: 6,477,000
MSNBC: 3,308,000
Seems the public is expressing its opinion on far left agendas both at the polls and on the tube.
it is no doubt that fox kills the others in ratings, but I think you are counting the same people multiple times in your total.
How many times do we need to go over this? OLD PEOPLE watch TV (and Fox News). YOUNG PEOPLE watch the internet or use their iPhone to keep track of elections. Using cable news returns to make some kind of point about "public opinion" is worth squat these days (especially in favor of that 60+ old average-viewership Fox News calls "real America").
Get with it, dude.
Oops. Sorry. 65 is actually the average age . . .
Yeah, Matt, possibly. But you're forgetting you care enough to vote.
I'm tired. Make that "But you're forgetting who cares enough to vote" i.e., all those "old" people who watch the box with the images on it.
Good call(s), Matt. Not to mention the logical leap involved in the idea that those who WATCH a program necessarily AGREE with the point-of-view being offered.
First, I'd like to know the source of these statistics on age.
Second, I doubt it matters. I suspect that conservatives clobber liberals on the 'Net by an even wider margin. Why? Ever taken one of those non-scientific polls on MSN or Netscape? Conservative opinion almost always trounces liberal opinion by 2-1. It's not representative of the American population, but I suspect it is representative of Internet users.
Yea, good call, Matt.
The numbers that Mr. Paulette cites (and adds for us) are interesting, particularly when juxtaposed with the results of this Fox-sponsored poll:
foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/21/fox-news-poll-voters-split-congressional-elections/
"Vote to Re-elect in 2012?
With the president having been in office for about a year, 43 percent of Americans say they would vote to re-elect Barack Obama if the 2012 election were held today, which is unchanged from October, yet is down from 52 percent who said they would re-elect him in April.
All in all, 47 percent of Americans say they would vote for someone else rather than re-electing President Obama, up from 31 percent in April.
Moreover, the number saying they would "definitely" vote to re-elect Obama has declined -- going from 37 percent in April to 26 percent in October to 23 percent in the new poll.
Among Democrats, 46 percent say they would "definitely" vote to re-elect Obama, down from 69 percent in April. Similarly, among people who voted for Obama in the 2008 election, the poll shows 43 percent would "definitely" vote to re-elect him, down from 57 percent.
In hypothetical head-to-head matchups, President Obama tops each of the Republican candidates tested.
By 47 percent to 35 percent Obama bests former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The president has an even wider edge over former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin (55 percent to 31 percent), and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (53 percent to 29 percent).
Finally, twice as many people say they would vote for Obama (48 percent) as would back a candidate from the Tea Party movement (23 percent)."
Yea, and Coakley was up 20 points just a month ago. Meaningless at this stage. I predict a landslide victory over Obama in 2012 if he doesn't pull a "Clinton," and a SERIOUS erosion of his legislative power in 2010 regardless of what else happens.
Scanlon, the fact is the Left hasn't had a new idea in three generations. The Right has newer market-based solutions, but they have trouble enacting them...too many unions, too many governmental vested interests, and too many RINOS. But we abide.