GOP Debate Most-Watched Show on TV
A surpringly large number tuned in to see people who won't be the nominee.
The Hill (“Debate ratings: 12.8 million watched GOP candidates minus Trump battle on Fox News“):
Nearly 13 million people watched the first Republican primary debate on Fox News on Wednesday night, well below the 20 million that tuned into Fox to watch the first GOP primary debate in 2015 — when Donald Trump debuted on the stage.
That 2015 debate was like nothing that had been previously seen on a presidential debate stage before, as Trump, familiar to millions from his years on “The Apprentice,” battled former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and a host of more experienced politicians.
He also memorably clashed with moderator Megyn Kelly, who has since left the network.
The first GOP debate of the 2024 cycle on Wednesday, in comparison, included a number of colorful moments but was a bit more traditional. Without Trump, it did not have the front-runner for the party’s nomination, as the former president is well ahead in most polls.
Still, the telecast garnered 12.8 million viewers including 2.8 million in the key advertising demographic of viewers between the ages of 25-54, according to Nielsen Media Research data.
In an era of cord cutting that has seen television ratings drop precipitously over the last decade, Fox highlighted the figure as a healthy number.
More people watched the debate Wednesday night than anything else on broadcast or cable television.
Fox said the debate was the highest-rated nonsports cable telecast of 2023 and that it topped more than 70 percent of all presidential primary debates in the 2016 and 2020 cycles.
The last Democratic primary debate of 2020, which came amid the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, garnered just over 10 million viewers on CBS, after the two previous Democratic primary debates earned 19 million and 15 million viewers, respectively.
The 12.8 million figure accounts for views on cable Fox News broadcasts as well as Fox’s digital streams but does not factor in viewers who saw clips from the debate on social media or portions of the event elsewhere.
Given that Trump was not on the stage and that he’s leading the polls by 40-odd points, I’m genuinely surprised that so many tuned it.
Oh, that’s nothing. Trump is claiming that over 232 million watched him and Tucker Carlson.
He is also claiming he weighs 215 pounds.
@Paine:
And that he’s 6’3″.
https://twitter.com/SykesCharlie/status/1694708243916890560
Bulwark goes on to add a paragraph or two (more for Nikki) about each of the others.
“Bulwark”
On a more serious note, I think the parties would be doing the country a favor by raising the threshold requirements to attend these sorts of events. Sure, you want to be inclusive and fair but the more people there are on the stage the less productive these debates seem to get. IN the history of modern politics is there even a single instance of one of these “barely met the requirements to attend the debate” candidates having any sort of impact on the primary?
@Paine: The requirements ratchet up with every successive debate. Both Doug Burgum and Asa Hutchinson are likely to be eliminated next time. Which both makes sense and is rather a shame, in that they’re more qualified than most of those running.
This may indicate a lot of voters are looking for an alternative to Trump and wanted to see what’s available.
@Paine:
@James Joyner:
I would dispute that Burgum is particularly well qualified, but taken together your comments are a nice example of Dr. T’s concern about weak parties. I tend to think we were better served by smoke filled rooms.
It’s like NASCAR…Americans cannot resist a good old fashioned train-wreck.
@gVOR10: I don’t have a strong opinion of Burgum, having not heard of him before he announced his candidacy. But he’s nearing the end of his second term as a state governor. That certainly puts him ahead of the likes of Vivek Ramaswamy. Still, by resume alone, he’s less qualified than Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, or Chris Christie, so it’s not like it’s a devastating loss to the field if he doesn’t make the cut.
@James Joyner: Having been born in ND and still having relatives there I’ve been aware of Burgum for some time. He’s governor of a state with a tiny population. He’s run as a standard issue MAGA. And he claims credit for a healthy economy based on oil and coal extraction that had nothing to do with him. All he really has going for him is money.
But you’re right that Burgum has more relevant experience than Ramaswamy, about whom the Guardian has a good piece. Turns out he has the same qualification for government as J. D. Vance, Peter Thiel’s money. And Leonard Leo’s.
It’s interesting. One interpretation could be that as @Mikey:
suggests, Republicans are more open to shopping for a candidate than we think. Another interpretation might be that these ratings are deceptive as they exclude streaming, so we don’t know whether the debate outperformed Suits, or Friends re-runs. Then again, there’s a strike on and original TV is getting pretty thin. But I suspect @Daryl: may have the best guess. Politics is entertainment, and maybe there was no pro wrestling on that night.
It’s Reality TV. Watch a bunch of grown men in suits debase themselves to questions like “Will you vote for Trump even if he is convicted?” — kind of the opposite of feats of strength.
This says 19 million watched the initial debate of the competetive 2020 Democratic primary, 20 million for the competetive 2016 Republican primary.
That this Republican debate lost about a third of that audience shows Trump’s quasi-incumbent status reduced interest significantly, despite the clown car trainwreck entertainment value.
13 mil or so real-time viewers doesn’t feel unusual. It’s still event programming with national implications.
“most watched” is a low bar these days. 13 million is a whopping 4% of the population.
American TV must be a lot more boring than I’d expected.
@Michael Reynolds:
There was*. One of the up and coming promotions is trying to compete with the McMahons and has a couple of two-hour weekly shows on cable/satellite. They’ve sold 80,000 live tickets for their pay-per-view from Wembley Stadium on Sunday. Unknown number of viewers.
* Ever since we decided we needed to place my wife in memory care, I am subject to occasional bouts of black depression in the evenings. Particularly on the days when I visit her. For some reason, watching professional wrestling seems to catch my attention. I find myself comparing how physically skilled the performers are, and if the writers are doing anything reasonable with the characters. (Excuse me, I should say bookers, not writers, since they’re not members of the WGA.)
@Andy:
Count me among the 96%. I had on the penultimate episode of Barnaby Jones season 2. John Zaremba was far too old looking to play Mariette Hartley’s father. Grandfather he would have been fine. Zaremba is only 32 years older than Hartley but appearance wise he doesn’t match.
@Michael Cain: Actually, there are bookers and writers both. The bookers loosely “choreograph” the action and who “wins” and there are different people who write the outlines/scripts of the interviews and promos that various solo stars do (as when Cody Rhodes says “So -X-, whaddya wanna talk about” or Roman Reigns blathers on after shouting “Acknowledge me!”)
@Daryl:
Unlike NASCAR, many who spent hours watching this debate will never turn to the left.
I do tend to agree with Thucydides regarding the tenor of democratic politics under economic hardship:
“[As conditions deteriorated] reckless audacity was thought to be loyal courage, while careful delay was veiled timidity; reasonableness was a guise for cowardice … the extremist was always to be trusted, the moderate to be suspected. Men set the example in their retribution against one another of undermining those common laws which all alike can rely on in adversity. [Competition will escalate into bloodshed until] as is wont to happen in such events, there was no limit that the violence did not surpass.”