Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

...huh...27 years later...and Reagan still beats Obamessiah...
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/med ... nd-speech/

• President.........Date...........................HH Rating....Households.....Viewers P2+
  Barack Obama...January 20, 2009 -Tues......25.5 ..........28,906,061.....37,793,008
  Ronald Reagan..January 20, 1981-Tue......37.4..........29,100,000...41,800,260
  Richard Nixon...January 20, 1969 - Mon.......33.5...........18,870,000.....27,007,700
  Jimmy Carter...January 20, 1977-Thu..........31.5...........22,430,000.....34,127,090
  Richard Nixon...January 20, 1973-Sat..........28.5...........18,470,000.....32,950,900
  Bill Clinton.......January 20, 1993-Wed........24.5............22,758,111.....29,721,041
  Ronald Reagan..January 20, 1985-Sun.........22.3............18,925,556.....25,053,886
  George W. Bush.January 20, 2001-Sat.........20.8............21,346,400.....29,008,200
  George H.W. Bush January 20, 1989-Fri.......20.0............18,106,000.....23,316,325
  Bill Clinton.......January 20, 1997-Mon........17.1............16,515,000......21,583,000
  George W. Bush.January 20, 2005-Thu........11.8.............12,928,709.....15,536,652

You mean Reagod? The one who is worshiped more than anyone else?

George W. Bush.January 20, 2005-Thu........11.8.............12,928,709.....15,536,652

Wedgebuster wrote:George W. Bush.January 20, 2005-Thu........11.8.............12,928,709.....15,536,652

Look how LOW Bush and Clinton are....given recent history, I'd give Obama an A for pulling ratings....but, we all knew it was kind of an American Idol moment....

AZGrizFan wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:George W. Bush.January 20, 2005-Thu........11.8.............12,928,709.....15,536,652

Look how LOW Bush and Clinton are....given recent history, I'd give Obama an A for pulling ratings....but, we all knew it was kind of an American Idol moment....

Funny you mention that...

...was sitting around with some friend watching the Balls and entertainment coverage...and one of them remarked it looked like just another Hollywood production. Then, during the VP's dance number with his wife, the camera pulled back then zoomed down in front, and he remarked he expected Ryan Seacrest to jump out...

"Aaaaannndd...LETS GIVE - IT - UP...FOR JOE AND JILL BIDEN."


...so appropo.

travelinman67 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Look how LOW Bush and Clinton are....given recent history, I'd give Obama an A for pulling ratings....but, we all knew it was kind of an American Idol moment....

Funny you mention that...

...was sitting around with some friend watching the Balls and entertainment coverage...and one of them remarked it looked like just another Hollywood production. Then, during the VP's dance number with his wife, the camera pulled back then zoomed down in front, and he remarked he expected Ryan Seacrest to jump out...

"Aaaaannndd...LETS GIVE - IT - UP...FOR JOE AND JILL BIDEN."


...so appropo.

Sure you were.

houndawg wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Funny you mention that...

...was sitting around with some friend watching the Balls and entertainment coverage...and one of them remarked it looked like just another Hollywood production. Then, during the VP's dance number with his wife, the camera pulled back then zoomed down in front, and he remarked he expected Ryan Seacrest to jump out...

"Aaaaannndd...LETS GIVE - IT - UP...FOR JOE AND JILL BIDEN."


...so appropo.

Sure you were.

houndawg wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Funny you mention that...

...was sitting around with some friend watching the Balls and entertainment coverage...and one of them remarked it looked like just another Hollywood production. Then, during the VP's dance number with his wife, the camera pulled back then zoomed down in front, and he remarked he expected Ryan Seacrest to jump out...

"Aaaaannndd...LETS GIVE - IT - UP...FOR JOE AND JILL BIDEN."


...so appropo.

Sure you were.

Tman's Friends

stalkerD1B wrote:

stalkerdawg wrote:
Sure you were.

It must be tough knowing now matter how hard you try, you can never win a debate. And it's not about your apparent lack of intelligence either. It's because you base your position on self hate and insecurity rather than facts.
Tman's advice to you: Get a grip on your inabililty to develop a self identity, beyond what your wife has given you permission to embody and express, and you'll be on your way to fixing the problem.

P.S. I'll comp you on my hourly consultation fees this one time, but you're both encouraged to do in-lieu donations to CS.com. You're welcome.

Do these ratings include those who watched it on the Net? Most of the young whipper snappers like myself caught the live feed on Al Gores invention TMan

travelinman67 wrote:

stalkerD1B wrote:

It must be tough knowing now matter how hard you try, you can never win a debate. And it's not about your apparent lack of intelligence either. It's because you base your position on self hate and insecurity rather than facts.
Tman's advice to you: Get a grip on your inabililty to develop a self identity, beyond what your wife has given you permission to embody and express, and you'll be on your way to fixing the problem.

I'm sure Mr. Snuggles has your back.



"Mr. D1B is a big meanie. Kick his butt Twe Man!"

JMU DJ wrote:Do these ratings include those who watched it on the Net? Most of the young whipper snappers like myself caught the live feed on Al Gores invention TMan

Dunno. There was some was some back up explanation I found on another "pol" website discussing Nielsen's method for the ratings...it appears to actually use some pretty sophisticated adjustments, but I don't recall seeing anything to factor in web-viewing adjustments. The principal users of that venue I would think are the "office" workers who were stuck at a desk on the 20th and couldn't be near a T.V., so whatever that variable is...

D1B wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
It must be tough knowing now matter how hard you try, you can never win a debate. And it's not about your apparent lack of intelligence either. It's because you base your position on self hate and insecurity rather than facts.
Tman's advice to you: Get a grip on your inabililty to develop a self identity, beyond what your wife has given you permission to embody and express, and you'll be on your way to fixing the problem.

I'm sure Mr. Snuggles has your back.



"Mr. D1B is a big meanie. Kick his butt Twe Man!"

I do love that ethnic booty.

travelinman67 wrote:

JMU DJ wrote:Do these ratings include those who watched it on the Net? Most of the young whipper snappers like myself caught the live feed on Al Gores invention TMan

Dunno. There was some was some back up explanation I found on another "pol" website discussing Nielsen's method for the ratings...it appears to actually use some pretty sophisticated adjustments, but I don't recall seeing anything to factor in web-viewing adjustments. The principal users of that venue I would think are the "office" workers who were stuck at a desk on the 20th and couldn't be near a T.V., so whatever that variable is...

I have to think many more people watched Obama's. We had about 40 people at work watching it in the conference rooms. There were viewing "parties" all over the nation including Time Square.

D1B wrote:"Mr. D1B is a big meanie. Kick his butt Twe Man!"

Dude...you better go look in a mirror. My life isn't spent at home with a mop in hand...

"That's not fair, beautiful princess. I'm not unhapy...I LOVE to clean the house for you. I'll hurry up so I can fix you a fresh feedbag for lunch."
(D1B...Any Given Day)

D1B wrote: I have to think many more people watched Obama's. We had about 40 people at work watching it in the conference rooms. There were viewing "parties" all over the nation including Time Square.

No doubt...knowing Conference rooms and Times Square didn't exist back in '81.

travelinman67 wrote:

D1B wrote:"Mr. D1B is a big meanie. Kick his butt Twe Man!"

Dude...you better go look in a mirror. My life isn't spent at home with a mop in hand...

"That's not fair, beautiful princess. I'm not unhapy...I LOVE to clean the house for you. I'll hurry up so I can fix you a fresh feedbag for lunch."
(D1B...Any Given Day)

Boy, you sure showed me!

travelinman67 wrote:

D1B wrote: I have to think many more people watched Obama's. We had about 40 people at work watching it in the conference rooms. There were viewing "parties" all over the nation including Time Square.

No doubt...knowing Conference rooms and Times Square didn't exist back in '81.

I don't recall Reagan's being on the Sony Jumbotron in major cities, but then again I wasn't a 40 year old in 1981 like you were.



Tman, circa 1981

Well, we sure know that Al Gore hadn't invented the interwebs in 1981. I would dare say tens of millions watched on-line.

dbackjon wrote:Well, we sure know that Al Gore hadn't invented the interwebs in 1981. I would dare say tens of millions watched on-line.

You mean them bunches of tubes?

dbackjon wrote:Well, we sure know that Al Gore hadn't invented the interwebs in 1981. I would dare say tens of millions watched on-line.

No, but I'm sure the midwest had a tin can and string intraweb to relay the news reports...

CNN.com reported 21.3 MILLION live streams.


Repeat - 21.3 MILLION live streams for the inaguration. Previous record for a single event was 5 million.



The Obama Inaguration was easily the most watched in history - probably 5 times as many in the US alone, who know - 100 times or more world wide.

dbackjon wrote:CNN.com reported 21.3 MILLION live streams.


Repeat - 21.3 MILLION live streams for the inaguration. Previous record for a single event was 5 million.



The Obama Inaguration was easily the most watched in history - probably 5 times as many in the US alone, who know - 100 times or more world wide.

Those koolaid-drinkin' sheep sure do know their way around the interweb, don't they?

dbackjon wrote:CNN.com reported 21.3 MILLION live streams.


Repeat - 21.3 MILLION live streams for the inaguration. Previous record for a single event was 5 million.



The Obama Inaguration was easily the most watched in history - probably 5 times as many in the US alone, who know - 100 times or more world wide.

Exactly. As the economy worsens, many people are ditching cable and turning solely to the internet for their television viewing. And why not, when networks are making their shows available nearly immediately after their network airings, and it's easy to stream news from a variety of sources?

The Nielson ratings are not the be all, end all gauge for determining an audience. There's also the fact that many people had viewing parties, similarly to the Super Bowl. They don't count those viewers individually, either.

Frankly, the Nielsons are a bunch of statistics, and not really an accurate measure of actual data. I'm not even saying this because I'm an Obama supporter--I say this as a student of mass media. The ratings system for TV and radio (Arbitron) is flawed as technology evolves, but so far, there isn't a solution.