Clinton-Trump debate reaches 84 million viewers, toppling record

[webfact]

Debate reaches 84 million viewers, toppling record

By DAVID BAUDER

 

NEW YORK (AP) — The showdown between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was the most-watched presidential debate ever, with 84 million viewers.

 

The Nielsen company said the viewership, over 13 different networks, toppled a record that had stood for 36 years. The previous record for presidential debate viewership was the 80.6 million people who saw the only debate in 1980 between incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter and his Republican challenger Ronald Reagan.

 

At the time of the Carter-Reagan debate, the U.S. population was 226 million. Now, it is 324 million, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

 

No debate since then had exceeded 70 million viewers.

 

Social media was humming, too, with Nielsen saying there were some 17.1 million Twitter interactions involving 2.7 million people on Monday. Tivo said that the moment during the debate that caused more people to pause their television and play back what was said came near the end, when Trump said that he will "absolutely support" Clinton if she is elected president.

 

Clinton has some bragging rights at home. When final results are in, the audience for her first presidential debate will more than double what her husband, former President Bill Clinton, received for his last presidential debate in 1996 (36.3 million viewers).

 

Only the Super Bowl annually commands a television audience of that size. The biggest audience in U.S. television history was the 114.4 million people who watched the 2015 Super Bowl between New England and Seattle.

 

The news was particularly good for NBC. Not only did it have more viewers than any other network showing the debate, but "Nightly News" anchor Lester Holt's reviews as moderator were more positive than Matt Lauer received for his interviews with the candidates at a national security forum earlier this month, or CNBC anchors when they did a GOP debate last fall.

 

Watching the debate was nerve-wracking for NBC Universal chief executive Steve Burke because of the pressure on Holt. Burke said at an appearance in London on Tuesday that Holt "ended up doing a very good job."

 

Holt was not available for an interview on Tuesday.

 

Some Republicans were unhappy with Holt, suggesting that he was unfair because he asked tougher questions of Trump, and challenged his facts on issues like Trump's support for the war in Iraq and a court case involving the "stop-and-frisk" method of policing.

 

That may account for an overnight change of thinking by the candidate. Interviewed by reporters immediately after the debate, Trump said that "I thought Lester did a really good job" and that he thought Holt brought up the topics he wanted.

 

Several hours later, on Fox News Channel's "Fox & Friends," Trump said he thought Holt earned a C or a C-plus for his debate performance, and that he asked unfair questions.

 

The second of three scheduled debates will be Oct. 9. The "town hall"-style forum will be moderated by CNN's Anderson Cooper and ABC News' Martha Raddatz.

___

Associated Press writer Jill Lawless in London contributed to this report.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-09-28

[thaibeachlovers]

I thought it would have been more. The article doesn't say if that includes people internationally.

 

However, I expect a BIG drop in the audience next time after the boring display. Nothing new was learned, no opinions were changed, just blah blah blah.

 

 

Tivo said that the moment during the debate that caused more people to pause their television and play back

Is anyone else disturbed that they can tell what program people are watching?

[Silurian]

I thought Lester Holt did a far better job than Matt Lauer. I know some people thought Lester was a little too soft on keeping the candidates on track and time but sometimes you need to let the candidates just talk and lead themselves. I never thought that either candidate took way too much time. Clinton spoke for about 42 minutes and Trump for about 45 minutes. That's pretty fair.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 minutes ago, Silurian said:

I thought Lester Holt did a far better job than Matt Lauer. I know some people thought Lester was a little too soft on keeping the candidates on track and time but sometimes you need to let the candidates just talk and lead themselves. I never thought that either candidate took way too much time. Clinton spoke for about 42 minutes and Trump for about 45 minutes. That's pretty fair.

I'd have liked him to have a switch on their mikes, so he could stop the interruptions. Nothing was gained when both were talking at the same time.

I thought he let the replies go on far too long, and then he was saying there were unanswered questions.

If they can't make a reply in two minutes, they should just get cut off.

[Silurian]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'd have liked him to have a switch on their mikes, so he could stop the interruptions. Nothing was gained when both were talking at the same time.

I thought he let the replies go on far too long, and then he was saying there were unanswered questions.

If they can't make a reply in two minutes, they should just get cut off.

 

Allowing interruptions have been a staple of presidential debates for years. It goes to showing the temperament of the candidates and allows quick rebuttals. I thought for the most part the two minute rule was followed with a few 20 second add ons.

 

Granted there where a few times they tried to talk over each other but no more than normal for these types of debates. Yes, it is annoying.

[mesterm]

15 exclusive questions to Trump, 2 to Hillary: https://i.sli.mg/TSJarz.png

 

Even the BBC is saying the moderator was biased: https://i.sli.mg/HVaitj.png

 

Edited September 28, 2016 by mesterm

[1337markus]

Who cares unless you have US citizenship you have no input into this farce.

[Jingthing]

But it was under the hyped projection of 100 million.

Interesting.

Let's face it the main draw was the big orange clown ... and he delivered the goods by melting down in such an entertaining way.

A very good omen for his probable next future move after the election, grand poobah of a new right wing media empire, specializing in Islamophobia, misogyny, fat shaming women (but not men), alt-right / white supremacy, and last but not least ... CONSPIRACY THEORIES. 

[dunroaming]

6 minutes ago, 1337markus said:

Who cares unless you have US citizenship you have no input into this farce.

 

Yes but remember the debate was shown pretty much around the world.  No input on the result but would you want your street brawl aired to the whole world.  These are candidates to one of the most important positions anywhere and you would think that how they conducted themselves would matter quite a lot.

[Chicog]

9 hours ago, Silurian said:

I thought Lester Holt did a far better job than Matt Lauer. I know some people thought Lester was a little too soft on keeping the candidates on track and time but sometimes you need to let the candidates just talk and lead themselves. I never thought that either candidate took way too much time. Clinton spoke for about 42 minutes and Trump for about 45 minutes. That's pretty fair.

 

Interestingly...

 

Quote

 

Trump spoke significantly faster than Clinton as well. He spoke an average of 188 words per minute vs. Clinton's 146 words per minute. He also spoke roughly one grade level lower than Clinton, according to a Flesch-Kincaid readability analysis.

 

 

I'm not at all surprised Trump is a grade below Clinton.

 

 

[Silurian]

2 minutes ago, Chicog said:

Interestingly...

 

Quote

 

Trump spoke significantly faster than Clinton as well. He spoke an average of 188 words per minute vs. Clinton's 146 words per minute. He also spoke roughly one grade level lower than Clinton, according to a Flesch-Kincaid readability analysis.

 

 

I'm not at all surprised Trump is a grade below Clinton.

 

Trump has that machine gun speech pattern down. Maybe he thinks if he speaks fast enough, it will be harder to pin him down. You say enough words per minute and it would confuse most people.

 

But you know, speaking fast is a short term effect of a certain drug (not to be named here).

"When the drug hits the brain, users feel a surge of energy, a feeling of supremacy and confidence. Users may talk fast and excitedly, be very active..."

[Linzz]

Sorry to repeat this from another thread but it's more relevant here

 

Personally I found that the moderator did not ask any hard questions of Hillary, it was all about scrutinizing Trump. For instance the hammering Trump got about backing the Iraq war or not, backwards and forwards, yes or no, did he or didn't he, for about 10 minutes. Yet there was NO questioning Hillary over the same issue who DID back the war and has since said "I made a mistake". (oopps sorry about all those deaths). Whatever Trump believed  back in 2004, he was in no way responsible which pales in comparison to the fact that Hillary was responsible by backing the war and was not held up to any scrutiny  at all for that disaster nor held to any account

 

Additionally...

 

The same with the email issue Hillary admitted making a mistake with that too but was never pressed by the moderator (so Trump should have) as to the content of those emails and why she had to employ a firm to bleach them so God couldn't even retrieve them. A lot on what was Trump hiding (taxes for another 10 minutes) but no questions asked on what was Hillary hiding to require such drastic treatment in terms of national security, which is a bit more important than Trump's taxes. No questions asked as to why she won't release her Goldman Sachs speeches either...or Benghazi where more lives were lost. If there remains question marks over issues where lives are lost then they should be addressed. I see these  things as far more important than tales of bankruptcy.

 

Yes I believe the moderator was biased and failed to do his job properly.

[Ulysses G.]

34 minutes ago, Linzz said:

Sorry to repeat this from another thread but it's more relevant here

 

Personally I found that the moderator did not ask any hard questions of Hillary, it was all about scrutinizing Trump.

 

You are absolutely correct. I had no problem with the questions that he asked Trump, but Hillary has far worse scandals that were virtually ignored.

[Chicog]

Just now, Ulysses G. said:

 

You are absolutely correct. I had no problem with the questions that he asked Trump, but Hillary has far worse scandals that were virtually ignored.

 

Yes, because most of them aren't real scandals.

I mean what sort of idiot thinks there is anything left to wring out of the Benghazi show trial other than the fact that idiots like Gowdy bombarded a 70 year old woman with questions for 11 hours and couldn't find anything worth squealing about?

 

As for the emails, Trump had his opportunity but decided to blabber about 400lb men sat on their beds instead.

The moderator is there to start and supervise the conversation.

Trump is firmly to blame for talking crap instead of debating.

 

I wouldn't mind, but given the rate at which he interrupted her, you'd think he'd have been able to land at least one mortal blow if even one of your fictitious scandals had any merit?

After all, Kellyanne was the one that trained him, and from what I've seen of her she is extremely good at her job.

 

Maybe she should have run instead.

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

2 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

As for the emails, Trump had his opportunity but decided to blabber about 400lb men sat on their beds instead.

The moderator is there to start and supervise the conversation.

 

 

The moderator is the one asking the questions and he did not even  mention the emails, Trump did. I agree Trump blew his chance to expound on them further, but perhaps he was waiting for them to be brought up by Lester Holt. They should have been.

[Linzz]

13 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

Yes, because most of them aren't real scandals.

I mean what sort of idiot thinks there is anything left to wring out of the Benghazi show trial other than the fact that idiots like Gowdy bombarded a 70 year old woman with questions for 11 hours and couldn't find anything worth squealing about?

 

As for the emails, Trump had his opportunity but decided to blabber about 400lb men sat on their beds instead.

The moderator is there to start and supervise the conversation.

Trump is firmly to blame for talking crap instead of debating.

 

I wouldn't mind, but given the rate at which he interrupted her, you'd think he'd have been able to land at least one mortal blow if even one of your fictitious scandals had any merit?

After all, Kellyanne was the one that trained him, and from what I've seen of her she is extremely good at her job.

 

Maybe she should have run instead.

 

 

 

I agree that Trump didn't do the job he should have because of two things; his personality and his lack of skill in debates of which was his first one on one ,while for Hillary it was her 15th so I would expect her to be more polished and she was. 

I disagree that whether you personally think the issues where people lost their lives such as Benghazi are not real scandals is besides the point. Many do so it should not be glossed over as a non issue. I am a bit gobsmacked that you think the Iraq war where nearly 5000 American lives were lost and probably a couple of 100, 000 Iraqis to you is a fictitious scandal of no merit.

It really makes your post a scandal.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Linzz
Sp

[Scotwight]

43 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

Yes, because most of them aren't real scandals.

I mean what sort of idiot thinks there is anything left to wring out of the Benghazi show trial other than the fact that idiots like Gowdy bombarded a 70 year old woman with questions for 11 hours and couldn't find anything worth squealing about?

 

As for the emails, Trump had his opportunity but decided to blabber about 400lb men sat on their beds instead.

The moderator is there to start and supervise the conversation.

Trump is firmly to blame for talking crap instead of debating.

 

I wouldn't mind, but given the rate at which he interrupted her, you'd think he'd have been able to land at least one mortal blow if even one of your fictitious scandals had any merit?

After all, Kellyanne was the one that trained him, and from what I've seen of her she is extremely good at her job.

 

Maybe she should have run instead.

I missed the hard questions for Clinton.  Could you tell me what they were?

 

For Trump it was 1.  Income tax, 2. Birther conspiracy. 3. Stop and Frisk. 4. Presidential look. 5 Iraq war. 

 

What were the tough questions for Hillary from Lester Holt?

 

41 interruptions to Trump 7 Clinton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWAwiye0mAg

 

 

Edited September 28, 2016 by Scotwight

[212Roger]

5 hours ago, 1337markus said:

Who cares unless you have US citizenship you have no input into this farce.

Unfortunately, whatever happens in the U.S. affects the world; when America falls, the rest of the world will too.

[Linzz]

7 minutes ago, 212Roger said:

Unfortunately, whatever happens in the U.S. affects the world; when America falls, the rest of the world will too.

 

"When America sneezes the whole world catches a cold" as the saying goes

[Linzz]

7 minutes ago, 212Roger said:

Unfortunately, whatever happens in the U.S. affects the world; when America falls, the rest of the world will too.

 

"When America sneezes the whole world catches a cold" as the saying goes

[Ulysses G.]

2 hours ago, Scotwight said:

What were the tough questions for Hillary from Lester Holt?

 

 

There were none. Trump brought up the emails, but no further questions or follow-ups from Holt.

[uptoyoumyfriend]

Trump is such a douchebag , there shouldn'even be a debate

[Jingthing]

About trump's large rally crowds which are still happening after he got creamed in the debate, and predictably blatantly lies that he won based on bogus unscientific online media polls:

Quote

Donald Trump continues to draw YUGE crowds. That matters less than he thinks.

 

As you may recall, Romney lost that race. He lost Virginia, Florida and Ohio — all states where Politico reported massive crowds were turning out to see him.

The problem with conflating crowd size or energy with momentum or a "hidden vote that the polls aren't catching" is the sheer size of the electorate in a presidential general election.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/28/donald-trump-continues-to-draw-yuge-crowds-that-matters-less-than-he-thinks/?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_fix-crowds-115pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

[Andaman Al]

8 hours ago, Linzz said:

Sorry to repeat this from another thread but it's more relevant here

 

Personally I found that the moderator did not ask any hard questions of Hillary, it was all about scrutinizing Trump. For instance the hammering Trump got about backing the Iraq war or not, backwards and forwards, yes or no, did he or didn't he, for about 10 minutes. Yet there was NO questioning Hillary over the same issue who DID back the war and has since said "I made a mistake". (oopps sorry about all those deaths). Whatever Trump believed  back in 2004, he was in no way responsible which pales in comparison to the fact that Hillary was responsible by backing the war and was not held up to any scrutiny  at all for that disaster nor held to any account

 

Additionally...

 

The same with the email issue Hillary admitted making a mistake with that too but was never pressed by the moderator (so Trump should have) as to the content of those emails and why she had to employ a firm to bleach them so God couldn't even retrieve them. A lot on what was Trump hiding (taxes for another 10 minutes) but no questions asked on what was Hillary hiding to require such drastic treatment in terms of national security, which is a bit more important than Trump's taxes. No questions asked as to why she won't release her Goldman Sachs speeches either...or Benghazi where more lives were lost. If there remains question marks over issues where lives are lost then they should be addressed. I see these  things as far more important than tales of bankruptcy.

 

Yes I believe the moderator was biased and failed to do his job properly.

This is juvenile and naive.

 

OF COURSE Trump deserves scrutiny when he DID say he supported the Iraq war and then denies it. That is a LIE. In 2002 he said he supported it, it is a fact on radio/TV. In 2004 he said he was against it, so he got his PhD in hindsight! NOW he says he never supported the war and always opposed it! A LIE why can you not see that??  Why scrutinise Clinton who says , 'yes i supported the war in Iraq and I was wrong'? What is there to scrutinise? She has told the truth. Hundreds of other American politicians despise themselves for believing the lies told by Bush and Bliar.

[Scott]

An inflammatory post with misinformation has been reported and removed.  

[Publicus]

8 hours ago, Scotwight said:

I missed the hard questions for Clinton.  Could you tell me what they were?

 

For Trump it was 1.  Income tax, 2. Birther conspiracy. 3. Stop and Frisk. 4. Presidential look. 5 Iraq war. 

 

What were the tough questions for Hillary from Lester Holt?

 

41 interruptions to Trump 7 Clinton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWAwiye0mAg

 

 

 

41 -- 7 of interruptions.

 

41 by Trump vs 7 by Clinton of Trump.

 

Revealing stat given the support of Trump by a retired teacher who is one of the few Republican women who will vote for Trump. She stated in this way her views on Trump's disruptive behaviors in all of the 'debates'

 

From a New York Times article on how suburban Republican women reacted to Donald Trump’s debate performance:

 

Not everyone thought Mr. Trump appeared unprepared [or unqualified] for the White House.

 

Barb Haag of West Chester, a retired teacher of the emotionally disturbed, said Mr. Trump’s interruptions did not bother her. “Kids interrupt you all the time if they have a point to make,” she said.

 

Rather droll and factual and it's certainly not the best defense of Trump but one can suppose it might be a defense. We hadn't seen it here so I thought I'd introduce it. Some people are completely nonplussed about these things. This Republican gal  for instance is a total wackjob.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Publicus
Number typo.

[Scotwight]

21 minutes ago, Publicus said:

41 -- 7 of interruptions.

 

41 by Trump vs 7 by Clinton of Trump.

 

Revealing stat given the support of Trump by a retired teacher who is one of the few Republican women who will vote for Trump. She stated in this way her views on Trump's disruptive behaviors in all of the 'debates'

 

From a New York Times article on how suburban Republican women reacted to Donald Trump’s debate performance:

 

Not everyone thought Mr. Trump appeared unprepared [or unqualified] for the White House.

 

Barb Haag of West Chester, a retired teacher of the emotionally disturbed, said Mr. Trump’s interruptions did not bother her. “Kids interrupt you all the time if they have a point to make,” she said.

 

Rather droll and factual and it's certainly not the best defense of Trump but one can suppose it might be a defense. We hadn't seen it here so I thought I'd introduce it. Some people are completely nonplussed about these things. This Republican gal  for instance is a total wackjob.

The moderator interrupted Trump 41 times and Clinton only 7 because he is a Clinton supporter.  

 

'Was Lester Holt auditioning for Hillary's press secretary?' NBC moderator is criticized for Clinton bias by failing to ask about her emails or Benghazi

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809095/Was-Lester-Holt-auditioning-Hillary-s-press-secretary-NBC-moderator-attacked-bias-Clinton-failing-ask-emails-Benghazi-constantly-interrupting-Trump.html

Edited September 29, 2016 by Scotwight

[Publicus]

57 minutes ago, Scotwight said:

The moderator interrupted Trump 41 times and Clinton only 7 because he is a Clinton supporter.  

 

'Was Lester Holt auditioning for Hillary's press secretary?' NBC moderator is criticized for Clinton bias by failing to ask about her emails or Benghazi

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809095/Was-Lester-Holt-auditioning-Hillary-s-press-secretary-NBC-moderator-attacked-bias-Clinton-failing-ask-emails-Benghazi-constantly-interrupting-Trump.html

 

Clarification welcomed thanks.

 

All the same, the quoted Republican woman teacher of the emotionally disturbed was talking about Trump. Trump is a compulsive interrupter who always has the quick flash interjection that comes from his wildman nature and his under the toupee brain.

 

This poster has made the point numerous times -- and he will continue to make it -- that the MSM during the McCarthy debacle was silent and passive about the Republican senator and his willful and methodological destruction of lives, careers, the Constitution. This time around concerning Donald Trump, a crackpot wildman is a crackpot wildman is a crackpot wildman, so there is a professional and moral obligation by even Republican oriented MSM and other media to get on his case. Look at the Republican MSM that for the first time in a hundred years or more are endorsing the Democrat for Potus instead of routinely endorsing one of their own Republicans.

 

Lester Holt, the open Republican, is a 21st century journalist, a journalist in the age of IT and the proliferation of media, communication, and of coming from a point of view in a wired nation. Accept it. Fox will have its guy on the case in the third debate. The left is not in general bellyaching about the unsurprising fact.

 

The real issue of elections in the United States has become Republican suppression of voting publics it does not like by enacting prohibitive or restrictive laws in states controlled by elected Republican Party legislative majorities and executives. Lester didn't say anything about this vital issue either.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Publicus
Text revision.

[Chicog]

3 hours ago, Scotwight said:

The moderator interrupted Trump 41 times and Clinton only 7 because he is a Clinton supporter.  

 

Or to correct his lies.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/26/live-fact-checking-first-trump-clinton-presidentia/

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Chicog said:

 

Or to correct his lies.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/26/live-fact-checking-first-trump-clinton-presidentia/

 

 

That's not his job. His job is to control the debate, which he didn't, and to be balanced with his directed questions, which he wasn't.

However, he is apparently in media, which explains it.