All Blog Posts from Horserace

Nielsen has released ratings for last night’s election coverage, and the company reports that from 8:00 p.m. to 11:00 Eastern Time last night, the average audience was 78.5 million viewers.

By comparison, 59.2 million watched during this period in 2004, and 61.6 million did so in 2000.

The average ratings for the period between 8:00 p.m. and 12:30 a.m., which included John McCain's concession and Barack Obama's victory speeches, were similar.

Barack Obama's infomercial last night was seen by 21.7 percent of households in the top local television markets, Nielsen reports.

The three presidential debates, by point of comparison, were watched by (in order from first to last) 34.7 percent, 42.0 percent, and 38.3 percent of households in these markets.

Nielsen also notes that Ross Perot's 1996 Election Day telecast, the last similar political program, was watched by 16.8 percent of households.

The infomercial ran live on CBS, NBC, FOX and other networks.

Nielsen has released preliminary ratings for last night's vice presidential debate, and they suggest higher interest in the debate between the prospective veeps than in last week's debate involving the men at the top of the ticket.

The combined overall household rating for last night's face-off in 55 of the 56 local television markets was 45.0 – compared to 31.6 for the Obama-McCain debate. A rating point equals one percent of the total TV audience.

Notes Nielsen: "The Baltimore market had the largest TV audience, with a household rating of 59.1, while the Los Angeles market had the lowest household rating: 34.4."

National ratings will be released later this afternoon; if they follow the local ratings, the Biden-Palin debate will be one of the most watched in history.

[Editor's note: Tonight, the CBS Evening News is beginning a lengthy series of in-depth stories airing between now and Election Day focusing on the issues affecting Americans – from health care to the environment to education. The series, “Where They Stand," is designed to help see straight through the rhetoric and find out what impact each candidate's plan would actually have on you. Tonight, correspondent Anthony Mason has the first installment, on income taxes and he gives us this preview of his report:]

---

We headed to Ohio, a critical battleground state, to look at the tax issue. Polls show the race there is in a statistical dead heat.

We spent three days there, driving from Columbus to Dayton to Cincinnati – all to spend time with three different families. Their incomes ranged from $32,000 to $213,000. We found them with a little help from the Ohio Society of CPAs, so we could see how the candidate’s tax proposals could affect a cross section of Americans.

Kendra Foos, a mother of three in Miamisburg, Ohio, summed up what a lot of middle income taxpayers seem to be feeling: “We’re on our own. That’s how I feel. There isn’t anybody that’s rooting for us. [They think] we’re the ones in the middle that can take care of themselves.” As she sat around the kitchen table with her husband Andy, a construction manager, Kendra said, “We're the ones that seem to struggle the most, because we don’t have any type of program to help us. And the rich are doing just fine.”
All three families we talked with felt squeezed by the economy, which polls show is the most important issue in the state. Ohio has lost 200,000 jobs this decade. Second only to Michigan. Joi Beacham, a teacher from Pataskala, summed up what she wanted from the next president in one word: "Relief."

In “Where They Stand” on the Evening News tonight, we lay out both candidates proposals. Matt Yuskewich, a Columbus accountant, crunched the numbers for us to show what it would mean for our three Ohio families. And in doing that, we hope it will show you a pretty good estimate what it could mean for your tax bill. So, join us – and let us know what you think. There are plenty more issues to come – so stay tuned for those, too.

(ST. PAUL) Sarah Palin was unknown to the public just a week ago, but it's going to be hard to say that about her anymore. The ratings from her speech at the Republican National Convention are in, and it's now clear just how all the buzz about her translated big time into viewership for the Republican convention.

According to Nielsen, 37.2 million people watched the speech on six networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News Channel, and MSNBC). That is just 1.1 million less than watched Obama's speech last Thursday night. Compare that to the estimated 24 million who watched Democratic VP nominee Joe Biden's speech last Wednesday night. You can also compare that to the about 34 million who watched the opening of the Beijing Olympics last month, 32 million who watched this year's Oscars and 31.7 million who watched last spring's American Idol finale.

According to Nielsen, Palin also attracted 19.5 million women, which is 4.9 million more than watched Biden. And 1.4 million Hispanic viewers watched, which is more than the 1.2 million who watched day 3 of the Democratic convention, even though Univision and Telemundo did not carry Palin's speech last night. In fact, it's also of note that Palin's speech was carried by four less networks than Obama's speech (BET and TV One also showed Obama).

Palin has certainly gotten people's attention now. Now the question is whether that will translate into votes for the Republican ticket.

Barack Obama’s acceptance speech was watched by 38.4 million people, the most-watched presidential speech ever, according to Nielsen estimates. The speech beat out the U.S. audience for the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics, which drew about 34 million viewers.

The Obama speech attracted about 60 percent more audience than tuned into John Kerry’s four years ago, reports Washington Post television writer Lisa de Moraes. Comparisons to some past speeches are harder to discern because the ratings company did not isolate individual hours and networks gave more time to the conventions in past years. But the huge number is pretty evident. "It appears (Obama's speech) is far and away the largest audience for an . . . acceptance speech since Nielsen instituted the People Meter, which was the first time we were able to have 'persons' data" a Nielsen representative tells the Post. Read more here.

National Journal is out with its ratings of the votes of the members of the Senate, and it has found that the most liberal senator in 2007 was Barack Obama.

"The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate," National Journal notes.

Hillary Clinton was found to be tied as the 16th most liberal senator, after having placed 32nd the previous year. National Journal uses 99 "key Senate votes" to determine its ratings. One of the key "conservative" votes Clinton cast was to designate the Iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization.

The differences between Obama and Clinton might be smaller than the first appear, however: National Journal notes that "Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10."

The ranking will likely be used against Obama if he becomes the Democratic nominee. On January 16th, Karl Rove had this to say: "Nonpartisan ratings say that he has a more liberal and a more straight-party voting record than Senator Clinton does. Pretty hard to do." Republicans are likely to question Obama's "unity" rhetoric by casting him as a far-left ideologue.

Interestingly, Sen. John McCain "did not vote frequently enough in 2007 to draw a composite score," National Journal writes. "He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories."