Rachel Maddow closes 2017 by beating the pants off Sean Hannity

[kpete]

MSNBC’s unabashed liberal primetime lineup produced a stunning ratings success for the network in 2017, boosting its viewership by nearly 50 percent compared to the 2016 campaign cycle. MSNBC finishes the year with its largest daily audience since the network debuted in 1996.

The primetime home of Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O’Donnell posted the biggest ratings gain in 2017 of any of the all-news cable channels.

Heading into 2018, MSNBC’s Maddow is riding a ratings momentum wave. Pitted against Sean Hannity in the 9 p.m. time slot, Maddow in recent weeks has moved ahead of Trump’s favorite cheerleader and has been regularly beating Hannity among viewers 25-54, the demographic most sought after by advertisers.

During the first three weeks of December, Maddow bested Hannity on 10 of the 15 weekday broadcasts.


https://shareblue.com/rachel-maddow-closes-2017-by-beating-the-pants-off-sean-hannity/#.WkVkjHsM_Hc.twitter

[Stuart G]

1. k and r...

[leanforward]

2. WOW

You mean that little ole girl is showing up the big old boy.

The devil made me write this.

pRezident dRumpf needs to go.

[malaise]

3. Off to the greatest page

and then some

[MaryMagdaline]

4. Yet they will find a reason to pay her less

[tavernier]

8. Dont think so.

I’m quite sure Rachel stands up for her rights very nicely.

[Raine]

25. Rachel makes more then Chris Matthews

so she's definitely not paid less then him, he makes 5 million, she makes 7 million.

[MaryMagdaline]

43. The issue is what is Hannity making?

If Rachel is beating Hannity she needs to be earning what he is earning.

[Raine]

47. Out of curiosity I looked, Hannity makes 29 million!

I know that Morning Joe makes around 8 million but he's on 2-3 hours at a time. MSNBC I saw recently is now getting better ratings then Faux or CNN so when it's time for Rachel to renegotiate her contract she should demand more. With Faux's lower ratings hopefully Hannity's pay should be cut, haha.

[MaryMagdaline]

48. Wow! Rachel needs a raise

[Kaleva]

50. Probably because her show generates far less income then Hannity's

"By Chris Ariens on Jul. 21, 2017 - 9:25 AMComment

Rachel Maddow may be cable TV’s No. 1 show right now, but advertisers are still paying much more for commercials during Fox News shows.

According to new data from Standard Media Index, Fox News’s 8 p.m. show, Tucker Carlson Tonight earns $13,779 for a :30 commercial, while Maddow, at 9 p.m. on MSNBC, earns $4,193 per :30 spot. Granted, Fox News’s previous 8 p.m. show, The O’Reilly Factor, was cable’s No. 1 show for more than 15 years with a loyal, built-in audience, many of whom have stuck with Carlson. At the same time, Carlson has also improved the timeslot 13 percent from the average cost in Q2 2016."

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/brands-pay-3-times-as-much-for-ads-on-tucker-carlson-than-on-rachel-maddow/335797

This could and will change if Maddow continues to beat Hannity in the ratings.

[Farmer-Rick]

52. Since most corporations that buy advertising

Know RepubliCONS and conservatives are more likely to cut their taxes and regulations, they prefer to give their money to the RepubliCON propaganda channel. But there comes a point where losing money for your friend gets old. So, there is a breaking point.

[Lil Missy]

5. That's amazing! And encouraging .....

[Miigwech]

6. PhD vs. an old fart, college flunky

Did you ever notice that Sean lacks a forehead? .... always thought it was because his brain was 'teeny-tiny'

[malaise]

9. That's the truth

This is too good

[iluvtennis]

13. +++ agree

[Ilsa]

15. Who would have thought Zika virus existed then? nt

[Enoki33]

22. He hates to be reminded he is a college flunky. Drives him into a tizzy fit.

[maddiemom]

35. Rhodes Scholar, in fact, VS undergraduate drop-out.

[tblue37]

38. All that extra meat not used for a forehead got tucked into his mouth and jaw. nt

[eleny]

7. Facts beating the pants off polemics - nice!

[thesquanderer]

10. I think we've had enough of seeing people at Fox without their pants. (n/t)

[futureliveshere]

11. Ha... This

[BigmanPigman]

12. I hope a legit female who was harassed by him comes forward.

I want that ass off the air!

[gratuitous]

14. The quickest way is poor ratings

If Hannity keeps losing his time slot, he'll be cashiered at the next contract renewal. Any replacement is going to need some time to recapture Hannity's audience; that replacement will either have to out-Hannity Hannity, or go in a different direction. Hannity's core audience doesn't have the time to be recaptured (I'm saying they're old - really old) by a new face.

After Hannity's departure, Fox may have to try something new.

[milestogo]

17. They should try telling the truth.

Heads would spin.

[longship]

19. God! I miss the DUzys! Especially with a DUzy worthy post like this.

I bow to your DUziness, thesquanderer.
🙇

[milestogo]

16. I guess you don't mean literally.

[ailsagirl]

29. LOL

[pandr32]

18. George Soros is probably paying people to watch (sarcasm)

Go Rachel!

[Gothmog]

20. This makes me smile

[not fooled]

21. People finally getting tired of being lied to

Gives me hope.

Go Rachel, Chris, Lawrence, Joy, Stephanie, Ali, Ari and a few others I'm forgetting.

[KWR65]

23. This posts's title made me spit coca-cola through my nostrils.

Sean Hannity with no pants would not be a good thing to see!

[rocktivity]

24. So glad the title of this thread is metaphorical

for Rachel's sake as well as ours...


rocktivity

[PragmaticDem]

26. Good!

[Mike Nelson]

27. I'm happy to say...

...I don't watch. I can't stand him with his pants on.

[marieo1]

28. Minngal

She is outstanding. I love the research she or someone does for her. It really helps me to understand a few more things. Way to go, Rachel.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

30. Cannot be a pretty sight

Hannity without pants

[ProudMNDemocrat]

31. People want SUBSTANCE, not SENSATIONALISM....

Which is why Rachel Maddow scores better. She does not berate her guests, asks thought provoking questions, challenges without alienating her guests.

Rachel Maddow holds a Doctorate Degree in Political Science from Oxford University.

Sean Hannity lacks direction and intellectual curosity to engage others. He is all about tabloid news rather than facts.

[bonniebgood]

32. Did I read somewhere that they were paying Megan

35 million? A show I've never seen. much like I've never seen/watched ESPN who?

[keithbvadu2]

33. Pants?... Meh! A towel put over his nose for the waterboarding coward Hannity promised.

Pants?... Meh! A towel put over his nose for the waterboarding coward Hannity promised.

[Towlie]

34. Rec #100

[StarzGuy]

36. While this is very positive

I also watch Rachel and I am 63 demographic. She's on a well deserved holiday break this week which is fine. I only wish that MSNBC would NOT have other hosts to cover her absence. I'd like to see some other programming that involved investigative reporting on important topics. Well, that's my opinion.

Oh, and I don't watch the program when Rachel is not the host. I think it changes the vibe of the show, not good.

[tblue37]

37. So of course Andy Lack keeps ditching liberals like Joan Walsh and packing the

MSNBC lineup with right wing hacks like Hewit and Van Sustern. Van Sustern tanked badly, but that didn't seem to slow down his push to get MSNBC to move rightward.

[orangecrush]

39. Dr. Maddow

represents the best we have to offer.

Even many of the righties I know have grudging respect for her.

[Demoiselle]

40. Great news. Although.

….the mental picture of Sean Hannity without his pants doesn't make my heart leap up.

[Hulk]

41. A lot of smoke in this article...😕

OK...I get frustrated and upset with threads like this that make grandiose claims in the titles, but are empty of facts and specifics in the body of the article.

"...beats the pants off vannity..."...? Seriously? Then it gets boiled down to "..25 to 54 year olds..". Then it gets further boiled down to "..bested vannity on 10 of the 15 weekday broadcasts.."..?

So the 55 to 100 year olds are irrelevant? They don't vote? Maddow, Hayes and O'Donnell win on 10 of the 15 days...?....by how much?? 1%? 10%? 25%?...

I'm just getting fed up with such vague statistical hocus pocus. The same crap is posted regarding political office races, and all it does is raise hopes to later be dashed; and I think it leads to readers just blowing off such wild, deceptive claims.

Come back when you have some facts that back up your bold claims. I'd like it to be so, but the info provided is lacking any proof to your claim.

While I can't understand how vannity has ANY viewers, I am not going to swallow the bait on this claim.

[titaniumsalute]

46. Not sure what you are disputing

I have worked both for the ratings companies (10 years) and radio/TV media outlets. I closely watch the daily and monthly ratings for cable news. Yes Maddow has beaten Hannity a number of times all year in the 9pm timeslot.

Advertisers/Ad Agencies most often buy their ads based on radio and TV ratings in the 25-54 age demographics thus why you see this number reported. So it is true that it is important to a TV network to try to "win" in this demo. Of course 55 to 100 year olds are relevant...but not as much to an advertiser (right or wrong this is just the way it is.)

It isn't statistical hocus pocus. Might be bad headline writing though.

[Hulk]

54. The headline is a big part of what I dispute...

..but what bothers me by this sort of posting is how it falsely implies that the treasonous vannity is drying up on the network while Maddow is blowing him away with viewership. I don't buy that NOR appreciate seeing articles posted that mislead the DU readers. We should deal in facts and in reality.

I don't argue that the 25-54 age viewer is the one most sought by advertisers. I'm not so sure they represent the highest percentage of voter...and that's what is really going to matter come 2018 and 20.

Winning that demo a few times is far from dominating. I only posted because half truths and twisted facts do us no good. That's how I read the article.

Thanks for your civil response. It's not all that common when differences of opinion are shared on the threads.

[titaniumsalute]

55. No problem...I agree the headline is misleading

[Whiskeytide]

56. You make a fair point, but ...

... I think the thing to take from this is how dramatically the dynamics have changed this year. The headline is overly sensational - agreed - but what is salient is that a year or two ago it would have been unthinkable that MSNBC could compete in the time slots from 8 to 11. Fox dominated by ridiculous margins. The fact that it is now a close race, I think, signals a positive change. JM2C.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. Shows on whose side the enthusiasm is.

[Mc Mike]

44. Go, Maddow! rec, nt

[dalton99a]

45. Kick

[Scurrilous]

49. K&R

[VOX]

51. "All the Terrible Things Liberals Are Doing to the Greatest President Who Ever Lived"...

Should be the new branding of Hannity's show. Because that's all it is, an hour of state-television, informing patriotic viewers how great #45 really is, and how those horrible libs (Hillary, Obama, Soros, Deep State, mainstream media, etc. etc.) are treating the Anointed One like dirt, when they should be strewing rose petals at his feet and tell him how wonderful he is, and thank him for all the great things he has done in the first year of his amazing presidency -- more than any other president in history. Just ask Utah Senator Orrin Hatch (R): "This President hasn't even been in office for even a year and look at all the things that he's been able to get done!"

[oberliner]

53. Who cares?

How does these ratings matter?