HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Rachel Maddow closes 2017...

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 05:22 PM

Rachel Maddow closes 2017 by beating the pants off Sean Hannity

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

56 replies, 7676 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 56 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rachel Maddow closes 2017 by beating the pants off Sean Hannity (Original post)
kpete Dec 2017 OP
Stuart G Dec 2017 #1
leanforward Dec 2017 #2
malaise Dec 2017 #3
MaryMagdaline Dec 2017 #4
tavernier Dec 2017 #8
Raine Dec 2017 #25
MaryMagdaline Jan 2018 #43
Raine Jan 2018 #47
MaryMagdaline Jan 2018 #48
Kaleva Jan 2018 #50
Farmer-Rick Jan 2018 #52
Lil Missy Dec 2017 #5
Miigwech Dec 2017 #6
malaise Dec 2017 #9
iluvtennis Dec 2017 #13
Ilsa Dec 2017 #15
Enoki33 Dec 2017 #22
maddiemom Dec 2017 #35
tblue37 Dec 2017 #38
eleny Dec 2017 #7
thesquanderer Dec 2017 #10
futureliveshere Dec 2017 #11
BigmanPigman Dec 2017 #12
gratuitous Dec 2017 #14
milestogo Dec 2017 #17
longship Dec 2017 #19
milestogo Dec 2017 #16
ailsagirl Dec 2017 #29
pandr32 Dec 2017 #18
Gothmog Dec 2017 #20
not fooled Dec 2017 #21
KWR65 Dec 2017 #23
rocktivity Dec 2017 #24
PragmaticDem Dec 2017 #26
Mike Nelson Dec 2017 #27
marieo1 Dec 2017 #28
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Dec 2017 #30
ProudMNDemocrat Dec 2017 #31
bonniebgood Dec 2017 #32
keithbvadu2 Dec 2017 #33
Towlie Dec 2017 #34
StarzGuy Dec 2017 #36
tblue37 Dec 2017 #37
orangecrush Dec 2017 #39
Demoiselle Dec 2017 #40
Hulk Dec 2017 #41
titaniumsalute Jan 2018 #46
Hulk Jan 2018 #54
titaniumsalute Jan 2018 #55
Whiskeytide Jan 2018 #56
DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2017 #42
Mc Mike Jan 2018 #44
dalton99a Jan 2018 #45
Scurrilous Jan 2018 #49
VOX Jan 2018 #51
oberliner Jan 2018 #53

Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 05:25 PM

1. k and r...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 05:25 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 05:25 PM

3. Off to the greatest page

and then some

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 05:35 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaryMagdaline (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 06:03 PM

8. Dont think so.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaryMagdaline (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 07:59 PM

25. Rachel makes more then Chris Matthews

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raine (Reply #25)

Mon Jan 1, 2018, 11:03 AM

43. The issue is what is Hannity making?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaryMagdaline (Reply #43)

Mon Jan 1, 2018, 06:48 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raine (Reply #47)

Mon Jan 1, 2018, 06:50 PM

48. Wow! Rachel needs a raise

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaryMagdaline (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 2, 2018, 07:54 AM

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #50)

Tue Jan 2, 2018, 08:31 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 05:46 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 05:47 PM

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'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Miigwech (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 06:05 PM

9. That's the truth

This is too good

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 06:23 PM

13. +++ agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Miigwech (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 06:38 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Miigwech (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 07:13 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Miigwech (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 01:13 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Miigwech (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 02:21 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 05:49 PM

7. Facts beating the pants off polemics - nice!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 06:07 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 06:16 PM

11. Ha... This

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 06:17 PM

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

I want that ass off the air!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 06:30 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gratuitous (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 06:41 PM

17. They should try telling the truth.

Heads would spin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 06:45 PM

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

I bow to your DUziness, thesquanderer.
🙇




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 06:39 PM

16. I guess you don't mean literally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to milestogo (Reply #16)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 08:16 PM

29. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 06:41 PM

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

Go Rachel!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 06:48 PM

20. This makes me smile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 06:52 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 07:15 PM

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 07:45 PM

24. So glad the title of this thread is metaphorical

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


rocktivity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 07:59 PM

26. Good!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 08:12 PM

27. I'm happy to say...

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 08:15 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 08:20 PM

30. Cannot be a pretty sight

Hannity without pants

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 08:27 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudMNDemocrat (Reply #31)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 09:23 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 09:39 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 10:36 AM

34. Rec #100

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 01:54 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 02:19 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 02:40 PM

39. Dr. Maddow


represents the best we have to offer.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 03:33 PM

40. Great news. Although.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 04:28 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hulk (Reply #41)

Mon Jan 1, 2018, 12:21 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to titaniumsalute (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 2, 2018, 01:47 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hulk (Reply #54)

Tue Jan 2, 2018, 02:45 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hulk (Reply #54)

Tue Jan 2, 2018, 02:58 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 04:29 PM

42. Shows on whose side the enthusiasm is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jan 1, 2018, 11:15 AM

44. Go, Maddow! rec, nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jan 1, 2018, 11:16 AM

45. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jan 1, 2018, 11:00 PM

49. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 2, 2018, 08:14 AM

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!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 2, 2018, 08:34 AM

53. Who cares?

 

How does these ratings matter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread