So 25-54 is drunken college student while you aren’t a grown up till your 70.

You’re a fucking tool.

I wonder if you’ll still act surprised when Countdown is beating O’Reilly more often than not?

And you’re making a faulty (not necessarily false) assumption that people drastically change their political views with age. Another theory is that their views stay relatively the same, but the political spectrum shifts. In other words, what’s seen as “liberal” now will be “conservative” in 50 years.

Besides, we’re talking about the 25-54 demograph. Most people that age have pretty much set in stone what they’re gonna be like. People (especially as they get older) are pretty resistant to change.

That, however, has nothing to do with Olbermann’s (relative lack of) ratings performance.

Zython, your assumption is that people currently 25-54 won’t age. 25 years ago MTV owned the 18-49 demographic. But those same kids (who are now 33-74) aren’t still watching at the same rate because their tastes have changed as have their lives. Ditto the youth vote, which almost always leans left. Yet, once that demo gets old enough to settle down and start a family, they become more conservative.

Same with TV News. Sure, Countdown is fun and zany if you’re a drunk college kid. But once you grow up and want more responsible (by comparison) news, you turn to FOX.

PS. Monday’s numbers are in. Any guesses as to whether Olbermann was able sustain his numbers? Even in the cherrypicked faux demographic? Hmmm….

I’ll say it again, “It’s what Nielsen uses, so that’s probably what the advertisers care about.”

This is actually quite true. CNN has more viewers than Fox, but the people watching CNN tend to tune in for 15 minutes at a time for a few times a day. Fox viewers tend to watch Fox for hours at a time.

If we’re looking at VIEWERS (instead of “viewers that advertisers care about”), then O’Reilly STILL trumps Olbermann.

What logical pretzel do you have to twist yourself into in order to exclude one group of viewers that advertisers don’t care about (non 25-54 year olds) but include another group of users that advertisers don’t care about (DVR users)?

Because that makes no statistical sense and no legitimate ratings monitor would, only comment trolls just grasping for any math to make the numbers work for them? How exactly would O’Reilly airing twice as much but not pulling twice the ratings as Olbermann AND being beating in both slots in the key demographic count as a better net market share? Answer: it doesn’t.

Get over it, sport. The actual people who how ratings work rely on the actual numbers, not angry right-wing gnats on a message board explaining that they should use special math just so they can pretend they’re right.

Do you ever get tired of being such a dick? Is it SO important that Democrats be wrong that you have to contest EVERY menial point?

Get a life boy. I suggest the military.

And if you ARE counting DVR views, then why don’t you also include the numbers for Factor repeats, which haul in more viewers (total AND demo) than Countdown does live?

But you could make the same argument that leaving a TV on doesn’t necessarily mean someone’s actually watching it, so I don’t really get why it’s being raised other than to redirect the conversation about a technical issue other than the issue of Olbermann having more relevant viewers than O’Reilly.

Duh.