Curious because, with one exception, it’s not intuitively obvious.

From 2000 through 2012, there have been twelve Presidential and four Vice-Presidential nationally televised debates.  What  interested me was the viewership of each of those debates and how they compared with each other.

The viewership of the VP debates conforms to what would be expected.  Although the numbers are somewhat surprising or alarming depending on one’s perspective.  Can you peg the year and the candidates:

69.9 million – 2008 – Biden v. Palin

51.4 million – 2012 – Biden v. Ryan
43.5 million – 2004 – Cheney v. Edwards
28.5 million – 2000 – Cheney v. Lieberman

Same task for the first of the three Presidential debates in each of the four elections:

67.2 million – 2012 – Obama v. Romney
62.4 million – 2004 – Bush v. Kerry
52.4 million – 2008 – Obama v. McCain
46.6 million – 2000 – Bush v. Gore

In which year(s) did viewership decline between the first and second debate AND the second and third debate?

In which year(s) did viewership increase between the second and third debate. 2012

Bonus question: Which year had the highest total rating for the three debates? 2012
UPDATE – additional information

In chronological order – including all three POTUS and VP debates:

2000: first 46.5, second 37.5, third 37.7; VP 28.5

2004: first 62.4, second 46.7, third 51.1; VP 43.5

2008: first 52.4, second 63.2, third 56.5; VP 69.9

2012: first 67.2, second 65.6, third 59.2; VP 51.4

What I would have expected is that viewership would be highest when it’s an open seat race because that’s when the public knows the least about two candidates and it’s the first opportunity to contrast and compare their styles, demeanor, knowledge, etc. That would have meant higher in 2000 and 2008. But it was more or less the opposite. Why was my assumption wrong?

While my assumption sounds logical, it was undoubtedly influenced by the stupid “undecided” voters networks collect to view the debates and then tell what they heard and how or if the debate led to a decision on who to vote for. Generally, these interviewees (DEMs, GOPs, and INDs,) have struck me as poorly informed, wishy-washy, and came up with odd reasons/reasoning if the debate gave them a reason to move to “decided.” Thus, I assumed that information gathering about the candidates and their policy position was why a large number of people watched the debates. The numbers indicate that that is wrong.

It must be “decideds” that tune in to watch their “guy” or their team “win.” And “decideds” care enough to have previously obtained whatever information they use to make their decision. The low numbers in 2000 indicate that fewer people cared enough to have made a decision and therefore, fewer had a “guy” they wanted to cheer on. And voter turnout in 2000 was low.

The comparatively low number for the first debate in 2008 has been explained as a function of holding it on a Friday night. People have better things to do on Friday nights than watch a debate. True or not, future candidates would be wise to reject a Friday night debate schedule. If Friday is bad, is Saturday equally bad or worse? (No chance, IMO, that HRC, DWS/DNC didn’t exploit that in choosing the dates for the second and third DEM candidates debate.)

With significantly higher viewership of the individual 2012 debates compared to that of 2008, why was voter turnout down? A correlation between debate viewership and voter turnout exists but it’s not perfect. And it’s possible that the blockbuster viewership of the 2008 VP debate had a significant effect on voter turnout. The Palin trainwreck got more people, particularly younger people, to vote.

There are undoubtedly other interpretations for these numbers and would appreciate hearing what others here have to say. Including information from debates prior to 2000 may shed further light on interpretations. One that I did pull up was 1960: first 66.4, second 61.9 and third 63.7. We the people were either much different back then than we are today or a higher percentage of the electorate tuned in because it was a novelty.