Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumBeware the crowdsmanship: Does the size of political rallies really mean much?
By Robert Mann
Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders is drawing large crowds at rallies almost everywhere he goes. Nearly 10,000 in Wisconsin; 8,000 in Dallas; more than 7,000 in Portland, Maine; more than 5,000 in Denver; and 3,000 in Minneapolis.
That, according to some political observers, is evidence that Sanders is a threat to the Democrats presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton. Sanderss audiencein a state not among those with traditional early nominating contestsrivaled the largest drawn by Clinton and the Vermont senator in recent weeks, Washington Post reporter John Wagner opined of Sanders recent Denver rally. The extraordinary turnout was the latest evidence that Sanders, 73, has tapped into the economic anxiety of the Democratic electorate.
Not to be outdone, Donald Trump recently bragged that the size of his rally in a Phoenix hotel ballroom blows away anything that Bernie Sanders has gotten. Most journalists covering the event pegged the crowds size at 4,000 to 5,000. Trumps staff told Fox News that 15,000 supporters were on hand. Trump later tweeted that he had attracted more than 20,000 (in a ballroom with a maximum legal occupancy of 2,158).
Some in the media were duly impressed by Trumps crowds on his recent western tour (he also held events in Las Vegas and Los Angeles). ABC News described the campaign events in an online story headlined, Trump Talks Immigration to Record Crowds in Border State. The headline of MSNBCs story about Trumps weekend: Donald Trump draws massive crowds during campaign swing.
I have bad news for Sanders, Trump, their supporters and some in the news media fixated on the numbers at candidates rallies: The size of rallies has long been a flawed measure of a campaigns vitality. Journalists often survey an arena brimming with enthusiastic supporters and mistakenly use a head count to gauge the campaigns prospects. Candidates and their staffs are eager to bolster that faulty notion, sometimes feeding reporters exaggerated crowd estimates (theres no evidence Sanders campaign has done that).
Such a misreading happened in 2012 when spokespeople for President Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney bragged about the size of their rallies and pointed to enthusiastic crowds as indications of growing support. Consider this piece in Politico less than a month before the election:
It may be his supporters, or it may be those getting a glimpse of the GOP nominee for the first time, but Mitt Romneys crowds are getting bigger in the campaigns final stretch.
Since his strong presidential debate performance last Wednesday night, Romney has seen a bump in the number of people attending his rallies, which the campaign calls a sign of new enthusiasm in the final month of the campaign.
In the past week alone, Romneys campaign says at least three of its rallies have, per the campaigns crowd counts, exceeded 10,000 people: an Oct. 4 event with country singer Trace Adkins in Fishersville, Va., which was Romneys largest event ever at 14,000 people; a rally last Sunday in Port St. Lucie, Fla., that drew 12,000; and one in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, that fire marshals estimated also drew 12,000. . .
Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are more fired up about this election, and fired up about Gov. Romney, Gorka said. The debate helped crystallize that energy and its translating to our events.
What Romney and Obama did was an age-old political practice. We are entering the season of crowdsmanship, counting up the people who gather to see the presidential candidates on these autumn days, the late political columnist Hugh Sidey observed in a Life magazine article in September 1968. The prehistoric political ritual is being practiced in 1968 with fresh fervor.
Unlike some political reporters today, Sidey wasnt fooled by the hype over crowd size, observing, it is almost worthless as a campaign measure in this age. It may even be worse it may totally mislead the contenders and the country. Sidey was right to be skeptical, as he noted: Richard Nixon, a consummate practitioner of crowdsmanship, ecstatically passes out figures 150,000 in San Francisco, 450,000 in Chicago. Victory is only a crowd or two away. George Wallace assembles 10,000 in Springfield, Mo. and claims the largest political crowd in the citys history. It gives him nocturnal visions of sitting in the Oval Office.
Exaggerating the size of rally crowds is a mostly a ritual in presidential races near a campaigns end, when crowds often do grow in size and intensity. Campaign spokespeople often develop or spin the burgeoning size of their rallies into a narrative about a groundswell for their candidate. And the reporters following them often adopt those narratives.
(Romneys campaign apparently took crowdsmanship one step further in 2012, altering on Instagram a photograph of a Nevada rally, which made the crowd appear larger. In June, Trumps campaign was accused of padding the audience of his New York announcement rally, paying actors $50 each to show up and cheer the candidates speech.)
This year, the crowdsmanship has begun earlier than ever. All the boasting and exaggerations of campaign flacks and the creative work of Photoshop artists should give political reporters pause. These journalists often work in a protective bubble controlled by the candidate, so its understandable that they will occasionally be susceptible to the spin. But that makes it all the more important to be cautious and resist the urge to read too much into the size of campaign crowds because, clearly, even some losing campaigns are adept at generating large crowds. As former Vice President Walter Mondale wrote in his memoir, The Good Fight: A Life in Liberal Politics, the crowds at Hubert Humphreys rallies in 1968 began to swell in late October/early November: Suddenly, the rallies started drawing bigger crowds. Money started coming in again, and volunteers too. . . . Humphrey was getting jubilant crowds and great press. Four years later, enormous crowds flocked to rallies held by Democratic nominee George McGovern, who would lose to Richard Nixon in a landslide. Here, for example, is how the New York Times reported a McGovern rally in New York on November 2, 1972, in a story headlined, Police estimate 20,000 at McGoverns rally.
More...http://bobmannblog.com/2015/07/20/beware-the-crowdsmanship-does-the-size-of-political-rallies-really-mean-much/
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...that they don't.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,304 posts)It's whether you can out troll the other candidate online.
Treant
(1,968 posts)Sanders holds larger gatherings, but then loses the state. There's much to be said by a more intimate connection with the candidate in a smaller venue, which may translate into a higher voting percentage.
Some people just like to go see the latest dog and pony show, but then aren't motivated to vote--or they just went out of curiosity and were never going to vote anyway.
LisaM
(27,843 posts)But I would guess at least two thirds came from Portland and can't even vote in Washington.
Hekate
(90,865 posts)anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)but I'm a very reliable voter. There is no way I would go wait in line for anyone (well, except a few Broadway shows)...
I enjoy sports, but would also rather watch those on TV as well (from the comfort of my couch). It's a much better view!
I think younger people are more likely to have the 'rock concert' mentality, and like to hang out in crowds. But they are also more likely to be distracted by many things since students don't have a very ridged schedule, and diversions are common.
UtahLib
(3,179 posts)shenmue
(38,506 posts)I suspect that's the case in many of Sanders' college towns.
livetohike
(22,165 posts)😊
Tarheel_Dem
(31,244 posts)As former Vice President Walter Mondale wrote in his memoir, The Good Fight: A Life in Liberal Politics, the crowds at Hubert Humphreys rallies in 1968 began to swell in late October/early November: Suddenly, the rallies started drawing bigger crowds. Money started coming in again, and volunteers too. . . . Humphrey was getting jubilant crowds and great press. Four years later, enormous crowds flocked to rallies held by Democratic nominee George McGovern, who would lose to Richard Nixon in a landslide. Here, for example, is how the New York Times reported a McGovern rally in New York on November 2, 1972, in a story headlined, Police estimate 20,000 at McGoverns rally.
This is what we're witnessing with Trump & BS.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)We're out voting them in just about every state. My question is where were these folks during the mid-terms when we could have used their vote
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)Who sold more records?