I don’t know about you, but lately I’ve been enjoying following the Trump rallies taking place in various states.
This week’s rally in New Hampshire, for example, so was huge that the enormous overflow crowd had its own overflow crowd. The traffic jam to get there stretched 10 miles. The arena was packed to capacity, so a Jumbotron screen was set up outside for the thousands who couldn’t fit in. Hundreds more – the overflow to the overflow – watched the screen from a distance. And New Hampshire, don’t forget, is a blue state.
Meanwhile, just 30 miles away, Bernie Sanders also spoke to a packed house in New Hampshire. “Let’s be clear why Donald Trump is coming to New Hampshire on the eve of the primary,” Sanders told his followers. “He’s scared. He recognizes – just like the party establishment and the corporate donor class – that this movement will defeat him.”
Um, perhaps. Trouble is, Bernie’s New Hampshire rally only had about 7,500 attend, an unknown number of whom may have been there to hear the rock bank The Strokes. How does this compare with Trump’s numbers?
Even more worrying for the left, Trump’s campaign manager, Brad Parscale, tallied the numbers from Trump’s rally: 52,559 tickets, 24,732 voters identified (41 percent from New Hampshire), 17 percent didn’t vote in 2016 and – this is the best part – 25.4 percent of rally attendees were Democrats. More than a quarter of the people in that massive crowd were not Republican. Let me repeat that: One-quarter of attendees were Democrats, possibly on the verge of walking away from their party. Ouch. That’s gotta hurt.
And this has been consistent. Back in November, Tim Murtaugh (communications director of Trump’s reelection team) told The Hill: “… Twenty-five percent of the people who are attending these rallies are disaffected voters, people who don’t feel like they’ve been part of the process for a long time. This is not the president speaking only to his base – that’s a common misconception.”
Meanwhile the Democratic candidates are holding events in small half-filled venues. Pete Buttigieg has been speaking at universities, athletic clubs and high schools. Elizabeth Warren drew 200 people at a “Get out the vote” drive, then held a town hall event at a church that held 1,000. Warren also made an awkward impromptu stop at a diner and started bugging patrons who clearly just wanted to finish their meal in peace. She also bragged about taking half of a broke college student’s money, prompting one wit to remark, “Nothing screams socialism quite like millionaire Elizabeth Warren bragging that she took half of a broke woman’s money to continue a failing campaign.”
And Joe Biden is simply going down in flames.
This has been an ongoing challenge for the left: Try and find a suitable Democratic contender who can challenge Trump. Over and over again, Trump overflows the biggest arenas, while Democratic candidates pull yawners.
This reminds me of the 2016 presidential race. At a point when Trump was drawing crowds of 25,000, Hillary was speaking to 300 to 500 supporters at a technical school gymnasium.
The best part of the whole 2016 election was how mystified the progressives were when Trump won. Didn’t they detect any differences in enthusiasm between Trump rallies and Hillary rallies? Didn’t they notice the difference in crowd sizes?
The left can’t or won’t admit that voter enthusiasm plays a role in presidential elections. Ever since Trump showed up on the scene – again and again, over and over, Democrats have profoundly misread the American people. Holed up in their ivory towers and getting feedback solely from their own media echo chamber, they could not grasp what motivated the vast majority of ordinary hardworking citizens to vote for Trump the first time.
Now, it seems, they’re on the same path. They are unable to grasp what would motivate anyone to vote for Trump the second time, especially since everyone they know wants Bernie/ Joe/ Pocahontas/ Pete – pick one.
The left believes that because they talk to each other – and only to each other – then they must be right about everything, since everyone they know agrees with them. They don’t talk to injured veterans. They don’t talk to blue-collar workers. They don’t talk to the unemployed. They don’t talk to farmers or ranchers. They don’t talk to the Border Patrol. They don’t talk to police officers. They don’t talk to … well, anyone they don’t want to talk to.
“It’s the crowds, stupid,” comments Brian C. Joondeph on Rasmussen Reports. Rather that voter-tracking polls, suggests Joondeph, “I suggest another metric to gauge voter enthusiasm, crowd size. … [O]n the day before the 2016 election, Trump held five rallies in five states, his last one running into the wee hours of election morning. Meanwhile Mrs. Clinton was gulping chardonnay, picking out drapes for the oval office, and trying not to tumble to the ground in front of a camera. Her rallies, the few she held, were far less enthusiastic and much smaller in size. If one used the metric, ‘It’s the crowd, stupid’ to predict the electoral outcome, the results would have been far more accurate than the myriad polls predicting a Clinton landslide. … Rather than listen to the naysayers on cable news, use your own eyes. Look at crowd sizes and enthusiasm as a better metric than opinion polls which oversample Democrats, the same polls that predicted a Clinton landslide victory.”
The leftist media continuously disparage Trump’s “obsession” with crowd size and implies (ahem) that size doesn’t matter. But if the 2016 contrast between Hillary’s crowds and Trump’s crowds are any indication, it matters very much.
“Despite CNN’s constant contention that ‘President Trump is on the ropes,'” concludes Joondeph, “remember that ‘It’s the crowd, stupid.'”
Democrat Joe Biden bragged that Trump “is deathly afraid to face me.”
Trump? Deathly afraid? I don’t think so.
Wake up. It’s the crowds, stupid.