Clinton Aide: Smaller Crowds are "Regular People"
EUGENE Hillary Clinton comes to Eugene, Or. today to a high school gymnasium that holds 2,700 people. Two weeks ago Barack Obama spoke at McArthur Court, a college sports arena that held 7,000 while more than 3,000 people were turned away. A Clinton spokesperson defended today's smaller venue as more desirable for the senator's purpose:
Val Hoyle, a member of Clinton's Oregon steering committee, said she has no doubt that the New York senator could fill McArthur Court with more than 9,000 people as Obama did on his March 21st stop in Eugene.
"Hillary speaks to regular people and coming to a regular high school means the people who are there actually get to be more of a participant than if they were at a larger venue."The remarks were reported in the local paper, The Register Guard. Crowd size is rarely mentioned in the mainstream press these days, though on the local level, it seems to be noticed.
Advertisement
"Hillary speaks to regular people"--so the 12,000 of us at the Obama rally in Portland weren't "regular people"? Funny, it sure looked like it to me. It was the most diverse all-ages crowd I'd seen in a while.
(and of course, Obama also did 2 smaller "town hall" style Q and A events while in Oregon....)
If Hillary could fill a stadium, she'd do it. But she can't.
April 5, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good response. Or, as we would say in the Bronx-
"So what are we, chopped liver?"
April 5, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks can be deceiving. Did you speak to them? 90% of Obama supporters are just cardboard cut-outs. These dirty little secrets will all be revealed before the convention, and Hillary will reign supreme. Perhaps you're a cardboard cut-out yourself.
April 5, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. And maybe the whole rally was a cardboard cutout "mirage." I'm thinking of the scene in Blazing Saddles when Sheriff Bart, his RR gang friends, and the citizens of Rock Ridge construct an entire cutout town to fool Hedley Lamarr's band of thugs.
April 5, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll second you on the crowd in Portland, Ruth.
Considering Portland, I'll admit that my preconception was that the place would be swimming in hippies, but what I encountered was one big group of regular looking folks. ;)
The very young, a surprising number of senior citizens (I had a wonderful conversation with an enthusiastic 78 year old woman), and everyone in between; A lot of couples and groups of friends; Like the crowd one would see at Disneyland, minus some of the kids.
And in the corny but true department - It was obvious to me that the arena was filled with 12,000 everyday Americans who were daring to hope.
April 5, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
No hippie-basing, bro. Where would the world be without tie-dyed shirts?
April 5, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
No bashing, just a bit of fun. Hey, you're talking to a guy who spent some of his formative years hanging out in a fringe jacket in the Haight in San Francisco. :)
April 5, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
no, drones aren't "regular people," silly. cheers!
April 6, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can't see the irony in your statement, can you?
April 6, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the inverse state/building rule: big states are filled with regular people and small buildings/venues are filled with regular people. But small staes and big buildings are where irregulars hang out!
April 5, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
So now I have to wonder...Clinton won California, but thousands of us attended a rally with Michelle Obama at Pauley Pavilion at UCLA. It wasn't full, but for a last minute event on Super Bowl Sunday, turnout was impressive and it wasn't just all women, even though that was the target audience. I'm looking on at my photos and most people look regular, but from Clinton's perspective, we aren't. And if she gets the nomination, we're expected to vote for her?
Val Hoyle must be a Mark Penn protégé.
April 5, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michelle Obama apparently draws a bigger crowd than Hillary. Why isn't that news?
April 5, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out the link " attended a rally with Michelle Obama" in the above post !
April 5, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton can't win without the chopped liver vote!
April 5, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I understood this chopped liver thing. Anyone want to let me in on it?
April 5, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just an expression often heard in NYC from people who think they're being ignored or treated poorly.
Suppose you open the door for your girlfriend and not for your mother. That's one of a million occasions when you might hear:
"What am I, chopped liver?"
April 5, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why? Because in the deli, chopped liver is one of the lower priced, often-ignored items.
April 5, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for explaining my "chopped liver" reference to Rallyround.
And right you are about Hillary needing that "chopped liver" vote.
Judging from the little bit of coverage I just saw of her visit in Eugene, the media is still refusing to use any wide shots of the candidates on their stumps.
Who makes these decisions anyway?
Maybe this discussion can get something going in the media.
WE DEMAND A WIDE SHOT!
WE DEMNAD A WIDE SHOT!
COME ON CAMERA MEN AND WOMEN.
YES, YOU CAN! YES, YOU CAN!
GIVE AMERICA A WIDE SHOT!
April 5, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
One has to wonder why the MSM has stopped reporting Obama's big crowd sizes compared with Hillary's. Is it part of some effort to seem balanced? Yet the size of these crowds seems important. One hopes that Oregon's meek senators and House Members --all super delegates --will speak up soon. I'll be voting against any who remain silent if they run in a primary. Make a move folks.
April 5, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
She was in Hammond, IN a couple weeks ago. (Hammond is just across the state line from and is essentially a suburb of Chicago). She could only get 3000-3500 people to show up to her rally in the 5000 seat Hammond civic center. I guess that's all the regular people she could find in the Chicago area.
April 5, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
and I was told by a city worker that the Mayor, a HRC supporter, told city workers they had to show up and fill the stadium or else...so even most of those "regular" folks were not real Hillary supporters... in fact any number sat up front with Obama buttons on. Sic transit gloria mundi... or so fall the powerful of this world... hey she still has earned $107 million in the last 7 years with hubby Bill. Will they have to given any back now that there will be no access to Hillary as the new Chief? Maybe she can try out for a starring role in Hollywood. Our Gal in Tuzla.
April 5, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this isn't a snark
it would be really neat if you could goad your associate into finding out the truth behind that, because if the Mayor actually said that - it is a blatant violation of several laws.
April 5, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any organizer knows that it's better to have a small room look full, than to have a large room look empty.
April 5, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maureen Dowd has reported on a Hillary event where the crowd was so small that Hillary's organizers tried to get Dowd onstage (not knowing that she was a journalist) to make the crowd seem larger for the cameras.
Why don't the TV cameras routinely turn to the crowd?
April 5, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
So-oooo-ooooo... Hillary should have rallies in the powder rooms of her supporters? Telephone booths? VW Beetles?
April 5, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its also money, small venues cost less.
April 5, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Small venues cost even less when the Clinton campaign stiffs them! It's these small school venues that haven't been paid (especially in Iowa and New Hampshire). Big places would be able to make more noise if their bills went unpaid.
April 5, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. They can't even afford the smaller rooms they're renting.
April 5, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! And Hillary continues to complain that the media is too hard on her. Looks to me like they've gone out of their way to minimize the small crowds she gets. Are super delegates following this issue?
April 5, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess us "regular people" aren't worthy of appreciating Hillary.
April 5, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton's staffers are spinning so furiously they create their own gravitational fields. You think Hillary wouldn't KILL to have rock-star like crowds that Obama draws? What IS politics if not a popularity contest?
April 5, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mathematical models indicate that something in proximity to a very, very rapidly spinning object might travel backward in time. (Really) Perhaps the Clinton campaign is attempting to go back and start over...
April 5, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
They have to be rapidly spinning and incredibly dense. Not that this invalidates your theory! ;)
Kerr black holes for the win!
April 5, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we're going to need to set up a debate between Roy Kerr and Larry Niven on that subject of the preferred method of time travel. But as a practical matter, the necessity of traveling a great distance to a theoretical Kerr black hole must be weighted again the difficulty of constructing a massive spinning object. It seems to me the Clinton campaign has construction well underway... And, like you, I suspect their statements might be of sufficient density.
April 5, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Getting even further off topic, I wrote a Master's thesis on alternative space-time metrics. I'm not convinced the Kerr solution is correct, but I'm definitely in the minority on that.)
April 5, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic?! I'm serious about this. I do believe the Clinton's are attempting to travel back in time in order to undo the damage they've done to their own campaign... and we may the only ones who can stop them!! You start calculating and I'll order a pizza.
;)
I like your choice on the thesis. Fun stuff! Look forward to reading it. (I almost missed the link.)
April 5, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reminds me of the line in Spinal Tap where Rob Reiner asks why the band is no longer playing in stadiums or large arenas.
"Actually our audience is getting more selective."
April 5, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Rob Reiner is a big Clinton supporter. Go figure.
April 5, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point. Who would have guessed that Archie Bunker was right? Rob Reiner must be a meathead.
It's got to be an episode of temporary meatheadianity. RR seems like a wonderful guy.
Maybe RR committed to Hillary early, didn't expect her to campaign the way she has, and isn't willing to humiliate her by backing out publicly. Let's look forward to Obama welcoming RR into the fold for the general-election.
April 5, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you noticed the celebrities who support Clinton and compared them to those for Obama?
April 5, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
About that Hammond IN rally she had robocalls going out to Dem party activists in the IL Chicago suburbs trying to fill the hall. Evidently didn't work but then NW Indiana is considered Obama territory.
Shows a real different level of enthusiasm for the campaigns. Obama's got thousands of folks willing to campaign for him all over the country. We're sending busloads to IN from IL and I know a number who went to PA on their own dime. Meanwhile Hillary can't even get enough volunteers to make phonecalls and has to pay a robocall outfit to try and fill a hall for the cameras.
April 5, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're thinking of the Peggy Noonan article where she recounts being brought down from the balcony to fill the expensive seats up front.
April 5, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two separate observations. Mo Dowd commented about being herded onto the stage at a rally so the seats behind Hillary would be full. Peggy described a dinner where the expensive floor seats didn't sell out and they brought the people down from the cheaper areas to fill in.
April 6, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can anyone explain to me why this blog hasn't been recommended? What's the deal at TPM ? I'm new.
April 5, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a quantitative thing, I believe. This has been recommended seven times (small number shown at bottom of first item).
Other items have been recommended more and bubbled to the top of the list under the recommended heading.
April 5, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I looked at a bunch of the recommended posts. I found one with 16 recommends but not one comment. So I'm thinking that some of the posts are artificially pumped up by the site.
April 5, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Clinton Team Proposes New Compromise" has one comment (at present) and 16 recommends. I'd like to know what the policy is for the site if I'm going to stay here. Thanks for the information.
April 5, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only theory I can offer is that a bunch of people thought it was funny and recommended it as a joke. If we find something funny, we laugh but don't necessarily comment.
April 5, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary spoke to "regular people" in a "regular high school" and Obama spoke to a large crowd in sports arena. Wow! That former county chairwoman from some town of 150,000 must be the spawn of Satan or something.
April 5, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to know a lot about this "former county chairwoman." Where did you find that? I think the point is that Clinton doesn't draw big crowds.
April 5, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Initially, I intended to second the OP's notice that local media reports the crowd sizes, but between getting logged-out and eventually working my way back to this post, there were already a few people who had focused on the "regular" in the quote and headline, plus the fact that Ms. Hoyle was identified as an "aide".
A quick google showed that she's almost always identified as the former chair of the Lane County Democrats, she has long been active in local politics and she's on the steering committee with a handful of other folks.
April 5, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks.
April 5, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW: It's implied that she may have met Hillary, once or twice.
Maybe Obama should imprison her for impertinence.
April 5, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No offense meant here, but I think the point is that there is a lot of spin about crowd size.
April 5, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. I meant no offence. "The point is about the the spin about crowd size" as you say.
April 5, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No offense, but I think the point is about the "spin" around crowd size. As an Oregonian I want news about what happens so I can cast my vote appropriately in our primary. I'm pleased that the local paper covered the issue of crowd size. This matters to us and should matter to our super delegates. I'm an Obama supporter as you can guess. But I don't think the piece in the local paper was unfair. It would have been unfair if the question were not asked.
I suggest that you read the piece online at Eugene's Register Guard.
April 5, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Crowd size comparisons have been getting more frequent. Local media seems to have always reported on the numbers, especially with Obama (and they often use the rock concert metaphor), but just this morning in the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette, they make reference to Obama's crowd in comparison to Hillary's.
Of course there's also a quote from some random in the audience, who says "a woman's not as strong as a man at certain things", but that's probably another story.
April 5, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the reference from the Fort Wayne paper which I just read. I've been really excited by Obama but I will support Hillary if she wins. I do think that the energy at an Obama rally is bringing in new people to the process. I'm hoping to hear Hillary in person today.
April 5, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can find the original article at www.registerguard.com
April 5, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama supporters are also just "regular people" there's just a lot more of them!
April 5, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Hillary will find comfort in the fact that she is drawing better than Bill. He blitzed through NC today, hitting small colleges, which offer the next best thing to a captive audience, and drew only 1500 at UNC@Pembroke and 1800 at St. Andrews Presbyterian College in Laurinburg.
http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=290512
I am a registered Dem, 35 miles and a county line from Laurinburg, and last night I was invited via robocall to that event, so it is not as if there were no “get out the spectator” efforts being made.
April 5, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
To me, those numbers actually sound pretty big for small colleges. Not so? Are there other events to contrast so we can put Bill C's crowds in perspective at similar venues?
April 5, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although not a college town appearance, Bill drew 900 people in Medford Or., a week before Hillary's visit. It seemed a small number to me.
April 5, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Obama held a rally at the University of Denver, 18,000+ showed up on a frosty Wednesday morning with slippery roads. The venue, Magness Arena, held about 10,000. The gymnasium next door held about 4,000. Then there were about 4,000 standing outside on a lacrosse field.
Bill Clinton came to the same arena 10 hours later. The crowd was estimated at 2500.
April 6, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only regular people count. The only states that count are big states full of regular people that don't use undemocratic caucuses.
April 5, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the votes of those regular people in democratic primary states (as opposed to undemocratic caucuses) are represented by regular pledged delegates who are supposed to cast those regular democratic votes - unless, as Hillary asserts, they ignore those votes and do whatever they want.
April 5, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, people who happen to be automatic, pledged or caucus delegates are automatically regular people, unless they can't see Obama is unelectable. If they can't see Obama is unelectable, they no longer count and are no longer regular people.
Hillary Clinton, ready to be Commander in Chief on day one for regular people in states that count! That's 3 am Solutions you can take to the bank!
April 5, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regular as in regular coffee as opposed to cafe-latte, perhaps?
April 5, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regular as opposed to the "boutique" people in "boutique" states?
Regular as in those regular folks the Clinton campaign likes to say aren't ready to vote for a black man?
Or just "regular" meaning the people who count, that is, those who vote for Clinton in the primary?
April 5, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
...or "regular", meaning a normal-sized event in a traditional venue, according to a nice lady from a small city in Oregon.
April 5, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Magister--
Is that the lighthouse between Florence and Yachats?
April 5, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's off the coast of North Carolina.
April 5, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
All that Latte drinkin is bound to make you irregular. Who really wants to see 20,000 irregular people wearin birkenstocks? I know I don't.
April 5, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm shocked! You're not being entirely candid here...
Those are cardboard cut-out heads and legs and arms with empty clothes in between. The Clinton camp demands accuracy!
April 5, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The small crowds seem to turn into a lot of votes? Not sure if I get the reason for the post. With your reasoning Obama should have already had this thing wrapped up.
April 5, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. The small crowds will reflect fewer votes in the upcoming primary. The larger crowds reflect a tremendous interest in Obama (certainly out here in Oregon) and present a new opening for a revitalized democratic party, which in Oregon has become dispirited and irrelevant.
April 5, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
She had small crowds in Ohio and won in a landslide.
April 5, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right about Ohio. I'm talking about what's happening here in Oregon where we have a primary coming up. Oregon and Ohio are quite different states. We don't have as many of the blue collar white voters who will not vote for a black. Oregon is more progressive in that respect.
April 5, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
donnerpass- you've got that right about Oregon. There's a new feeling among many young people of a post-racial time. People from multi-racial backgrounds are excited by Obama, and the white kids are more accepting of us through him. We can see a generation of people who don't care about race. This is big for us.
April 5, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
She generally interacts with people more.
Whoops. That's sort of what Ms. Hoyle said.
April 5, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Magister,
Is that Ocracoke where you lighthouse is? I started vacationing there in 1966 with my family. Went back this year for the first time in 15 years - my, how it has changed. But still a lovely place to visit.
Pablo
April 5, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"REGULAR" ... as in, well, we're so much better than them but we'll "speak to" them anyway. Will we also listen ... well, that depends on what they're askin',now, doesn't it. Can't have them askin' any ir-regular questions!!
April 6, 2008 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats: mostly losers, silly parlor intellectuals spouting silly platitudes about fairness, with no real clue about how the world actually works, or ignorant and poor and scary black people, or (a thankfully dwindling group of) deadbeat union members, who are killing off their own jobs and local economies
Republicans: mostly ridiculous ignorant white people, but who are mostly socially productive at least, many of whom harbor ludicrous and nationalistic ideas about American primacy and completely silly religious beliefs.
Both groups are comprised of ignorant zealots who believe in ideology rather than analysis.
Me: great f***, superb intellect, global cosmopolitan, at home at M&A conference in london, or village wedding in Caucasus.
April 6, 2008 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know Milla, why don't you offer your racist words as a blog for everyone to see instead of bottom feeding down here?
April 6, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
ROFLMAO
You have a real future in quantitative political science!
Thanks for the entertaining post
April 6, 2008 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the crowd does not come to see Hillary, they are not regular people. Regular people support Hillary. If a crowd shoes up for a non-hillary event, they are non-Hillary people.
PS: non-Hillary people don't count. Only Hillary matters.
Hillary for Hillary 2008!
PSS: The queen has no clothes.
April 6, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
the queen has no clothes --- and it is not pretty.
April 6, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not that Hillary Clinton is less popular than Obama. She is just playing to a more selective part of the electorate.
April 6, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
They meant "regular" in the sense that, unlike Obama voters, Hillary voters have high fiber intake and are not bound up! Lot's of cheese eaters among the Obama voters!
April 6, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our organic, fair-trade caffe lattes keep us regular in spite of all the French (sorry, I mean Liberty) cheese.
April 7, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
With the Clintons, it is important to consult dthe Clinton Dictionary of the English Language. In Clinton-land, "regular" people are the minority of Americans who support HRC. The irregulars are the majority who want nothing to do with HRC. This is not unlike HRC's argument that states who voted against her do not count.
April 6, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink