Sunday, August 19, 2012

Team Obama Claims Small Crowd Size at Rallies is by Design...

by:  Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA

Liberty -vs- Tyranny

There were 14,000 supporters in the 20,000 seat Schottenstein Center at Ohio State University for the rally, according to the local fire department, ABC News reported. While the campaign was prepared for overflow crowds in Ohio, none materialized.

The Washington Times - The presumptive GOP presidential and vice presidential nominees Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan are attracting thousands of supporters to their campaign rallies since Mr. Romney named Mr. Ryan to the bottom of the ticket. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has taken notice of the massive crowds at the Romney Ryan stump speeches and sent out an urgent e-mail to their supporters, reported The Washington Examiner last week.

However, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not drawing the crowds they once could.

Apparently the Obama campaign believes Americans suffer from a lack of thinking ability. Team Obama is saying they are intentionally limiting crowd size for security and cost reasons.

New York Times - “We have plenty of time for big rallies,” a campaign spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, said between the rallies on Thursday. “Our focus right now is on exciting our supporters and winning over undecided voters and the smaller and medium-size events are the best venue to accomplish that because the president can closely engage with the crowd."

Big rallies are expensive, especially given the logistical and security challenges for a president as opposed to a mere United States senator. And Obama campaign operatives, both at the Chicago headquarters and in swing states where Mr. Obama recently has stumped, say the campaign intentionally limits crowds by restricting tickets. The reason is to allow the president to better connect with supporters, aides say.

Holding my sides as I laugh uncontrollably so as not to bust a gut!!!

Via: Memeorandum



27 comments:

  1. I'm surprised that many come to see either of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but especially Obama. On the other hand Dufus Biden does provide comic relief now and again.

      Delete
    2. It's a close call, but Romney is more boring than Obama.

      Delete
  2. .

    "Holding my sides as I laugh uncontrollably so as not to bust a gut!!!"

    Electoral College Totals:

    Obama = 275

    Romney = 191

    Needed to win = 270

    http://core.talkingpointsmemo.com/election/scoreboard

    Of course these numbers will change. So will the people's reasons for laughing.

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm also sure the numbers will change Ema. Oh yes, I'm sure they will.

      But keep the hope and change faith nonetheless.

      Delete
    2. Ema: If the people ask "are we better off now than we were 4 years ago?", they will cry instead of laugh. And it won't be good for Barack Obama and his "lets increase unemployment by 20% and the national debt by 50% presidency.

      Delete
    3. 4 years ago the economy was crashing and 600,000 people a month were losing their jobs. If you call that better, than you are nothing but a schill fpr Romney.

      Delete
    4. And four years ago Bush started TARP.

      No, four years ago was not better, and I didn't say that.

      But had McCain won we would probably be about where we're at today. See, whether dem or repub in the end all roads lead to the same end.

      I am a shill for no one. Can you say the same?

      Delete
    5. Talking to Dmarks

      Delete
  3. I would. I'd love to see Biden come to Michigan. Then I would enjoy him talking about how happy he is to be in Ohio. And he'd talk about how great it was for our state that Obama bailed out Silicon Valley in 1962 which has kept all those auto workers in the factories in Beloit.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Replies
    1. Indeed. Let us hope the dents get deeper and more plentiful.

      Sadly Romney/Ryan doesn't hold much hope for real meaningful change either.

      Gary Johnson on the other hand would make a difference in many ways.

      But the beat goes on...

      Delete
  5. By the way, I'd be interested to see if this report could be found in a credible source, instead of the Moonie newsletter quoted in the post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess one simply must draw conclusions from multiple sources and wait for the changing landscape to change I suppose.

      It is early yet, but with a few more Dufus gaffes and Ridiculous statements from Obama we just could see a significant shift in the polls.

      I'm hoping against hope I suppose that Gary Johnson achieves the 15% in the polls he needs to get on the presidential debate stage. If so he'll do the rest needed to get the job done.

      Delete
  6. What's really pathetic here, is that Obama's biggest problem is that he has not been able to recover enough the country from the severe damage done by the GOP and unregulated elements of the Free Market to the satisfaction of many voters. Note though that he remains well ahead of Romney. I guess Americans aren't as stupid and forgetful as you cons hope they are.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. jmj, as you full well know,(I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you can indeed read) I am far from a con. I will not be voting for either Mittens or Obimski. Both of whom I believe are inept guardians of the public trust and our right to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness.

      I am indeed however a radical. A radical for capitalism, liberty, individualism, and a reasonable limited governance of the people.

      Call me a con and I'll return the favor jmj. I am sick and tired of you fake liberals, who are nothing more than sorry ass statists.

      Delete
    2. Jersey said: "What's really pathetic here, is that Obama's biggest problem is that he has not been able to recover enough the country from the severe damage done by the GOP..."

      His biggest problem was that he chose not to undo any damage, but instead fo make it far worse. To increase unemployment 20%. To increase the national debt 50%. And so on.

      If Obama had taken us back to the days of the "severe GOP damage", he'd be a shoe-in for election, with Bush's 20% lower unemployment and much lower annual deficit.

      Delete
  7. NYT: "While 18,300 filled an arena at Ohio State University, about 4,000 seats remained empty, and in Virginia the president filled an 8,000-seat campus center but had no need for overflow rooms.

    Romney operatives belittled those events as evidence of Mr. Obama’s “enthusiasm gap.” Yet Mr. Romney rarely draws anything close to the crowds that Mr. Obama does, and Democratic operatives have had their own fun sending out pictures of empty seats over e-mail and Twitter. A favorite was in February, when Mr. Romney met with Detroit business leaders surrounded by the empty seats of cavernous Ford Field.

    A Romney spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, provided photos of three packed events: 5,000 at a Memorial Day weekend rally in San Diego, 2,200 in Idaho Falls, Idaho, in March, and 4,200 in Denver in mid-February. More typical appearances draw 300 to 500 people. An event in Ohio three weeks ago attracted about 400, with about 100 more in an overflow room. Last week in Colorado, Mr. Romney spoke to about 200 people at a school in Basalt. It was a small audience on Wednesday in a Des Moines high school auditorium, limited to Romney volunteers and staff members. And a day earlier outside Chicago, a couple hundred supporters were seated and enthusiastic, but behind them factory workers stood stone-faced.

    Romney crowds are overwhelmingly white compared with the more diverse Obama audiences, and older voters generally outnumber younger supporters.

    For both candidates, then, the crowds so far make for a standard presidential race and are reflective of a more sober and frustrated electorate."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read the NYT article in full Shaw, and I intentionally linked back to it so those who came to this site who might not have seen it would have the opportunity to do so. As well as linking back to The Washington Times for the same reason.

      I can only conclude your smugness and elitism caused you to copy and past from the article I linked back to. I can only assume it is because you really believe anyone who is not a democrat, or some other variant of progressive collectivism is too stupid, uneducated, and or naive to read the articles themselves. Let alone understand it.

      From my personal perspective, oh, wait. I already covered my thought in my response to jmj's comment above.

      At any rate the real point is Team Obimsky is slipping, and they know it. Failure is not a bedfellow anyone really wants to be in bed with. Team Obimski's claim that the size of Obama's crowds are being limited intentionally is laughable, and it is BS. Something Obama does well.

      My hope was that Johnson would pull 15% in polling consistently so he would get a place on the presidential debate stage. It likely isn't going to happen, and it is unfortunate for the American People he won't be on that stage. For if he were there he would do the rest.

      Delete
  8. The lack of enthusiasm for these 2 main party candidates is as palpable as any that I've ever seen. It literally makes me feel nostalgic for Carter and Ford.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ford perhaps, it is unfortunate he lost his election bid. The country was the worse off because of it.

      Jimmy (the Peanut Farmer) Carter, likely not. I cannot recall a single thing other than the Camp David Accords that Carter did right.

      Delete
    2. Come to think of it Obama reminds me of Carter.

      Romney does not remind me of Ford. Ford was the better politician and he was the better man.

      Delete
    3. Ford was a FAR better man and politician

      Delete
  9. I think that Ford and Carter were both decent men (yes, Carter did get a little wacky as he aged). Though, yes, Ford in fact was the far better President.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.