Hillary’s Oakland Rally VS Bernie’s Sacramento Rally

[GreatGazoo]

There must be at least 40 people there! Quick call CNN and broadcast it live! Just ignore that other one...

California is clearly “Feeling The Bern”. A recent rally in Sacramento, over 20,000 people attended to support Bernie Sanders, as we expected not one major media channel was there to report on this event.

On the other hand, Hillary also had a recent rally in Oakland. This rally had only 800 people in attendance, which did receive major media coverage.

Why should a rally with such a low turn out receive coverage while a rally with thousands in attendance is ignored by the media?

Watch this video where more people wait in line to get into the Bernie rally than even showed up to Hillary’s.

Hillary’s Oakland Rally VS Bernie’s Sacramento Rally

[merrily]

1. Why would establishment media want to call attention to this disparity?

[GreatGazoo]

3. It is Potemkin-esque

Paid trolls and shoebox rallies. Could it be more obvious?

[merrily]

9. And corporate media, shenanigans at primaries and caucuses, etc.

Even for a cynic in the making, it's been an eye-opener.

[J_J_]

50. +10000

n/t

[Hortensis]

92. IF those were polling sites, Bernie would win.

But, of course, they're not.

Experience now suggests that Bernie will probably draw a bit stronger to definitely stronger from this subregion. I've always been a strong-left liberal, most at home in Hollywood -- and would have loved to be at home in northern California, where I dreamed of having a garden and my childhood heart is. The last two times we cruised rural areas there, though, 2000s-era natives in 1970s caftans and Janis Joplin hair looked at me like they were sure I must be an Orange County ultraconservative. I think my clothes didn't send the right political message.

Aside from such obvious signs of what I feel would be mostly far left Sanders supporters, a significant majority of Californians will vote for Hillary. For all its great variety, California is, overall, a progressive liberal state. I miss being a part of it, knowing that, for all the noise the media-centric NE Atlantic states make, where California leads the rest of the nation eventually follows.

Just look at that minimum wage hike to $15, except it's phased in by 2022.

The California legislation will raise the statewide minimum to $10.50 on Jan. 1 for businesses with 26 or more workers, the first of several incremental increases to $15, with future raises tied to inflation. Smaller businesses will have an additional year to phase in each increase.

Definitely boooring, Hillary-style stuff. But it's solid; all big cities, and several others, have adopted it. Hopefully, and very possibly, they'll get a hustle on as we progress.

[Ed Suspicious]

101. It sure has been.

I bet she hasn't legitimately won a single state. It doesn't pass the smell test.

[silvershadow]

103. +1. nt

[vintx]

128. And this is why neither party did anything about electronic voting.

They both win by keeping a stranglehold on power

We need proportional representation and at least two more parties.

[peace13]

2. It's an optical illusion!

The other thirty thousand are under her jacket. Sorry, I couldn't help it. I can't imagine how the vote can be so close with such apathy on the Clinton side. I really can't believe the machines at all!

[GreatGazoo]

4. maybe that tiny grade school gym turned sideways to make it smaller is all SDs

they count as 200,000 voters each I hear.

[pdsimdars]

119. This is exactly the logical conclusion I come to.

With the huge rallies, the huge donor support, the huge twitter outpouring. It is overwhelming. And then "voting irregularities" and Bernie has less votes. Something doesn't add up.

[CentralCoaster]

126. And, not many People Of Color in Oakland. Hardly any people in the Bay Area at all....

Compared to Humongous Sacra-tomato!

[NorthCarolina]

5. Hillary's voters, generally travelling in mail sacks, have

no physical manifestation of themselves that can get them to rally's.

[GreatGazoo]

8. virtual voters (?)

[Baobab]

48. But, but.. Bernie must- just must have used inflatable decoy people in Sacramento!!! (Joke)

Not!

They can fake online sock puppets and perhaps even - in states where the machines are 'hackable' manipulate electronic touch screen voting results, though.

[Tarc]

39. Or, we have, y'know, jobs. Kid's school events, etc...

I have no time to attend rallies this year.

[GoldenThunder]

117. I'm seeing Bernie in Sioux Falls tomorrow.

FYI Sioux Falls was the city where Hillary gave her reason to keep fighting in 2008 because, you know, RFK got blown away after the California primary. Hey, it could happen.

BTW South Dakota was the 50th and final state Obama visited as president.

[KingFlorez]

6. Who cares? It's already been proven that crowds don't equal votes

Sanders talks at people, while Hillary talks to them. Smaller crowds equal retail campaigning which is the exact thing that gets votes. Sanders hates retail campaigning and prefers huge rallies, which has served him very well.

Clinton voters go to the polls, Sanders fans go to rallies.

[merrily]

10. Thing is, absence of crowds don't equal votes either. So where all these votes are coming

from raises suspicions.

[B Calm]

26. So Sander supporters are all unemployed lazy bums looking for government hand outs?

Seriously?

[oasis]

30. Relax, not all of them are.

[B Calm]

42. Which ones are?

[B Calm]

46. Crickets. . LOL

[Ned_Devine]

77. Of course crickets. That dude's always good for a useless nasty remark with a smiley face

[GoldenThunder]

118. Why on earth is Hillary bashing the woking class harder than Trump?

It's as if she wants to lose in November. This party is a major fixer upper right now.

[masmdu]

32. As if Bernie supporters don't have jobs or responsibilities and busy schedules...BAKA...hahaha

[Tarc]

40. Netflix & chill isn't a job

[J_J_]

55. just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it so

This is the world's dumbest excuse right here

[notadmblnd]

57. But you have all sorts of time to waste here?

You'll change no one's mind here. I wonder if your boss would think you are a winner if they knew you spent your mornings posting snark on a Democratic blog?

[J_J_]

60. OMG

[notadmblnd]

63. That's quite the rebuttal.

What are you? Six?

[J_J_]

66. I'm sorry, I thought your rebuttal was hilarious

you were right on

(and I was just trying to kick the post)

[beaglelover]

85. I check in a few minutes here and there throughout the day.

Look at your post count! Are you retired or unemployed?

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. Hmm you know that is a RW talking point

it usually goes like this

Conservatives do not have time to waste attending stump speeches. We can get the highlights on the news before we retire after a very hard day's work. Liberals don't have jobs.

[beaglelover]

124. Liberals and conservatives are not always on the opposite sides you know.

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. People who ape conservative talking points as weapons

Are conservatives. You are correct, we are definitely not on the same side

[J_J_]

53. many people growing suspicious

It is all manufactured consent by the media, then steal it with the machines

[Logical]

15. Lol, keep thinking that to avoid disappointment in the GE

[Ace Rothstein]

19. You have a short memory.

Remember all the huge Romney by rallies in 2012? Obama was doing much smaller venues and that was supposed to mean a Romney victory.

[uponit7771]

21. No, I think a lot of them REALLY remember the rMoney rallies... I'm mean personally remember

... them

[Ned_Devine]

78. Why is that?

[Logical]

33. You forget obama vs hill in 2008

[Ace Rothstein]

125. I remember it quite well.

My point is that bigger crowds don't necessarily result in more votes.

[KingFlorez]

37. Lol, it's the truth

Big rallies didn't translate into votes for Sanders.

[uponit7771]

20. +1

[ThePhilosopher04]

35. I think it's more an indication of voter suppression and election fraud.

[KingFlorez]

36. Of course, because Sanders could never lose anywhere

Everywhere he lost he was cheated out of win, right?

[ThePhilosopher04]

41. Not everywhere but several states do come to mind.

Arizona, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc.

[Ned_Devine]

80. Massachusetts definitely

I don't even see how it's remotely possible that she won here. It's totally Bernie country in my state. I wonder if the bullhorn incident, or our corrupt mayors and office holders played a hand.

[J_J_]

58. exactly

But we are supposed to just trust the media and the easily manipulated voting machines, not our own eyes

[grasswire]

108. Like she talked to the miner?

CNN was all over this. A miner asked her a question, and her answer was all about herself and her campaign, with no human understanding of the plight of people losing their jobs.

[Satch59]

7. Seems his large rallies aren't converting to votes...

When over 3 million more people voted for Hillary? Her smaller events have her talking and listening WITH people...while he just talks/yells AT people...

Flame away...

On edit: sorry kingflorez, I was typing while you posted and we seem to be on the same page!

[GreatGazoo]

11. who yells at people at their own events?

[merrily]

13. Another false cliche. smh

[dana_b]

23. I think you're going to be sorely disappointed on June 7th

I do think that Hillary will do better in Southern California, but Northern California is mostly Bernie territory.

[Trajan]

34. Maybe the vote is being stolen from the people

And maybe you don't give a fuck ....

[J_J_]

67. Just like republicans in 2000 and 2004

They don't care if they have to cheat, they just want to win.

[Ed Suspicious]

102. Just think about that for a fucking second. Does that actually sound legit in your mind? People

will rally for Bernie in heat and cold and rain for hours on end, in the tens of thousands, but when it comes time to seal the deal, they can't be arsed to vote for him? Does that really pass for a reasonable explanation to you?

[pdsimdars]

120. It's called "voting irregularities" Come one Hillary's people can't even get up the motivation

to come to hear her speak, how do they even make it to vote.

Hillary is a weak candidate who will lose the GE if she is the nominee. Don't blame us. She's weak.

[vintx]

127. THIS

[beaglelover]

12. Too bad his big crowds don't turn into actual votes. He's be winning if they did.

Oh well. The primary is over and Bernie lost. Time to move on to the general and defeat Trump!!

[imagine2015]

17. Hillary's small grouplets will turn into actual general election votes if she is nominated.

Trump will crush her.

[NCTraveler]

16. I know you don't want to hear this.

But it's pretty clear Sanders is holding pep rallies and then his fans go home. It's as if these are the events themselves. They don't understand that they determine the score, not Sanders.


Millions more have shown up for Clinton on game day. Has to be really frustrating for Sanders looking out at the sea of people and wondering if they are even registered.

[imagine2015]

18. Hillary can't win in November with only registered Democrats. She only got 10% in the primarys.

And she may not even get most registered Democrats to vote for her in the November election. She only got about 10% in the closed primary state elections. And independents, 42% of the voters, won't vote for her.

She'll get crushed by Trump.

Most people don't trust her and dislike her and her conservative policies.

[NCTraveler]

25. "Hillary can't win in November with only registered Democrats."

I have never seen anyone say she can. You are literally making an argument based of a conversation with yourself. That is how far we have gone in this primary.

I spend almost all of my days as a registered independent. This independent is voting for Clinton.

[Satch59]

29. Blah blah blah...RW Taliking points...

Wasn't the obit on the Romney campaign all about not getting Hispanic and blacks votes? Trump will get those when crushing Hillary? Trump will unite the Dem Party...and if you hate HRC so much, then vote for Trump or don't vote...

Bernie has said he will unite with the party because of Trump...so his supporters will either follow or not...

[PufPuf23]

22. I wonder who Ron Dellums supports for POTUS 2016.

The media fails in not providing equal and fair coverage.

I am wondering just how fair the vote counting has been in some states.

I have been slow to come to that conjecture.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Likely the same candidate he supported in 2008

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=92036

[Actor]

27. Bernie has accomplished the almost impossible. He has engaged people who normally arent.

He has great ideas, and if he loses the nomination, he will have millions of people who will HOPEFULLY be willing to help him achieve his goals as Senator from Vermont.

With a Democrat in the WH and this wave of populism and someone like Bernie to lead it (from the Senate), much can be done.

It ALL hinges on his supporters staying engaged.

He can accomplish NOTHING, otherwise.

[PufPuf23]

31. Thank you.

The 1970s versions of Ron Dellums and Jerry Brown are probably my two favorite pols that have received my vote.

I wonder about now in 2016.

I spent 5 minutes searching and found nothing for 2016.

I did not know that his son had been critical of POTUS Obama.

Why do you think Hillary Clinton has never been a member of the Congressional progressive caucus?

Have you noticed that many of the states Hillary Clinton won in the 2008 primaries are going to Sanders while many states won by POTUS Obama in 2008 have gone to Clinton in 2016?

This of course is not 100% true.

Clinton lost all the southern states where she has done so well in 2016 to POTUS Obama in 2008.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. The Progressive Caucus is more of a House thing. Bernie is the only Senate member.

Have you noticed that many of the states Hillary Clinton won in the 2008 primaries are going to Sanders while many states won by POTUS Obama in 2008 have gone to Clinton in 2016?

Because Hillary inherited Barack's coalition but added Latinos while losing millennials. Bernie inherited Hillary's coalition but lost Latinos. That's might be a gross oversimplification but it gets to the hearts of the matter.


BTW, I live in CA and think Jerry Brown is a great governor but it is not as he governs as an ideological liberal. He's actually quite pragmatic.

[PufPuf23]

51. Hillary Clinton has lost a substantial number of Democratic Boomers as well.

This is self-evident at DU.

Good point about the Progressive caucus being a House institution.

Sanders started way behind in terms of national recognition and unfortunately Clinton was treated as an incumbent and presumptive nominee by the DNC and many others.

I say unfortunately because Clinton's efforts have less legitimacy to many of us because we were not given a choice.

Also Clinton has made questionable decisions and been less than discrete in showing warts; warts not from the right, but warts identified by and for legitimate reasons by good Democrats and liberals.

I am a northern California native and, aside from 11 years living and or working in Oregon, have lived in Humboldt county (now and native), Bay Area (most education from 1st grade on), Trinity county, or Shasta county. I have a BS (70s) and MBA (80s) from Cal (plus incomplete PhD from Oregon State) and was a Fed all my 20s and early 30s when resigned under Reagan.

I totally agree with you about Jerry Brown. Brown is a rare politician that has outstanding administration skills and gets things, good inclusive things done. That has always been the key to Brown's success. Had I known that a 70 something would be a candidate in 2016 I would have gladly supported Jerry Brown (again) for POTUS as a one-termer. California has been fortunate to have this man. He is as ethical and fair as a politician can be.

I preferred the 1970's Jerry Brown because he did have more idealism and was way in front of the curve in his thought. I supported him for POTUS in 1976 and supported Brown to primary Carter in 1980.

[U4ikLefty]

106. Oh that's right, you're the expert on California.

[CorkySt.Clair]

28. That's why Bernie is the front runner and is winning the primary!

Oh wait....

That's actually not what is happening.

[GreatGazoo]

43. democracy is no joke

Do you think half-empty grade school gyms turned sideways to make them even smaller are going to defeat Donald Trump?

Some of us want to build on what Obama got done btw...

[CorkySt.Clair]

44. Yeah, I don't cower in fear of Trump.

If you want to that's your business.

And Bernie's big crowds have not won him the nomination. But you knew that already.

[apnu]

45. This comparison is pointless.

Hillary does not like to do big rallies. She prefers smaller venues with specific audiences. She's better in small groups and one-on-one just like Bill. Until the GE, we're never going to see Hillary book huge venues very often. Its not that she's running away, this is simply her campaign style. Seems to be working because she leads in the popular vote, PDs and Supers.

The media rarely comments on any political rally's size, the only exception are the party conventions. They may run comments from rallies but they never mention, much, what the draw numbers are.

Bernie people keep posting stuff about the size of the rallies is a mystery.

Hillary gets more coverage than Bernie because she sells more papers and advertising than Bernie. Trump gets 4 times the coverage than Bernie and Hillary combined because he's even more valuable at attracting eyeballs. That's it, there's no other conspiracy happening here.

[jwirr]

61. LOL Sells more papers? Do you have any idea how many

people are not bothering to watch tv news etc. anymore. How are not subscribing to newspapers and magazines anymore?

The quality of media today sucks and the people are beginning to stop listening.

We are turning to internet news sites and they give us the kind of news we used to be interested before the corporate media started telling us only what they want us to know.

[Bayard]

47. Just curious

Is she wearing a raincoat there?

[TeeYiYi]

64. Ha!

...or a butcher's apron.

TYY

[cherokeeprogressive]

49. I'm kind of leaning in the direction Hillary supporters lean on this issue.

All the rally attendance in the world doesn't matter if it doesn't translate into votes.

[brooklynite]

52. How many questions did Bernie take at his rally?

The guy in the back probably has to wait awhile...

[islandmkl]

54. gotta love all the snark about 'crowd versus votes'....after less than one year of campaigning

and getting a great deal of people energized, many of which just might be, for various reasons, unable to vote this time around...

it is a fool's bet to think they won't get older, just as the great majority of posters here have done, and that THEIR participation won't increase as EVERY GENERATION BEFORE THEM HAS DONE AS THEY AGED....

well, then...don't mind that light at the end of the tunnel...you won't recognize what hit you, anyway...

there is a lot of condescension that has an expiration date of between 6 months and, should things go as the Third Way/DLC/DNC crowd expects this year, maybe 4 years...

mock while you can...your smugness will be a comfort to you in your later years

[jwirr]

62. +1

[amborin]

56. lol

[ContinentalOp]

59. I have a feeling there's a certain amount of peer pressure involved in the Sanders campaign

You can bully people into tagging along to a rally or maybe participating in a caucus, but that all goes away in the privacy of an actual voting both.

[J_J_]

65. oh my gawd a new one

Sanders supporters are bullying their peers into attending rallies.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. Well it makes sense

when H fans believe that Sanders supporters are first class bullies, never mind my experience is exactly the oposite. But if you do believe that. well then, bully your friends to go to the rally... it is internally consistent with the myth of the bernie bro

[senz]

68. lol, such nonsense.

If you've ever been to a Bernie rally, you know it's joyful. He speaks to what's best in us. His supporters are easygoing, live and let live types.

Nice try.

[ContinentalOp]

69. Bernie supporters have made it clear that they think very little of Clinton supporters.

When people start talking about Bernie irl I just keep quiet, because I don't want to get into a big argument with people I actually agree with politically. If I were still in college and friends were going to a Bernie rally I would probably go along. I would not be surprised at all if there were people who have attended Bernie rallies with friends but will vote for Clinton if they live in a state with a secret ballot. If they live in a caucus state and have friends who are caucusing for Sanders they would probably just stay home.

I think when it's all over and Sanders finally endorses Clinton you're going to see a big change. Lots of Clinton supporters will come out of the closet and then you'll start seeing all of the bumper stickers and yard signs that are conspicuously absent now.

[senz]

71. Clinton supporters ridicule and demean Bernie supporters.

They call us socialists, communists, not real Democrats, fringe dreamers who want "free stuff." Clinton supporters feel protected by their candidate's political power and high dollar connections; they look down on us as powerless outsiders who will be smashed and further impoverished. when and if their candidate wins. They are top-dog authoritarians.

When Clinton won some early primaries, her supporters celebrated for awhile by chanting the rightwing dominator chant, "USA USA USA" until someone shushed them because it looked just a little too brownshirt.

Bernie supporters are egalitarian and they value other people. They do not want to lord it over anyone. They are gentle, like Bernie himself.

[ContinentalOp]

72. LOL, the lack of self awareness is amazing.

You say Clinton supporters are the ones who ridicule Sanders supporters but then you go on to call Clinton supporters authoritarians and right wing brownshirts?

I agree with Sanders on most of the issues and am probably in line with or to the left of most of his supporters. So I don't bring it up in person because I don't want to be told that I have blood on my hands, that I'm supporting a right wing criminal, that I'm "low information" or a 1%er, etc. And I guarantee I'm not alone.

[senz]

73. That's not ridicule. That's fear.

Hill and her cohorts scare us.

Very different from ridicule. This is not a win-lose "game" for us.

[ContinentalOp]

75. Seriously, do you not see what you're doing?

Yes, some Clinton supporters accuse Bernie supporters of being young, naive, and overly idealistic. But we don't think that makes them bad people! Sanders supporters seem to believe that Clinton supporters are actually terrible people who don't care about the poor, and are pro-war, pro-corporate, secret republicans. You don't think that leads many people to keeping their Clinton support to themselves?

Look at the NY exit polls for example. Clinton got 35% of the 18-29 vote, and 47% of the 25-29 vote. You don't think any of those people went to Sanders rallies with friends? You don't think any of them smile and keep quiet when their Sanders supporter friends start ranting about Clinton supporters being authoritarian brownshirts? And then consider that she won 63% of women in NY. You don't suppose that any of those women were dragged to a Sanders event by friends, boyfriends, or husbands and kept their Clinton support to themselves?

[senz]

81. Of course you don't think Bernie and his supporters are bad people.

Because we're not.

Do I think Hillary is a bad person? I think she's hideously bad. I find her terrifying.

As far as your other scenario, you will find friends and relatives who refrain from discussing political differences everywhere. It used to be highly recommended in etiquette books. But you'll find it on all sides.

As for big rallies, Hill doesn't do them; she prefers small high priced dinners. She knows the MSM (corporate monopolies) will carry her message and support her everywhere. That's why she does so well with groups that get their news from the TV. They only hear her side and know nothing of Bernie.

Bernie has to do rallies because it's the only way he can get his message out, other than social media. The MSM will not convey his message; he's lucky if they even mention him.

[ContinentalOp]

82. Everything about this conversation has perfectly proven my point!

The black and white thinking. The total confidence that you and your candidate are completely right, pure, and just, while the other side is "terrifying." The persecution complex. This is why Clinton supporters tend to keep their mouths shut and vote rather than get dragged into this pointless battle.

[senz]

84. Nice bit of black and white thinking, yourself.

I do not consider myself "completely right, pure, and just," but I do consider Bernie Sanders the most honorable, honest, unselfish, and courageous politician I've encountered in my long life, and I find the principles and issues he has fought for his entire life to be exactly what I believe in.

I see no "persecution complex" on our side, whereas I've seen tons of it from Clinton supporters. You know, poor, poor Hillary, always persecuted by big bad rightwingers.

If DU is any gauge, Clintons supporters are the most vocal and by far, the biggest bullies.

[ContinentalOp]

88. You said...

"Of course you don't think Bernie and his supporters are bad people. Because we're not." Which is pretty weirdly overconfident thinking. I mean, surely somewhere among all of the Bernie supporters is a genuinely bad person! It also implies that you think the other side are bad people. Or are somehow ignorant for supporting a bad person who you find terrifying. That's what I was referring to as black and white thinking. You can't accept that Bernie has flaws, or that the two candidates are actually close together on most issues. Please show me where I've done the same thing. I think both candidates are flawed, and I actually agree with Sanders on most things, I just don't think he could ever win a national election.

Your rant about lack of MSM coverage sure sounded like a persecution complex to me. As do all of the conspiracy theories about election fraud. And you don't think Clinton has literally been persecuted by the right wing for decades? Maybe you don't remember when Republicans spent $80 million of taxpayer money on an open ended multi year investigation and ultimately impeached the president over a blowjob.

But if you honestly think that Clinton supporters are more vocal on DU than Sanders supporters, then we clearly live in two different realities and will never see eye to eye on any of this!

[senz]

96. Guess not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. You know what

I have been bullied by C supporters, have had my life experience rewritten by Clinton supporters. and I consider them not my allies or friends, and I will never forget it. Yours is a fantasy. And the best part is that Clinton supporters assume I am a Sanders supporter because I refuse to say who I support. It is kind of adorable. But that window into that is not just bitter, but one I will never, ever forget, or for that matter forgive.

[vintx]

130. +1

[XemaSab]

86. I, for one, went to the rally in Sacramento to meet men

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. Thread winner

I went in San Diego to cover it. So my mind was truly in ISO settings, Aperture settings, and framing...

Composition was up there as well. Thank god for the recorder!

[AgingAmerican]

132. So that's how stadiums are filled?

Peer pressure?

Wow cognitive dissonance makes people say wacky things sometimes

[Attorney in Texas]

70. How many in Hillary's crowd are journalists, campaign support, and other paid to be there?

[shireen]

74. in fairness to Hillary,

that looks like a townhill meeting, not a rally. You're comparing apples and oranges.

[GreatGazoo]

110. They call it a "rally"

http://www.dailycal.org/2016/05/08/hillary-clinton-speaks-crowd-campaign-rally-oakland/

[CrowCityDem]

76. Hillary's vote total vs Bernie's. Mic drop.

[carburyme]

79. Crowdmanship at it's best!

We all know that the size of rallies has long been a flawed measure of a campaign’s success. But I guess Bernie's campaign is hoping this enthusiasm at this point can still generate those much needed contributions.

[tonyt53]

83. She spoke to people that will actually vote in November

Most of Bernie's supporters wouldn't bother to vote for him in November even if he was the nominee.

[pdsimdars]

87. I like to put it in perspective. You count Bernie's rallies in the tens of thousands

and you count Hillary's in the dozens.

[ContinentalOp]

91. Here's another way to put it in perspective.

300,503 people in Sacramento County voted for Obama in 2012. That's out of 306,960 registered Democrats, 698,899 registered voters, and 944,243 eligible voters.

So while a 20,000 person rally looks impressive, it only accounts for 6% of registered Democrats in the county, and only 2% of eligible voters. A nice crowd, but not really relevant to the actual voting numbers.

[zappaman]

89. Do rallies vote?

Bernie's don't seem to.

[pdsimdars]

121. Voter suppression and voting "irregularities"

When you can't win on the issues you have to cheat.

[Ferd Berfel]

90. What's wrong with this picture?

THis is what makes me question the entire process - especially the eVoting machines. As far as I know none of the hacking problems that got Bush reinstalled in 2004 have been fixed - they are still in place and available.

The only information we get on the election is what the Corporate (in the bag for Clinton) allows us to have.

Something just stinks.

Ok now the clinton- can start on the tin foil hat crap.

[ContinentalOp]

93. Clinton does much better among older people.

Do you think older people are going to go sit in a stadium with 20,000 people to listen to a candidate say all the same things we can hear them say on TV? Look at crowd photos and you'll see mostly excited college aged people. His biggest base of support happens to align nicely with the same demographic that's willing to go to a rally like that.

Clinton has also been in the public eye for decades. She's not the shiny new thing. Does anyone really need to go hear her talk in a huge stadium? But just because she's not exciting and new doesn't mean that people aren't going to vote for her.

You also need to put those crowds in perspective. 20,000 people is only 6% of registered Democrats in Sacramento county. It doesn't really mean much in the bigger picture.

There is no conspiracy.

[Ferd Berfel]

94. I'm 66 and support Bernie

If I could get tickets to any of those stadiums I'd go.

How much older are her 'supporters'?

[ContinentalOp]

95. Sure, but look at the crowd photos.

It's mostly younger people. You don't think people over the age of 30 are less likely to go stand around in a big crowd to hear a stump speech?

[beltanefauve]

100. Nice try

My 60-year-old husband and I went to the Sac rally. We got there before 5pm, got spots close to the stage and waited until well after 8 to see and hear him The energy was infectious. Bernie was inspirational. It's never the same old stump speech because of the genuine compassion Bernie has and it shows.

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. Some of the folks I spoke in SD at the front of the line

who were there 6 hours or more before it opened, were in their sixties, a few of the others in the lines were in their seventies.

There were a lot of kids, and in that I mean a few actual kids, but there were people of all ages. I would say it was a picture of the country. And the next day I was dying. Press. I was carrying a good 50 pounds of photo equipment to get field interviews as well as recorder, batteries, gad, I did not take enough water.

<-------self finger waggle.

For the record, I wish people did not bring anybody under 8 to these things, and 8 it is debatable, but parents don't have where to leave the kids, it is just that I was sharing food bars with a couple very hungry and cranky six year olds. I am not kidding, it almost looked like a snickers commercial...

[ContinentalOp]

97. Some thoughts on rallies, alleged election fraud, and math.

In NYC there are 3,071,159 registered Democrats. Bernie drew a crowd of around 30,000. That's about 1% of registered Democrats. 60,000 Democrats were purged from voter rolls which is about 2%. Clinton won Brooklyn 60-40, won Manhattan 66-33, and won the Bronx 70-30.

So even if those voters were all wrongly purged and they were all Sanders voters, he still wouldn't have won. Even if the entire crowd at his rally were purged from the voter rolls it would have made no difference.

There is no correlation between rally attendance and votes. And even the most impressive rallies are just a tiny fraction of the overall electorate. The claims of fraud are ridiculous, and using pictures of big rallies as evidence that something fishy happened is even more ridiculous.

[caquillo]

98. Statesmanship is more than entertaining millennials

[COLGATE4]

99. Now, if only attendance at rallies counted the same as votes...

[imari362]

105. That is a very untrue talking point.....

...that the Hillary supporters here like to gloat about because her rallies can't draw those size crowds.

Let's say for argument sake that Bernie has had just 50 rallies to date, each one of those has had a crowd attendance of 30,000........

30,000 x 50 = 1,500,000

Yet to date Bernie's vote total is over 9,500,000

IF Hillary could draw those type of crowds that do actually turn into votes...exactly as Bernie's has....she would be further ahead in....what she and her supporters love to tout/gloat about....popular votes.

[COLGATE4]

123. Let's say that we have had a whole bunch of primaries

up to now. And, if Hillary got more votes she would have more delegates than Bernie. And if she had more delegates she would win the nomination. Oh wait. That's what actually happened.

[imari362]

131. Thank You

For the affirmation that Hillary supporters just make up talking points because they are afraid of Bernie.

Why else would her supporters flock to post the same repetitive falsehood about his rallies?

Could it be that ya'll are not as certain of "she would win the nomination" as you would want some to believe.

[COLGATE4]

133. Don't mention it. Always glad to help the lost find the way.

And no, it doesn't mean us all are not as certain that she will win the nomination. We all are certain.

[imari362]

134. "We all are certain"

Seeing how ya'll post, it's very hard to believe.

[COLGATE4]

135. It should be "us all". My bad.

[jalan48]

104. Hillary is status quo in a time of change.

The oligarchs like staus quo, the people, not so much.

[ucrdem]

107. They come for the giveaways of course:

p.s. kidding

[GreatGazoo]

112. They would get a bigger crowd if they gave away "broom"

I also kid.

[Norrin Radd]

116. kr

[pdsimdars]

122. You see all the Bernie supporters putting up photos of his rallies but you never see the Hillary

people putting up photos of her rallies. That explains why they're so sensitive about it. Nothing to be proud of or celebrate. A candidate who can't fill a double garage. Now, that's enthusiasm.
So when we post them, they sure are sensitive about it.

[JoePhilly]

129. We're too busy voting.

[pdsimdars]

137. I just can't get enough of the contrast. Look at that sea of people loving a politician who talks

to them and the real issues that affect their lives. That, my friends, is inspiration. Can't help but feel good about Americans. They all chose to come there and hear him.