***60,000**** !!!!!!! Bernie's LARGEST rally ever in Oakland -- 60,000 people!!!!!

[BigBearJohn]

[bjo59]

1. And deafening silence on the part of the corporate owned media.

Thank you so much, Comcast, for co-hosting the Democratic National Convention.

[rtracey]

104. so

So the media is not covering it.... the medial hits about 15-20 million people at a time. Newspapers..noone reads, tv at 6 pm, etc..... Social media, as in facebook, twitter, etc reach billions.....why this about the media, when social media is covering it...

[Califonz]

150. Nightline last night on ABC-Disney

thought the Libertarian party stripper was a much more important story.

The revolution will not be televised.

[Ken Burch]

2. And if it's Oakland, you can be damn sure that crowd's diverse. n/t.

[pnwmom]

6. Not in the video. That crowd is a lot more than 35% white -- Oakland's percent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland,_California

[merrily]

26. You know what percentage of that crowd is white?

And what if it were? Are you saying people of color are being turned away from Bernie's rallies?

[jalan48]

34. I didn't get the percentages from HRC's big rally yesterday.

Do you have a link by any chance?

[pnwmom]

36. She's been winning without big rallies. GOTV is what matters,

not get-out-to-rallies.

[zentrum]

42. HRC and Trump

...are separated by 2 points in the latest poll this AM.

It would be good if the HRC camp would stop so disdaining the people who support Bernie---given that huge numbers of them say they will not vote for her and don't believe her suddenly more progressive rhetoric.

Harrumpfing in their faces does not GOTV---get out their vote.

Might feel satisfying to dismiss them, but it's not good politics.

[pnwmom]

44. If they want to toss the election to Trump, then it's on them. nt

[zentrum]

50. As I said, this kind

……of thing is not the way to GOTV. But it does apparently have the subjective advantage of giving these often young supporters the political finger.

Okay, it's on them. Nothing to do with genuine problems in the country that the establishment wouldn't listen to, nothing to do with the candidate that the DNC stove piped, nothing to do with the Clinton baggage that leaves a totally disheartened feeling in so many long-term, older Democrats.

Nah—it's on the backs of these darn millennials that HRCers seem to feel fine alienationg.

[pnwmom]

53. Sorry, but I'm sick of older, experienced Dems

joining in on tearing Hillary apart based on Rethug talking points.

[BeanMusical]

58. Poor Hillary, such a delicate flower...

When it's useful to play that role as a political tool, of course. Isn't she supposed to be tough?

[pnwmom]

61. The issue isn't how tough she is. The issue is how misinformed the haters are,

gobbling up Rethug talking points.

[BeanMusical]

66. "the haters"

[Rockyj]

153. Please explain how misinformed haters are?

Making comments like "haters" only fuels the fire. Is that your intention? If so then wouldn't you be considered a hater?

[pnwmom]

154. For example, there are haters here who have brought up Whitewater

and Vince Foster and other parts of the failed $70 million multi-year persecution of the Clintons by Inspector Javert Starr.

Or who say Hillary is an enabler because she didn't divorce her husband.

[zentrum]

62. Wow. Just wow.

As if any critique of HRC is a Repug talking point.

Didn't know critical thinking was so exhausting to the post-DLC New Democrat.

Have a good day.

[pnwmom]

63. No, not any critique. Just too many of the ones I read here. n/t

[bjobotts]

110. Admit it, you never read a Clinton critique you felt was justified.Ears and eyes shut.

[imagine2015]

114. You mean like on the latest episode of Hillary's lying regarding her e-mails?

[pnwmom]

122. I think the email "scandal" is almost as trivial as the Christmas card scandal.

They accused the Clintons of lying about Christmas cards, too.

And meanwhile, the Rethugs are getting ready to nominate a certified lunatic.

[Zen Democrat]

131. Hillary wishes to God that this was a Christmas Card scandal!

[HeartoftheMidwest]

85. Sorry.

She has her own negatives and own record that has NOTHING to do with the right wing.
Granted, the RWers have no problem jumping on her for real AND imagined issues, but that doesn't make her support of the TTP, TTiP, fracking, hard-line against Russia and Iran, "regime change" in Libya, Honduras, and Haiti, etc. invalid because the RWers talk about it.
It means she should be out front and discussing those issues in SUBSTANTIVE terms, not in vague or dismissive language. Or by avoiding them.

She's been running for President casually since the end of her husband's administration, and in earnest for at least the last eight or nine years. She knows she's under more scrutiny than any other candidate, for many reasons. She shouldn't act so surprised or so defensive about it. If she can't handle it, she shouldn't be running.

[zentrum]

91. Not to mention

…..her vote for the Iraq War. Until the war was revealed as being a ruinous failure. Oh, and unpopular. That's always the key for HRC.

[Zen Democrat]

130. How about because she supports fracking and opposes Glass-Steagall. NOT Rethug talking points.

And I'm an older, experienced Dem who can't bear HRC. She's a phony. Trump is a phony. What a choice. I've never NOT voted Democratic, and won't vote for Trump, so my vote will go to the Dem solely because of the Supreme Court. But Hillary's unlikeability is a real thing. Lots of Democrats will never be ready for Hillary, but will hold their noses because of the Supreme Court vacancy(ies).

[SusanCalvin]

138. Ditto. nt

[Herman4747]

74. NO!!! A thousand times "NO!"

If Trump wins, then it's on Hillary. If she hadn't turned off a significant part of the electorate by lying continuously, by being insincere, by getting foreign policy advice from Henry Kissinger, and by refusing to show people that she hasn't been bought, then

IT'S ON HER!!!

[pnwmom]

75. No. People have been lying about her all along, including

many Bernie people. Anyone who starts pushing Whitewater, Lewinsky, etc. I've even seen people here accuse her of the Vince Foster murder. So some younger people, who didn't live through it the first time, are getting snowed by the lies.

[Herman4747]

78. Aw Come on. Really, you can do better.

Are there truly notably frequent posts at DU about Whitewater or Vince Foster, ancient 1990s stuff??? No. We want to know why she won't tell the world what exactly she promised Goldman Sachs when receiving $675,000 from them. Hillary won't tell, because she has something to hide.
Consider the infamous video where she's lying for 13 minutes straight. How much of that is dealing with Whitewater, Lewinsky, or Vince Foster??? Just about none of it, right? That's NOT Bernie people talking in that video, THAT'S HILLARY!!!

No need to settle for an inferior Democratic Presidential candidate.

[BeanMusical]

82. But she sure was awesome while in Bosnia...

With all those snipers and shit. Proof:

Hillary WASN'T LYING! Bosnia gunfire footage discovered...

[pnwmom]

124. The video is a splice and dice job of the Rethugs, but leave it to

bloodthirsty DUers to happily spread it around.

[Herman4747]

126. A "splice and dice job"????

When she's lying about "sniper fire," how is that a "splice and dice job"??
But sadly, you'll just continue to hear what you want to hear, see what you want to see.

[AgingAmerican]

144. Cognitive dissonance won't allow them to acknowledge reality

When it goes against Hillthink

[Zen Democrat]

132. You have confused Bernie with Trump. How'd you do that?

[Dont call me Shirley]

148. The Lewinsky thing is not a lie. That really did happen. Bill was impeached because of that.

[AlbertCat]

107. If they want to toss the election to Trump, then it's on them.

It's up to Hillary to inspire people to vote for her in the GE, not Trump.

It's all on Hillary, and her fans' attitudes.


If she does manage to squeak thru the GE, it won't be because a majority wants her to be president.

[dynamo99]

116. Toss the election to Trump?

You mean, like Hillary is tossing it to Trump by not bowing out?

No, both those positions are BS, aren't they?

True, some people actually like the DLC/"New" Democrat/Third Way politicians. Guess who purchased the records of the DLC when it went out of business?

And then again, some of us like the Democratic wing of the party.

[bvar22]

121. If you are determined to support the weaker candidate,

THAT is on YOU.

[upaloopa]

60. We don't have any power over your vote. Take responcibilty for yourself and stop the black mail.

[BeanMusical]

68. "stop the black mail."

There's a black mail? You mean like a black market but in this case they're operating an underground mail system?

[zentrum]

70. You're missing my point.

She's a weak candidate or there would be easy unity within the party. That there isn't unity, ain't because of Bernie. Bernie is a "symptom", not the cause.

No one is blackmailing you to ask you to stop insulting these enthusiastic potential voters when there's only 2 points difference between Trump and HRC this AM. You feel blackmailed if you're asked to stop insulting them?

That's very interesting.

Even Harry Reid has said that Bernie has made her a better candidate and shouldn't leave the field. Now that's a smart politician. He understands that though he supports HRC, and has no "power" as you define it, he at least knows how to talk to non-HRC supporters and doesn't immediately scold them for not falling in line. He understands the real reasons for the lack of unity in the Democratic Party.

[BeanMusical]

73. +1 Very well said.

[zentrum]

87. Hai.

[BeanMusical]

89. Hello zentrum!

[raindaddy]

109. She doesn't have the trust factor, authenticity nor the ability to convince the public..............

she actually believes in the issues she's campaigning on to draw big crowds..

What this country is in need of is a leader who can unite the majority of the country to deal with pressing issues like global warming, child poverty,lack of opportunity, government corruption etc... Hillary Clinton is not a leader...

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

119. What we need is a non-violent revolution

and after the elections the fight WILL CONTINUE.

People need to step up and take control of their future and understand that it's the multinational corporations that is our real enemies.

Lots of education needs to be accomplished.

[raindaddy]

145. I think we're in the middle of one....

People are tried of carrying an empire and it's obscene military budget on their backs..

[valerief]

83. I've always wanted to know how you can tell Hispanic or Asian from white in a big crowd.

Please enlighten us.

[BeanMusical]

90. Oooh, very well said, valerief.

[bjobotts]

111. No matter what, 60,000 people showing up at a rally is a really big deal.

[bvar22]

123. I don't believe you will get an answer on that "Inconvenient Truth".

She says it is that way because that fits her political fantasies.

[tblue37]

3. A big crowd indeed!

[BeanMusical]

59. Wow! Thanks for the pics, tblue37.

[tblue37]

93. You are welcome. I went looking for a good shot, but these were the

best I could find. I wish there were some that gave a wider view from higher up, though. If the media were not ignoring Bernie's amazing crowds now, there *would* be better shots of such a crowd.

[BeanMusical]

96. I believe that I saw some aerial photos on FB.

Wish that I had bookmarked the posts. I'll try to find them but your pictures are great.

[MrMickeysMom]

139. THAT is TRULY amazing!

Thanks for the photos, tblue!

[MFM008]

4. Maybe some

Will vote for him. Didn't work in NY.

[Ned_Devine]

7. For you

You know what did work for HRC in NY though? Taking hundreds of thousands of voters off the rolls in Brooklyn. That was magic!

[merrily]

27. A lot of the 2016 primaries and caucuses have been nothing short of, um, magical.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

46. That's a very dumb excuse. Hrc won Brooklyn by huge numbers

It would make no sense to intentionally purge democrats in a district that hrc has a huge advantage in. Had those people been on the voting rolls she would likely just have won by a larger number

[BeanMusical]

69. "It would make no sense to intentionally purge democrats in a district that hrc has a huge advantag"

Who said that some of the things she does make sense? Maybe it's just for the fun of it? Who knows.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

77. Or maybe people who think this was intentional are stupid

And paranoid

[BeanMusical]

80. Well I happen to like and respect you so I'll stop right here.

Sorry for starting it.

[lostnfound]

147. Good god, why?!!

[MrMickeysMom]

140. Bean is WAY more forgiving than needed for your remark...

... Your statement is one that calls others "stupid".

And, YOU get the apology?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

151. Lol. It's not my fault that these conspiracies are stupid.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

155. That is not what you said. Just sayin'. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

156. Intelligent people don't believe in stupid conspiracies.

I stand by what I said. These conspiracies are stupid and those who believe it are stupid to do so.

To believe that someone would Sabotage a district that they are winning is just dumb. Applies to both Brooklyn and Maricopa county.

[MrMickeysMom]

159. That seems to be your theory...

I don't know anyone else who tried to push something so silly or, as you say, stupid.

[Bluenorthwest]

95. Average NYC precinct saw less than 12% Democratic turnout this cycle, similar to last election and

basically all of their elections. Huge numbers? Huge numbers of NYers don't even bother to vote at all. Far more than half. Apathy is the winner in every NY election. It's not specific to any contest nor candidate nor to a type of election, local or State or national.

[CentralMass]

108. See reply 56.

[Plucketeer]

49. New York....... New York?

Say - isn't that where Hillary gave some speeches that were inconsequential?

Of course, Trump is holding back on details of his personal doings, so I guess he and his presumptive rival are on common ground. That makes me feel better!

[liberalnarb]

47. "Some" will vote for him?

LOL! Almost every county in NY went to Bernie, they all voted for him! The way the system is set up is the only reason Hillary won the state.

[jmowreader]

115. You don't know New York State

If you were to turn the NYC metro area into the State of New Amsterdam, and leave the rest of the state as New York, you would have a very red state. In the Thousand Islands region, where I lived, the term for a non-Republican is "unemployable." It's not surprising the Republican part of New York State went for Bernie: they know he can be beaten by anyone they put on the ballot.

[CentralMass]

56. We had crooked activity like this going on in NY.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/new-york-primary-voter-purge
"
MotherJones

The Story of the Great Brooklyn Voter Purge Keeps Getting Weirder
Some 120,000 people couldn't vote. What happened?

AJ VICENS APR. 22, 2016 4:52 PM

"A woman at a protest at the Board of Elections in Brooklyn before the primary Mark Apollo/Zuma
The first head has rolled after more than 100,000 voters were mistakenly purged from the Brooklyn voter rolls ahead of this week's New York primary, which handed Hillary Clinton a much-needed win over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Diane Haslett-Rudiano, the chief clerk of the New York Board of Elections, was suspended "without pay, effective immediately, pending an internal investigation into the administration of the voter rolls in the Borough of Brooklyn," the agency said in a statement, according to the New York Daily News.

Anonymous city elections officials said Haslett-Rudiano, who was in charge of the city's Republican voter rolls, had been "scapegoated," according to the New York Post. "It sounds like they cut a deal to make the Republican the scapegoat and protect Betty Ann," an anonymous Democratic elected official from Brooklyn told the Post, referring to Betty Ann Canizio, who was in charge of the Democratic voter rolls.

On the day of the primary, New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio, a Clinton supporter, said he'd heard reports of the "purging of entire buildings and blocks of voters from the voting lists." He said, "The perception that numerous voters may have been disenfranchised undermines the integrity of the entire electoral process."


The voter purge was just one of several problems with the primary throughout the city. Voters also reported long lines, poll locations that didn't open, and, in one case, an elections worker sleeping on the job.

According to the Daily News, Haslett-Rudiano was in charge of maintaining accurate voter registration lists, a job that includes updating party registration information and removing the names of people who've died or moved. That process had fallen six months to a year behind schedule, according to WNYC, which reported the day before the primary that 60,000 Democrats had been removed from the polls in Brooklyn. That number later doubled after the Board of Elections followed up on the WNYC story.

New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer has opened an investigation into the matter, and New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that his office had received more than 1,000 complaints about the election and would also look into "alleged improprieties" by the New York City Board of Elections. Scheiderman's statement noted that he would expand his investigation to other areas of the state if warranted. On Friday, an official in Schneiderman's press office told Mother Jones that there had been reports of issues in other parts of the state, but that for now the investigation was limited to the New York City area.

"Voting is the cornerstone of our democracy, and if any New Yorker was illegally prevented from voting, I will do everything in my power to make their vote count and ensure that it never happens again," Schneiderman said.

According to the Daily News, Haslett-Rudiano skipped a step in the process of purging people from the list, which led to some people being improperly removed. Many voters reported being registered as Democrats, only to find that their affiliation had been changed from Democrat to unaffiliated. That meant they couldn't vote in New York's closed primary election, which requires an official registration with one of the major parties."

[pacalo]

5. It is very gratifying to see --

considering that the mainstream media has worked so hard to denigrate Bernie every step of the way to give Hillary Clinton a yuuuuge, unfair edge.

I love you millennials!

[demosincebirth]

8. Sorry folks, that's Ogawa Plaza, in front of City Hall. You couldn't get 3000 people in that plaza

with a shoe horn!

[Gene Debs]

11. There are probably a few people out of frame.

[demosincebirth]

12. Sorry, 3000 max!

I used to live in Oakland.

[pugetres]

14. Maybe the place is bigger than you remember?

Monday, May 30, 2016 07:09PM
OAKLAND, Calif. (KGO) --
At least 20,000 Bernie Sanders supporters gathered at Oakland's Frank Ogawa Plaza to hear the presidential candidate speak.

This was the second of two Bernie Sanders events in Oakland on Monday, and this one was moved up to avoid being at the same time as the Warriors game.

- http://abc7news.com/politics/bernie-sanders-attends-event-in-oakland----watch-live/1362730/

20-30K is being considered a "conservative" number by some reporting agencies.

[demosincebirth]

20. I worked on 14th & Franklin -- two blocks from Ogawa Plaza. Cut it

Out guys. Your brains are full of wishfull thinking. Tell you what, check it out o Google Earth

[pugetres]

21. I'll forward your message

to ABC. You can discuss it with them.

[demosincebirth]

24. F**k ABC. You guys will believe anything if it enhances Sanders.

[Gene Debs]

43. Why is it, seemingly, so critically vital for you to insist that the crowd was no bigger than 3000?

[liberalnarb]

45. Keep on whining.

[INdemo]

117. Will you believe it on election night when CNN calls California for Bernie?

that is going to happen..Hillary will lose

[merrily]

29. I wonder what Google Earth saw in NYC?

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-washington-square-park/

[BeanMusical]

65. "I worked on 14th & Franklin -- two blocks from Ogawa Plaza."

Link?

[dorkzilla]

97. *snort*

[bjo59]

32. I would guess that the police know the area pretty well and they estimated the crowd

at 30-60k. Many news sources estimated the crowd at 20-30k. And those are corporate news sources that would have been happy to say 3000 if that were the case.

[merrily]

28. Much like NY, where people were wall to wall for blocks surrounding the spot where Bernie was.

[passiveporcupine]

13. Ogawa plaza is 160,000 square feet

Standing room only, assume a person takes up 2 sq feet (that's more than generous), and that puts a possible 80K people that can fit in that space. Now it doesn't look that big to me, but the plaza is not just the triangle...it incorporates some of the adjacent streets (and Bernie always has an overflow crowd). I think 60K people could easily fit with overflow in areas beyond the triangle. 3000 people in a 160.000 sq foot area is 53 sq foot per person. Sure doesn't look like there is that much space around each person.

Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

The Oakland Police estimated a crowd of over 20K, and that was from the lines before the plaza was opened. 60K sounds high to me, so I'd be interested in where that number came from.

[pnwmom]

17. This article on crowd estimates says 2.5 sq ft is "mosh pit density"

and a "dense" crowd is about 4.5 square feet per person, so your 2 square foot estimate is anything but "generous."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a7121/the-curious-science-of-counting-a-crowd/

There's a reason for the disparity. The first figure—77,000—is a police estimate. The second is from the event's coordinators, who probably had some motivation to pad their numbers. To find out which crowd size was correct, two professors—Paul Yip at the University of Hong Kong and Ray Watson at Melbourne University—ran the numbers. To fit 150,000 people into that space, they'd have to cram together at about one person per 2.7 square feet (four per square meter), so that estimate is unrealistic. That would be "mosh-pit density," the researchers write in a new paper on crowd estimation techniques published in the journal Significance.

SNIP


Herbert Jacobs, a journalism professor at the University of California, Berkeley, in the 1960s, is credited with modernizing crowd-counting techniques. From his office window, Jacobs could see students gathered on a plaza below protesting the Vietnam War. The plaza's concrete was poured in a grid, so Jacobs counted students in a few squares to get an average of students per square, then multiplied by the total squares. He derived a basic density rule that says a light crowd has one person per 10 square feet, a dense crowd has one person per 4.5 square feet, and Yip and Watson's mosh-pit density would have one person per 2.5 square feet.

[merrily]

30. Check out the pics of NY

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-washington-square-park/

[BeanMusical]

86. "Are you sure you know what you are talking about? "

That poster don't but I believe that you sure as hell do, passiveporcupine.

[dorkzilla]

92. Of course they do! They have a degree in Plazaology!

Also check out these shots...I think its a few more than 3000, but I'm no Plazaologist.

http://usuncut.com/news/bernie-in-oakland/

[MADem]

37. OK, it's not just me--I thought if that's 60K people I have no sense of

crowd size.

A few thousand, I'd believe. And that does look, to my eye, like a mostly caucasian crowd.

[BeanMusical]

94. The old and dusty "Bernie is a racist" card.

Tsk, tsk. Can't you come up with something new? I mean Brock is paid a fortune to spin the record, can't he do better than that?

[The Polack MSgt]

113. Jury Results (for Transparency)

On Wed Jun 1, 2016, 10:02 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

The old and dusty "Bernie is a racist" card.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=379599

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Accusing a long term Duer of being a Brock operative is a hateful and hurtful remark. Not the way to disagree, by calling someone the equivalent of a paid troll. Rude and abusive. Argue issues - don't insult people.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jun 1, 2016, 10:40 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is nothing compared to the shit that goes on around here these days.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Every time I vote to hide something, it gets overruled. So while this is part of the same old stupid, tiresome primaries fight, I'll leave it alone.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Thicken your skin please. All Hillary supporters are paid shills and all Bernie supporters are Trump trolls. Just another day at DU
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[BeanMusical]

133. Wow, a moron alerted on this?

Lol! Oh well. Thank you to the jurors, especially #1 #4 #6 who where able to put in words how and why they took their decisions.

[avaistheone1]

9. Inspiring!

K&R

[passiveporcupine]

15. Wehre did you get that estimate BBJohn?

Every news source I read said over 20K. That estimate came from the Oakland police.

[bjo59]

33. News sources all said between 20 and 30. I've seen it reported over and over that the Oakland

police estimated at 30-60. The NYC police also estimated the Washington Square rally at numbers far larger than any news source reported. So, I don't know what's up with that.

[passiveporcupine]

112. Thanks bjo59

Wish it was easier to get good numbers. I'm sure there were at least over 20K there. I'm not good at judging crowd size though. And one shot never catches the whole crowd.

[pnwmom]

16. The other sources I've seen say about ***20,000***.

http://www.dailycal.org/2016/05/31/bernie-sanders-hosts-rally-oakland/

Supporters began lining up to attend the rally at about 9 a.m. and continued to form a line that snaked several blocks around Broadway Street as crowds swelled to about 20,000 people by about 5:20 p.m., when Sanders finally took the stage.

[hopemountain]

18. oakland police reported 60k but abc and nbc reported

20-25k.

so, big bear john's report of 60k is accurate. the clinton biased msm will, of course, report lies to fit their own version of the story.

[pnwmom]

23. That would be "mosh pit density" -- about 2.66 sq ft per person.

Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:40 AM - Edit history (1)

A "dense crowd" iwould be about 4.5 sq ft per person.

The square is about 160,000 square feet.

Where did you find that police report?

I found this other police estimate:

http://abc7news.com/politics/estimated-20000-people-attend-bernie-sanders-rally-in-oakland/1362730/

Oakland police estimate the crowd topped 20,000.


http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a7121/the-curious-science-of-counting-a-crowd/

There's a reason for the disparity. The first figure—77,000—is a police estimate. The second is from the event's coordinators, who probably had some motivation to pad their numbers. To find out which crowd size was correct, two professors—Paul Yip at the University of Hong Kong and Ray Watson at Melbourne University—ran the numbers. To fit 150,000 people into that space, they'd have to cram together at about one person per 2.7 square feet (four per square meter), so that estimate is unrealistic. That would be "mosh-pit density," the researchers write in a new paper on crowd estimation techniques published in the journal Significance.

SNIP


Herbert Jacobs, a journalism professor at the University of California, Berkeley, in the 1960s, is credited with modernizing crowd-counting techniques. From his office window, Jacobs could see students gathered on a plaza below protesting the Vietnam War. The plaza's concrete was poured in a grid, so Jacobs counted students in a few squares to get an average of students per square, then multiplied by the total squares. He derived a basic density rule that says a light crowd has one person per 10 square feet, a dense crowd has one person per 4.5 square feet, and Yip and Watson's mosh-pit density would have one person per 2.5 square feet.

[merrily]

31. Y'all are funny about Bernie's crowds. Police estimates were just fine when it was Obama.

And even 20K, establishment media's fraction of the police estimate, Bernie still outdraws Hillary by orders of magnitude (whatever that means).


It's fun to watch Hillary supporters unintentionally underscore Bernie's strong suits again and again as they try to nitpick every positive post about him.

[Plucketeer]

51. Anyone got cold, hard figures

regarding Hillary's last "crowd"?

[NorthCarolina]

57. It was

Hillary + Secret Service Personnel + several media types, and that's about it.

[BeanMusical]

79. Well, there's this:

[FlaGranny]

125. Holy cow,

that last photo looks like a fire ant raft.

[C Moon]

19. My friend and her mother tried to go to a rally in the Monterey area...

but left because the line was sooooooo long.
They hope to go to another on June 2nd, I believe.
I snapped at this person last year about this time because she was sending me email for Ron Paul.
So it was sure nice to hear they were interested in going to a Bernie rally.

[AzDar]

22. Bernie!!

[Peace Patriot]

35. Clinton supporters should provide us with the numbers at Hillary rallies...

...and the frequency of Hillary rallies pulling more than, say--let's be generous--1,000 people. Bernie Sanders ROUTINELY attracts 10,000 people to his rallies, holds rallies frequently--I've lost count in California--and sometimes gets 20,000+ (and, in the case of Oakland, was likely 30,000 to 40,000). When did Hillary do that? There is no enthusiasm for her because she's such a bore. People know they'll get nothing out of it that is of use to them, that inspires them, or that they've never heard before, like Bernie telling people the truth about the Oligarchy and its greed, and good ideas for restoring fairness.

Instead of the numbers and frequency of Hillary rallies, we get lies about the size of the plaza in Oakland. I have family who lived there for many years. Frank Ogawa Plaza can easily fit 20,000 people and another 20,000 and more in the areas around it.

Look at this aerial shot of the rally:
http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/bernie-sanders-oakland-california-rally-pictures-frank-ogawa-plaza-ca-photos-pics-how-many/

I hope that DU doesn't become a venue for liars, paid propagandists and corporate apologists after Skinner bans dissent on June 14 as promised. I do hope Clinton supporters, if Clinton manages to receive the nomination, won't descend into those depths in Clinton advocacy. It could get awfully boring and off-putting.

And I DO promise, on behalf of all Bernie supporters at DU, that if Bernie becomes the nominee, DU will be the liveliest place on the internet, never boring, packed with useful information and our best efforts at truth, and containing many intelligent discussions about how to restore fairness and democracy in the USA, and how to save our endangered Mother Earth. It will be an attractive place, welcoming to new political activists and thinkers, and open-minded about the analysis and solution to our nation's and our party's problems. And, above all, it will be open to criticism of Bernie Sanders. No leader can lead without criticism, as I'm sure Sanders would agree. It will be a true democratic underground--new ideas welcome, bullies and trolls chased away, and all aboveground events and 'memes' treated with healthy skepticism.

[MADem]

38. Hillary is not a "rally" person. She never has been.

Her stock in trade is town halls. She doesn't stand at a podium and give a canned speech, she takes QUESTIONS.

People ask, she answers. It's a conversation, not a dictate from on high.

Completely different vibe. Both work. Sanders supporters like to be told what is wrong with "the establishment." Clinton's supporters like to ask the candidate what she intends to do, SPECIFICALLY, to address their individual concerns--and she answers them, with specifics.

[Peace Patriot]

55. It could be a matter of style--rallies vs town halls--except for one thing...

...Clinton's untrustworthy ratings, which are nearly as bad as Trump's. What good are town halls if most people don't trust what she says?

Rallies are much more raucous, more unpredictable, more open, more like the old barnstorming days of mixing it up with The People in town after town. Clinton's town halls aggravate me like infomercials do. Nothing unpredictable or unplanned is going to happen in them. There are no risks involved. No birds that might drop poop on your head...or not. No sketchy weather. No hair blowing in the wind. No joy of enthusiastic supporters. No openness. No fear of no one showing up, followed by delight that 10,000 showed up, spontaneously, often on short notice, to hear something convincing about the state of the country and needed remedies.

Sanders has very high trustworthy ratings. People come to his rallies mostly because they already like him and trust him, and want to see him in person--and they often come at great inconvenience. So many people want to go to Sanders' rallies that there are often very long lines to get in--I've seen vids of people who were happily waiting all day to get into a Sanders rally--and thousands often don't get in and gather outside until he comes out to speak to them. There is warmth and commitment. You don't get that in an infomercial. You don't experience it, and you don't convey it.

A town hall could be unlike an infomercial. It could be a genuine, intimate questioning and exchange, and I've seen a few moments--but only a few moments--in which this seemed to be occurring in a Clinton town hall. But most of what I've seen lacks spontaneity, joy, warmth and risk. To me, Clinton's town halls are not just a matter of style; they are a reflection of her lack of trust in people and their lack of trust in her. They are a format for containing and controlling that antagonism.

[MADem]

67. Hillary will become more lovable once Barack starts endorsing her.

She doesn't toot her own horn. Not her way.

Her town halls are ALWAYS warm and loving. Her audiences give her amazing receptions--everyone leaves feeling like their issues have been addressed and they've had a private audience. Generally she will go through the crowd after and shake most if not all hands. Those people show up to vote and bring their friends.

I really don't understand your "lack of trust in people" comment. That's just the weirdest thing I've ever heard and the opposite of how she interacts with people. See, she doesn't stand on a stage, separated from the audience (which is a borg, not individuals) by barriers and security, and say the same fucking thing over and over and over, she listens as THEY ask questions, and she answers them as she moves around the room looking people in the eye.

When she meets someone, they STAY met, and they vote for her.

I am retired so I watch her town halls via periscope a lot. They're grand. And NO ONE is quicker on her feet and can answer a question in impressive detail--she knows her stuff, she has done her homework. She is head and shoulders The Smartest And Best Qualified Candidate in this race.

[BeanMusical]

71. "Hillary will become more lovable once Barack starts endorsing her."

It always seems strange when someone calls the President "Barack". I'm aware that it's his first name but he's been called Obama for as long as I can remember and all his campaign logos, posters etc were calling him Obama, not Barack. The right usually uses his full name, Barack Hussein Obama to emphasize on the Hussein part, for obvious slimy reasons. So I'm wondering why you're doing this. Freudian slip, maybe?

[MADem]

102. Aren't you being UGLY and vicious towards me! DAMN!

I love me some Barack.

When I talk about Hillary, I talk about Barack. And Michelle. And Bill.

When I talk about SecState Clinton, I talk about President Obama, and the First Lady, and the Former President.

But wow--where is that vitriol even coming from?

You might want to re-calibrate. Step back. Get over yourself.

That shit's gonna eat you up.

I'm gonna preserve this hideous , accusatory, and hateful comment of yours, so everyone can see it:

BeanMusical
71. "Hillary will become more lovable once Barack starts endorsing her."
View profile
It always seems strange when someone calls the President "Barack". I'm aware that it's his first name but he's been called Obama for as long as I can remember and all his campaign logos, posters etc were calling him Obama, not Barack. The right usually uses his full name, Barack Hussein Obama to emphasize on the Hussein part, for obvious slimy reasons. So I'm wondering why you're doing this. Freudian slip, maybe?

[BeanMusical]

135. Now, now calm down, please.

[MADem]

146. No "now now" about it--you have to account for your vile words.

Showing them off to all and sundry is the best way to do it.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

76. Lovely post, Peace Patriot

I'm kind of old, and as I've watched videos of Bernie's rallies here in CA especially, I've concluded my tired old legs could never withstand those long lines and crowds. So, I'm joyfully there in spirit and sending $$$ to Bernie's campaign instead. I figure the young people have it all covered.

[BeanMusical]

81. "Hillary is not a "rally" person. She never has been."

Thank you for stating the obvious.

[MADem]

100. Wouldn't it be nice if those people in the bottom pic voted?

They don't, though.

[Doremus]

118. Indeed, it would be nice if all of them were allowed to vote. nt

[MADem]

149. You want to play, you have to join the club.

What, should we allow the Nazi Party, the White Supremacist Party, the Libertarians and the Flat Earthers to vote in the Democratic Party primary...."just because?"

If you want to change the party--join it. Otherwise, go form a third party and knock yourselves out.

We Democrats have some open primaries, some closed primaries, and a few caucuses. I'd personally like more closed primaries because I don't think non-Democrats have a "right" to choose our nominee, and also to get rid of caucuses, which are disenfranchising, entirely. I'd love to see more ability to vote by mail, too.

We have superdelegates to prevent another disaster like we saw in 1972. The system has worked to prevent that happening again, and that's a good thing.

It seems funny as hell to me that the campaign that has, as a SENIOR advisor (that would be the rich-and-getting-richer TAD DEVINE), the guy who DEVISED the superdelegate system, is the very campaign whining and crying about it now. Seems a bit like excuse - making when that little but oh-so-key fact is inserted into the conversation.

Pfffft.

And as for the candidate himself, someone who has been caucusing with the Democrats for three decades in some fashion or another, but who can't be bothered to learn THEIR rules and communicate them to his faithful supporters, isn't recommending himself very well at all. That's quite simply FAILURE TO LEAD. One has to ask what he did with those millions he collected from supporters--at least a little of that cash should have been spent on VOTER EDUCATION. It's not the DNC's job--or the job of the state parties-- to do the candidate's work for him. He's the one running for the job under our banner--if he wants those votes, he needs to tell people how to register and join OUR party so that they CAN support him. Unless he really isn't sincere about his membership...? In which case, he's just using us, and I don't think much of that.

[Doremus]

157. You didn't mention the purges. Not surprised. No need to reply. nt

[MADem]

158. Sorry--you don't get to hit and run like that.

The first thing you need to understand is that elections are not run by "Hillary," or "The DNC."

If you have an issue with the way that a state managed a primary contest, you take it up with them. And if you think your party (assuming you are a registered Democrat) didn't work hard enough to support you to ensure your enfranchisement, then you need to take that gripe up with the STATE actors in your STATE party.

Disenfranchisement sucks. I don't condone it, I strongly oppose it. Everyone should be allowed to vote, and to choose the nominee for the party WITH WHOM THEY AFFILIATE.

I am a Democrat. I don't claim any right to pick the loser for the GOP. I think party-crossers and game-players who think they can help a party pick the least preferred candidate suck, particularly when their support for that weaker candidate is entirely false.


We already know that there are people on Reddit and Twitter and other social media sites who proudly boast of playing a Trumpian game of registering Dem to, for example, fuck with Clinton and try to elect the weaker of the two candidates, who then plan to switch back to GOP in order to influence the House election of their favored Republican during midterms. With closed primaries, and particularly ones where a voter can't decide what they want to be when they stroll into the polling place, there'd be fewer issues with that because it would require an enormous amount of voter dedication to do that kind of thing.

Sample: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-voters-boost-sanders-west-virginia

I've never been purged--this probably is because I've always been a Democrat, since I started voting a long, long time ago, and I vote in pretty much every election--even local ones.

[BeanMusical]

127. None of them vote?

Link?

[MADem]

152. I don't give links to people who make vulgar and racist insinuations about

DUers--so take your goading, baiting, mocking and Freudian slips elsewhere.

Your tactics are obvious, and offensive to civil discourse.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

99. Yes, yes and yes!

Sanders talks TO people.

Hillary talks WITH people.

I'd prefer a conversation over a worn out stump speech, who wouldn't?

[Exilednight]

41. Jury results

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is disruptive, rude, and over-the-top: "I hope that DU doesn't become a venue for liars, paid propagandists and corporate apologists after Skinner bans dissent on June 14th...I do hope Clinton supporters. . . won't descend into those depths in Clinton advocacy." This is a nasty slap in the face to all Clinton supporters and serves no purpose except to insult them.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:15 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Grow a thicker skin. If you're offended by a post that critiques liars, then you're going to be severely disappointed by the general election.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is nothing wrong with this post. Even the excerpts the alerter is drawing out are well within the rules.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[BeanMusical]

129. Someone alerted this post?

That's pathetic.

[MrMickeysMom]

143. Thanks for that post, Peace...

Anyone linking to the pictures will understand the size of the (once again, over-flowing) crowds.

The PEOPLE.

[onehandle]

40. Few of which vote. Seemingly. nt

[liberalnarb]

48. They all vote. They just get screwed one way or another in the system.

[BeanMusical]

54. Well, california primary is semi closed...

So I guess that they'll get semi screwed.

[kjones]

84. "Screwed"

If independents want to vote in a Democratic primary, they should be Dems.
If they're too "principled" for that, then that's their problem. Bernie apparently
isn't too good for the Dem party, or at least he'll "dirty" himself by signing on
(temporarily, of course ).

[BeanMusical]

88. Are you sure that you replied to the right poster?

[MADem]

72. Oooh--the SYSTEM! How dare those DEMOCRATS in the DEMOCRATIC Party pick their own candidate!

Open the door, let in all the Paulbots, Libertarians, and Hate America Firsters, to make the decision FOR them.

Heckuvaplan!

You don't want to be screwed over by "the system?"

You want to be able to pick the Democratic nominee with no drama?

Join the party.

Take the time to become a member, PARTICIPATE in off year elections, make your voice heard.

I have no sympathy for these Every 4 Year voters. They don't grow the party, participate in the process, they play a stupid "purity" game, but every four years they push in, demand the stage and get irritated when their priorities aren't regarded as terribly important, and the people who have been here all along get more attention.

I'm all for closed primaries and an end to caucuses. If people can't deal, that will give them impetus to get involved in 3rd party issues and grow THAT party that they join, instead of whining about how we do things every four years.

[BainsBane]

128. CA is open anyway

Independents just need to request the right ballot, which Bernie's supporters would know if he devoted resources to organizing.

[nyabingi]

52. Get ready for the Democratic Establishment

to start screwing with everyone's registration and creating other problems to thwart voting.

I think they have been and are desperate enough to stoop to such things.

[Enthusiast]

64. Kicked and recommended to the Max!

[BeanMusical]

98. I share your Enthusiasm! (sorry, I wanted to say something like this to you for a while)

But it's true that your enthusiasm is contagious.

[Enthusiast]

101. That's great because we need buckets of enthusiasm!

[BeanMusical]

136. I truly like you, Enthusiast.

You're good people.

[Enthusiast]

137. You too!

[EndElectoral]

103. Can you imagine MSM coverage of a 60K event for Trump or HRC? Thanks for the post

[KPN]

105. Bernie or Bust for me baby!

The alternatives totally suck ... and I've grown weary of that. Never more!

[Hiraeth]

106. Please let that translate into 60,000 votes !!

[reign88]

120. Is Bernie the most successful candidate

to lose a primary? I know it's not over, and I'm on his side for sure, but I'm just curious about the history there. I can't think of a situation like this in my lifetime, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

To carry these types of crowds, this late in the primary season, even facing tough odds...it's really a credit to his message and his supporters.

Win or lose, there is nothing to be ashamed of there.

Clinton or Trump...ugh...thanks for the "choice".

[pa28]

134. Oh, this just drives them nuts doesn't it?

Go Bernie!

[Carolina]

141. Thank you, California

Please keep it up and turn those rallies into votes.

Next Tuesday, PLEASE don't be fooled by HRC's campaign rhetoric and increased appearances in CA. Don't vote for HRC out of the fear promulgated in Gov. Brown's statement, a fear that maintains the status quo. Please send US the anti-Reagan, the man of real hope and change. Remember that as your governor, Ronald Reagan was able to launch a presidential bid in 1976 and 1980. He went from unremarkable actor, to shilling for GE, to CA governor to the two-term POTUS who started US/us on this disastrous oligarchic, corporatist slide to hell.

Vote for Bernie Sanders. Send a message to the third way, to the bought and paid for (corporate bribed) establishment Dems and DINOs, to those in the Democratic Party who want you to vote AGAINST the opposition rather than FOR someone you can believe in, meaning voting yet again for the not so lesser of two evils.

This time there is a real choice between Wall Street Red and Wall Street Blue, and his name is Bernie Sanders.

Do what you can to START undoing Reagan!