2008.11.13
A little late, but here's where the Palin attendance number came from
I'm reluctant to bring this up and to reignite the really zealous -- and sometimes just nasty -- give and take you all had over my post about how many people attended the Sarah Palin rally in Salem.
But, in the interest of thorough reporting, here goes:
You might recall that the estimates ranged from 12,000 to as high as 20,000, but the most common figure reported in various print, online and broadcast sources was 16,000. It turns out that is the most reliable number, because, according to the Salem police, it's based largely on the number of people who passed through metal detectors on their way in to the stadium.
Lt. Mike Green told our police reporter, Amanda Codispoti, yesterday that the walk through metal detector scanned about 15,000 people. Only dignitaries did not pass through the detector, and organizers estimated the number of dignitaries at 1,000. So, 15,000 regular folks plus 1,000 VIPs gets you to that oft-mentioned figure of 16,000.
It's scary that that so many did not see her for what she was, a completely unqualified individual (for that office) who was thrown up at the last minute as a very transparent attempt to pick up disaffected Hillary supporters, based wholly on her gender. No matter that gender was the only common factor the two women shared.
Comment by Larry Laffer — November 13, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
Unqualified like Obama?
Comment by Henry — November 13, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
No Henry. The majority of American people finally realized that intelligence is an important quality for a President to possess. The past eight years of policy by the conservative right have taken this country to the very brink of disaster.
Comment by Den Weaver — November 13, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
If Ms. Palin is so 'unqualified' and lacking in intelligence I wonder what the people of Alaska see in her?
Comment by Craig — November 14, 2008 @ 9:28 am
Matt,
Did they give you any indication on what a "dignitary" was? Just curious.
Comment by Ed S. — November 14, 2008 @ 9:35 am
That's a good question, Ed. I don't have a precise description of what they meant by "dignitary," but my assumption -- and yeah, we all know about assumptions -- is that it would include mainly state, local and regional elected Republicans and party officials. When you consider that the Salem stop was the first in this part of Virginia by either McCain or Palin, you might reasonably guess that those dignitaries might have traveled as much as a couple of hours.
Comment by Matt Chittum — November 14, 2008 @ 10:58 am
Thanks, Matt, for the info on the source of numbers for the count. Odd that Larry would use this forum as an opportunity for a partisan slam.
Comment by Jim D — November 15, 2008 @ 7:32 am
If Alaskans such as Palin claim foreign policy experience by being able to see Russia from their state, then what any Alaskan sees in Palin remains questionable.
Comment by Fritz — November 15, 2008 @ 7:46 am
Not that it matters now, but the 16,000 figure came from the RNC, which has both inflated attendance numbers at other venues and bussed in school children to help fill their rallies. My friends in Salem, who have been to many events at the stadium over the years, put the number at closer to 8,000. Nothing "partisan" about the truth.
Comment by Artie — November 15, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
So, Artie, Lt. Mike Green is a spokesperson for the RNC?? I don't understand your vitriol. What's wrong with bussing in kids to an event? What a great way to get them interested in politics. What's wrong with the DNC leading off rallies with well known rock stars to attract people? What a great way to get young people (who might not otherwise have come)to political events. It's all part of the democratic political process. There really is no big conspiracy.
Comment by Jim D — November 16, 2008 @ 7:05 am
So, Jim, vitriol you say?? Nope, our guy won! Good luck on rebuilding what's left of your party.
Comment by Artie — November 17, 2008 @ 2:58 am
Artie, your assumption is wrong. I am not a Republican. My comment was not a partisan post. My point is that too many partisans seem to approach almost every issue related to this campaign as cloaked in conspiracy. Your post is an example in which you assert that a police officer is rube for the RNC.
Comment by Jim D — November 17, 2008 @ 1:43 pm