Crowd Size Update

One of the campaigns has taken to calling me the "Size Guru;" that can be interpreted any number of ways.

But John Edwards drew more than 1,000 people to a Des Moines rally tonight.

And there are no Illinois license plates in the parking lot...

(The size estimate comes from a CBS News reporter on the scene...not from the erstwhile Edwards campaign.)

Earlier in the day, 200 showed up to hear Edwards in Muscatine, 300 showed up at a small venue in Washington, where staircases and even a second floor were used for overflow crowds; and then 300 in Knoxville, where the campaign claims they expected 125.

Comments

Was there any Illinois license plates in Davenport yesterday ?

Posted by Benjamin | December 29, 2007 9:47 PM

And 600 at a Obama event in Burlington. And 500 at an Obama event in Keokuck and 900 at an Obama event in Davenport....Your point is....

Posted by heather | December 29, 2007 11:13 PM

Wait there is more: 900 turned out to see Obama in Coralville on Saturday. And then there were 400 in Clinton on Friday.

What was that you were saying about Edwards' crowd size???

Posted by heather | December 29, 2007 11:19 PM

For what it's worth, Obama drew about 400 today in Mt. Pleasant (small town in SE Iowa).

I've been doing phone banking for him, and a lot of the undecideds seem to be saying "Obama or Edwards." So my totally regional and anecdotal prediction is that Clinton finishes third.

Posted by John Z., Mt. Pleasant, IA | December 29, 2007 11:43 PM

There is absolutely no doubt that John Edwards is surging in Iowa. The polls say that. The crowds say that.

Posted by Aaron | December 29, 2007 11:49 PM

Oh for the love of God could we stop using the word SURGE all the time ?
Going up a few points in Iowa does not qualify as surging. Does Edward seem to have momentum ? Yes. But let's keep the word surge for Huckabee who went from 5% to 35% in a month. THAT's a surge. When three candidates are within 5 points of each other and one of them moves up the top of the pack after getting a couple extra points, that does not qualify as a surge.
Period. Curse on all the political journalists who started using that damm word all the time (Thompson surge, Obama surges in NH, and so on) after the word started coming up in regard to Iraq. Incredible how the pack mentality of journalists also impacts their vocabulary ... and indirectly ... ours !

Posted by Benjamin | December 30, 2007 12:53 AM

But Hillary is inevitable, so this is all just a waste of time.

Posted by lampwick | December 30, 2007 12:59 AM

What the heck is "erstwhile" about the Edwards campaign? I think you meant "aforementioned," since the Edwards campaign is very much not a former campaign.

Posted by Gus | December 30, 2007 1:51 AM

Did I mention that there were 400 in Marshalltown, Iowa on Thursday?

"One longtime caucus-goer in attendance was surprised by the diversity and energy of the crowd. She said the crowd didn't look like your typical caucus-goers, but they were energetic and if they turn out then things will be looking good for Obama."

Posted by heather | December 30, 2007 7:23 AM

Arguably, comparing Edwards and Obama crowd sizes is a matter of apples and oranges. Edwards is very much a known quantity in Iowa. Obama, by contrast, is both a newer face and cultural phenomenon. As a result, my guess is that you have a larger number of "spectators" or "just curious" at Obama events than Edwards ones. Certainly, that's been what I've observed at events here. (Clinton would probably be somewhere between the two.) It's good news for Obama in that he has the potential to influence uncommitted attendees, but it also makes using event attendance as a proxy for caucus support incredibly dicey.

Posted by Out Wandering | December 30, 2007 5:15 PM

No matter what the crowd is. It will be all about turnout. And I know Obama has the best ground-game going.

Posted by Tommy Ates, Austin, TX | December 30, 2007 7:56 PM