Guest fountainhall Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 With the USA being the leader of the free world, whether it and the world like it or not, most people are keeping some eye on the upcoming General Election in November. Not being American, I’m keeping out of the fray. But occasionally I see something in the media that makes me chuckle – usually a gaffe by a contender. The latest one that had me first gasp before chuckling is Mitt Romney’s “much-heralded” economic speech last night. He and his minders had decided this was such an important element of his campaign and so many would wish to attend, they hired the 70,000-seat Detroit Lions football field. Say that again? A 70,000-seat stadium for a speech by a faltering opposition front-runner? Unbelievable! And boy, did it backfire! Total attendance was just over 1,000, No, that’s not 10,000! It’s a staggering 1,000! And when you take away the schoolchildren bussed in for the occasion to make up numbers, you fall to not much more than 1% of capacity! So much for a candidate who heralds at every turn his ability as an efficient manager! I thought marketing and forecasting were key management tools. After the election is over, I reckon these photos of a front-runner speaking to a near-empty stadium will live long in the memory. http://www.guardian....ls-flat-stadium Photos: Scott Olson/Getty Images Quote
Moses Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Anyway - 1000 is better than 12... only 12 person were attendants of first show of new film of Angelina Jolie "In the Land of Blood and Honey"... Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 To be fair, Moses, that first show was the film's premiere in Bosnia and it is is about the Bosnian war! I cant imagine people will remember that premiere fiasco, whereas Romney addressing a bare stadium is an image that will be played over and over again for a long time. http://www.news.com....r-1226280368011 Quote
Rogie Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 I agree that kind of thing smacks of poor organisation, but as for making the headlines in Britain I've just checked the BBC News website's US and Canada section and it's not featured. Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Hardly surprising it is not on the BBC's website! If you look on the Election Coverage page in US/Canada, you'll see it was last updated at 16:26 on 23 February The speech was last night on the 24th! So much for the world's premier news organisation being up to date! In any case, I doubt if the TV networks would have been there covering the speech since its key points had been leaked by Romney’’s staff several days ago (see article below). They would depend on the organisers of the event to provide a feed. And of course that feed was rigged. To the television audience, it appeared perfectly normal. Mr. Romney could be seen standing at a lectern in front of a backdrop that had the logo of the Detroit Economic Club, the event’s host. And when the stadium audience of about 1,200 people clapped, they filled the screen as cameras panned across them. But in the age of Twitter and the Internet, that is not all that matters. Before Mr. Romney had uttered a word, reporters began posting pictures online showing the stadium from every available angle — almost empty, except for the chairs set up on the field itself, near the 20-yard line. Row after row of barren blue seats across the giant stadium made the crowd seem minuscule. Through the rapid-fire, reality-reshaping powers of the Web, a storyline for the day began to take hold that undercut and detracted from Mr. Romney’s words: big speech, tiny crowd . . . . . . the Romney campaign had leaked most of the speech’s contents several days ago, leaving members of the news media with little to focus on — except, of course, the scene itself. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/us/politics/for-romney-a-message-lost-in-the-empty-seats.html?hpw So the print and web media have been having a field day. Just google the coverage! Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 It's now 09:39 Sunday 26th in Bangkok. That Election page on the BBC's website still states "23 February 2012 Last updated 16:26 GMT" and all the news is before that date/time. Unbelievable! Quote
Rogie Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 That Election page on the BBC's website still states "23 February 2012 Last updated 16:26 GMT" . . . . Unbelievable! Just checked and I agree it still hasn't been updated since then. Unbelievable it may be, frustrating it certainly is. Frustrating if you were a Brit or indeed any other nationality outside of the US who was keenly following developments in US politics and, like me, seldom watch the news on TV. I expect it would have featured on the BBC World News the 24 hour channel. It's old news now anyway thanks to your good self FH. As for the 70,000 seater stadium, that must be huge. I assume it is an all-seater. As I am familiar with football stadiums in England I will draw a comparison with them. In the old days of mixed standing and seating in British football (soccer version) stadium attendances well over 50,000 were common but nowadays they are all-seaters not many hold more than 40,000. I find it exceedingly difficult to imagine an English Premiership football ground swollen to 150% i.e. half as large again, packed with people munching their cheeseburgers and guzzling Bud lites straining to hear what Mitt Romney had to tell them. Has any American politician, anywhere, drawn a crowd of that size? I have to say unbelievable is a word I'd use too. Quote
kokopelli Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 . Has any American politician, anywhere, drawn a crowd of that size? I have to say unbelievable is a word I'd use too. Abraham Lincoln, 19 Nov. 1863, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Estimated crowd 20,000. Not bad in those days. [by all accounts, the crowds were enormous. People had come from far and wide to attend the dedication ceremonies; for many, it was a journey they would never forget. Streets leading into Gettysburg were clogged to capacity, a newspaper reporter wrote, "by citizens from every quarter thronging into the village in every kind of vehicle—old Pennsylvania wagons, spring wagons, carts, family carriages, buggies, and more fashionable modern vehicles, all crowded with citizens—kept pouring into the town in one continual string." The armies had long since left Gettysburg, but now the town was overwhelmed by a new "invading host" who came by wagon, by train, by horse, and by foot to witness history in the making]. One hundred years later in 1963 John F Kennedy gave a speech in Berlin where there was an exceptional huge crowd. Quote
Rogie Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 Has any American politician, anywhere, drawn a crowd of that size? i.e. 70,000 From May 2008 we have this: Barack Obama drew a big crowd at a rally Sunday in Portland, Oregon. Nearly 75,000 people attended the rally, which shouldn't surprise political observers: the primary in Oregon is on Tuesday. Barack Obama was amazed at the huge crowd that gathered to listen to his speech at the Waterfront Park in downtown Portland, Oregon, adjacent to the scenic Willamette River. He is currently visiting the state for the primary on Tuesday. Obama and his campaign said this is the biggest crowd they received during the campaign. Also, It may be the biggest crowd ever for a political rally. Now that seems a more sensible way to do it, holding it in a park rather than a stadium. Of course you need good weather for a park. Obama told the crowd: "We have had a lot of rallies around the country. I think it is fair to say that this is the most spectacular setting for the most spectacular crowd that we have had in this entire campaign. This is unbelievable…It doesn’t hurt that it’s a perfect day." So there we have it, beat that if you can, an "unbelievable" 75,000 people at a political rally. Read more: http://digitaljourna...5#ixzz1nWsnSAcg Quote
