On September 10, 2024, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump faced off in what appears to be the only presidential debate between the two candidates for the 2024 Presidential Election. During the debate, Harris encouraged the people watching to go and “attend one of Donald Trump’s rallies,” whereafter she ridiculed him for his rally themes such as Hannibal Lecter and stated people are leaving his rallies early out of “exhaustion and boredom.” Already before the debate, the Harris Campaign had made a meal from the Republican standard-bearer’s remarks about crowds and crowd sizes at his rallies. In an advertisement based on former President Barack Obama’s speech at the 2024 Democratic National Convention, Trump is being described as having a “weird obsession’’ with crowd sizes. However, in the same advertisement, Democrats have shown not to shy away from this crowd size sentiment as well, as the ad compared yawning people and limited crowds at Trump rallies to scenes of full stands of cheering people at Democratic campaign events.
To shine a light on politicians’ attitudes towards crowds, it is helpful to historically contextualize the comments of presidential candidates on crowds at election events.
Unlike the 2024 Presidential race, the 1964 presidential election was not expected to be competitive. The Democratic incumbent was leading by wide margins in most polls, and Republican challenger Barry Goldwater was expected to win only the Southern states of Alabama and Mississippi. Johnson, however, did not want his campaign to get complacent. As his diary shows, he maintained an intense campaign schedule with up to four events a day in the home stretch of September and October. At each of these events, the campaign took notice of the attendees’ response to the President. When the President visited Burlington, Vermont, the crowd energy in the arch-Republican state was described as a “pep rally.” According to his diary, the President was two hours behind schedule when he left for his next campaign event due to the “overwhelming enthusiasm of the crowds.” Similarly, when the President visited Manchester, New Hampshire, he was described as being received by loads of signs, bands playing songs, as well as streets that were “lined” with people. According to his diary, “every word that the President spoke was received by a thunderous ovation.” On October 21, Johnson was stated to have met an “uncontrollable’” crowd in Belleville, Illinois, while the crowd in Indianapolis, Indiana, three days later, was “not very enthusiastic,” which was attributed to the conservative political leanings of the Indianapolis metropolitan area.
Apart from descriptions of vocal crowd responses to the appearance of the Democratic nominee, the diary made comprehensive notice of visual signs at election events to measure crowd enthusiasm as well. Upon arrival in El Paso in his home state of Texas, LBJ was “greeted by thousands of cheering waving crowds” with “signs [that] said ‘All the Way with LBJ’, ‘’Hello Lyndon’, ‘Welcome home, LBJ’ and similar greetings.” Later that day in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Johnson was welcomed with “labor signs […] proclaiming the prominence of the president’s programs.” In more Republican-friendly territory, Johnson and his aides made notice that there were “not many Goldwater signs” when the President visited Phoenix, the capital of Barry Goldwater’s home state of Arizona. Remarkably, during a speech in Texarkana, Arkansas-Texas, it was mentioned that “the square was completely filled with people, bands, signs, etc. The buildings encircling the square were covered with pro-Johnson signs […] the President […] saw the Senator Goldwater headquarters which had valiantly tried to be concealed with signs […] the President later remarked on the irony of the scene.”
While not coming close to receiving as extensive attention as the crowds’ enthusiasm, the composition of the attending public nevertheless played a remarkable role in the diary’s description of campaign events. During a speech in New Orleans, Louisiana, the President was met with “much enthusiasm” from “a large predominance of Negroes in the crowd.” In the aforementioned visit to Phoenix, Johnson was reported to make specific stops at “minority churches.” Both in Memphis and Baltimore, the campaign events were met with positive responses from predominantly African Americans.
The interest in crowd size, however, remained paramount. For almost every described campaign visit, the estimated number of spectators is included in the diary. While visiting Detroit, Michigan, on September 7 with UAW leader Walter Reuther, the President proudly commented to be met by “more than 100,000 people.” In Butte, Montana, it was noticed that, while the city itself only had a population of 46,000 people, the turnout number was registered at 40,000 during the campaign event there on October 12. Where possible, the diary gives comparisons to both crowd sizes from previous political candidates, as well as to Johnson’s Republican opponent. For instance, while campaigning in Hartford, Connecticut, the state’s Democratic chairman was quoted saying he had “never seen such a crowd in 30 years.” In Cincinnati, Ohio, Johnson was estimated as having a “larger crowd than Kennedy or Eisenhower.” While visiting Peoria, Illinois, the incumbent emphasized his crowd size of an estimated 70,000 people, massively outnumbering Goldwater’s gathered crowd of only 1,500 people a week before the President’s visit. As a final example of the importance of crowd sizes for the Johnson campaign, the number of people at LBJ’s arrival in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, was corrected after the diary had already been typed. While the original figure was higher than the handwritten correction (5,000 vs 2,000), this suggests close attention to attendance numbers within the administration.
The daily diary of President Lyndon Johnson shows us how political candidates are intrigued by turnout for their electoral events and crowds’ responses to their appearance. The diary, with its extensive descriptions of Johnson’s political activities, gives us insights not just into the election events themselves but also offers us an insider’s view of the aspects of these events that LBJ and his closest aides were concerned about. While Trump might be more outspoken about crowd sizes than fellow modern politicians, politicians being intrigued by crowds is nothing new.
This article was written using the following collections available at the RIAS:
Daily Diary of President Johnson (1963-1969)
Newspapers.com
