Let's see...Trump is 6' 3" tall. Putting him sideways it looks like the stage is perhaps 15' long, but I'll be generous and call it 16'. It also looks like it's only 6' deep but I'll call it 8' for the heck of it.
So that's ~92 stages or so...call it an even 100 to account for the stragglers at the outer edges.
That's 128 sq. feet x 100 = 12,800 sq. feet. Let's assume they're all tightly packed.
12,800 / 4.5 = 2,844 people in attendance when this photo was taken. Let's be generous and round it up to an even 3,000 people.
Trump had already taken the stage at this point, so you can't argue that it was taken before most people had arrived. I'm willing to concede that there may have been some latecomers. Let's call it perhaps 4,000 attendees at its peak.
And again, this assumes that 100% of the crowd was "tightly packed" which it clearly isn't.
UPDATE: I'm told that standard stage risers are 4' x 8' and they can obviously be attached to each other. It definitely looks like the stage is twice as wide as it is deep, so yeah, that'd be 16' x 8'.
So, yeah…somewhere between 1,500 - 4,000 at its peak, I’d say.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Let's see here...a semi trailer (lower right) is roughly 50' long, so the venue is roughly 9 trailers x 4 trailers, or 450' x 200', or 90,000 sq. feet.
Of course the rear 1/3 is almost empty, but there's also some people lined up in the upper left, so call it ~80% full...
So, that's perhaps ~72,000 square feet of "tightly packed" people. According to this article, in a tightly-packed crowd the avg. person takes up ~4.5 sq. feet.
Now, the trailers I used are slightly closer to the camera than the people in the crowd, so I may have to adjust for scale a bit. If we bump it up by, say, 25% you get 20,000 people or so.
🧵 People have asked me why I started an organized project to raise money *directly* for Democratic candidates up & down the ballot when there's already so many other organizations out there doing this. There's a couple of reasons. 1/
The first is that most of the existing organizations/PACs/etc seem to (in my view) *either* focus ONLY on the true swing districts *or* they raise money for races which are clearly unwinnable without being up front about how long the odds in those races are. 2/
I try to walk the line between these--for district-level races I cast my net wider than most "tossup only!" advocates, but not absurdly wide; for statewide races I *do* include deep red states but also make it absolutely clear that those races are *very* long shots. 3/
A little fun Die Hard trivia for those who don’t know:
The first Die Hard was based on a 1979 novel called Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp. In the novel McClain’s character was named Joe Leland. This was a sequel to a 1966 novel by Thorp called The Detective. 1/
The Detective had been made into a film starring Frank Sinatra as Joe Leland in 1968.
This means Bruce Willis plays the same character as Frank Sinatra.
In fact, the studio was contractually required to offer the role to Sinatra if he wanted it. Sinatra was 73 at the time.
As for the novel Nothing Lasts Forever (title since changed to “Die Hard”), it follows most of the same storyline and characters, but with a few VERY important differences…
How does the @nytimes know that these are actual federal officials who actually signed it if they did so “anonymously?”
Does that mean the Times is redacting their names? Or does it just say “signed, 400 officials” at the bottom of the letter?
@nytimes I’m not being snarky here—I can’t read the original NY Times article without a subscription; do they clarify how they verified that these 400 people actually are federal officials and that they did in fact sign off on the letter in it?