RUSH: You know the stories about the size of the crowds that go to Trump rallies versus the practically invisible crowds that visit Hillary rallies.  I’m guilty of this, too.  The rule of thumb in discussing that is to say, “Don’t attach too much to it.”  A lot of candidates who lost in landslides drew huge crowds, the story goes.  That is not data.  Massive crowds showing up at a campaign rally is not an indication of how they’re gonna vote at all.  It’s not even an indication if they’re gonna vote.  It’s nothing more than anecdotal.  By anecdotal, means people telling stories to each other.  It’s not rooted in data.  Therefore there’s nothing you can project from it. 

But it’s gone on long enough now, like Romney’s big crowds happened the last five days of his campaign, in 2012.  And that’s why people thought, maybe there’s something happening here.  ‘Cause Romney had not been drawing big crowds.  Romney’s not the kind of guy that does.  He’d been drawing loyal crowds, Republicans that wanted to be elected, but he wasn’t drawing star type crowds until the last five days, and then 30,000, 25,000 and people said, “You know, something might be happening here.”  It turned out nothing was happening.  The crowds didn’t mean anything.  Obama won and won handily and the crowds didn’t. 

But with this, it’s been so consistent.  Hillary can’t draw 300 people.  Hillary can’t draw 2,000 people.  Whatever the event, the crowd that shows up at a Hillary event is minuscule, particularly compared to Trump’s.  They are not energetic, and it’s not personal.  The people that show up are not there because they’re deeply personally invested in Hillary, they love her, they want to be like her, they want to be with her.  It’s not that.  It’s party loyalty or it’s they’re being paid to show up, who knows, or they have paid to show up, it could be either way. 

On the Trump side, it’s gone on long enough now, since last summer, every Trump rally is a near, if not full, sellout.  Every Trump rally is loud and raucous and is made up of people personally committed to Trump.  And there’s been months and months and months of it.  And as that has happened, the people on the left who would be frightened by it, would be worried, “Oh, my gosh, look at all that energy and we don’t see any,” it’s not helping. People are not showing up in greater numbers at Hillary rallies to try to offset what’s happening at Trump rallies. 

Now, the Breitbart people have done some statistical analysis with numbers here.  One week of Trump rallies drew over 26,000 people.  It was less than a thousand.  It was hundreds of people that showed up at two different Clinton rallies. “Donald Trump saw many thousands of supporters gather at several rallies this week, far outpacing his opponent, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who again cancelled one of her few campaign events.

“A conservative estimate of those who attended Trump’s rallies added to those who attended his ‘America-First’ energy plan presentation total over 26,000 for the week. That’s compared to the around 700 that gathered for Clinton events in Philadelphia and Orlando. Those numbers are based on news reports,” detailed later here in the story.  “Both made stops in Pennsylvania and Florida. Trump held two events in North Carolina and Clinton postponed a fundraiser in that state.”

So this has been going on long enough now that maybe — it’s still not data, and it still is anecdotal, but there has been plenty of time for this energy for Trump to wear off.  The rule of thumb is that at a Trump rally where you know what you’re gonna get; you’re gonna get Trump.  So after a while you would expect the crowds to either remain the same or start to fade away a little, not because of any less excitement, just it’s been going on for so long.  Trump’s crowds are continuing to build.  The enthusiasm for Trump is continuing to build. 

There isn’t any enthusiasm for Hillary outside of the perfunctory and the required, and that is there’s a Democrat running for president, and so people are gonna vote for the Democrat and are gonna show up at rallies. But it isn’t personal, not like it is with the crowds showing up for Trump.  Hillary just does not have that effect on people. 

And what happens at these rallies is also crucial because in many of Trump’s cases, they’re televised, and many more people than just those in attendance see it.  So Trump’s out there talking to real voters. He’s talking to real Americans about real things that matter to them.  He even went to a small town, he drew, what was it, three or four thousand people in a town of a population of 800 in North Carolina. 

You might say, “Why go there?  Why go to a town with a population of 800?”  Well, why go to Connecticut if you’re Trump?  He goes to these places to get there.  He goes to these places ’cause he loves doing this.  He likes meeting these people and he likes going places where people would otherwise not be able to see one of these rallies.  He’s breaking every rule that’s out there. 

Practically every rule in the election handbook that is written and monitored by the Washington establishment, he’s violating every important rule.  And nobody knows how to deal with it.  And while Trump’s out doing all this, she’s holed up at the family compound in Chappaqua doing who knows what.  But she is not out making her case.  She’s not out building her support base.  She’s not out validating the supporters she already has. 

That’s an important factor, too.  You got people supporting you.  You have to go out and validate their reason.  You have to show up and make it worth their while.  You have to convey that it’s a just and proper decision they’re making.  Hillary’s not giving her supporters a chance to do any of that because she’s not even having rallies anymore, one or two a week.  And we’re told it’s because she has to conserve her energy.

She has been getting prepared for 11 days for this debate.  And now we learn that the primary thing that she’s been doing is to get her people to get hold of the media to pressure Lester Holt to actually be the one debating Trump and not her.  Well, that’s what they mean when they’re demanding that Lester Holt fact checks him.  Isn’t that her job?  They want Lester Holt to debate Trump. 

Now, back to an example I gave in the previous hour.  Imagine, if you will, an entire debate of things like what Candy Crowley did to Mitt Romney.  Well, I have been reminded — and it’s a good point — do you remember the crowd reaction when Candy Crowley stepped in and defended Obama and told Mitt Romney that he was wrong, that Obama had done whatever it was, do you remember the crowd reaction?  It was almost standing ovation applause.  And I had forgotten that, but when I was reminded, I had to admit, yep, that’s what happened. 

The studio audience or the arena audience, wherever that debate was, roundly supported — there were very few, if any, boos for Candy Crowley.  I don’t know how they stack the audience at these debates.  I don’t know what steps candidates can take to get a preponderance of their supporters in there. The no-applause rule is gonna be broken, you know that countless times during this debate.  So we will just see. 

I still think if Lester Holt does come across as the one that’s debating Trump, if every time Trump opens his mouth and Lester Holt demands that he prove it, Lester Holt acts as fact checker, I’m telling you, folks, the way things are trending, Hillary cannot have surrogates win this for her.  Lester Holt cannot get her elected president.  She’s got to do it.  She’s not the incumbent.  You know, Obama had an incumbency to rely on.  She’s not.  We’ll just see.