Journalists, pundits, and pollsters critiqued President Donald J. Trump’s fixation on his crowds—often suggesting they were smaller than he boasted or meaningless in connection to electoral or legislative outcomes. This project takes a qualitative rather than a quantitative stance to interpreting the meaning of Trump’s crowds. In doing so, we find messages presented his rallies as (1) engaging multiple audiences, (2) eliciting feedback from his base to sharpen his talking points, and (3) enraging his devotees to act on his behalf. These types of communications did two things that traditional polling data are unlikely to do: they garnered attention and vast recirculation in the contemporary media environment and have been linked to the insurrection of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. This article draws from scholarship on Trump, news coverage, and social media posts to advance these themes, invites a more nuanced look at crowds as a complement to traditional understandings of public opinion, and closes by posing paths for future discussions of them.
AlthausS. (2003). Collective preferences in democratic politics: Opinion surveys and the will of the people. Cambridge University Press.
2.
AsherH. (2016). Polling and the public: What every citizen should know. SAGE Publications.
3.
BegalaP. (2020). You’re fired: The perfect guide to beating Donald Trump. Simon & Schuster.
4.
BennettW. L. (2012). The personalization of politics: Political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212451428
5.
BennettW. L. (2016). News: The politics of illusion (10th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
6.
BergerJ. (2016). Contagious: Why things catch on. Simon & Schuster.
7.
BranstetterH. L. (2016). “A mining town needs brothels”: Gossip and the rhetoric of sex work in a wild west mining community. Rhetoric and Society Quarterly, 46(5), 381–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2016.1227871
8.
BraunR.KoopmansR. (2014). Watch the crowd: Bystander responses, trickle-down politics, and xenophobic mobilization. Comparative Political Studies, 47(4), 631–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013488544
BurgersC.KonijinE.SteenG. (2016). Figurative framing: Shaping public discourse through metaphor, hyperbole, and irony. Communication Theory, 26(4), 410–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12096
CoeK.KenskiK.RainsS. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104
15.
ColemanS. (2012). How voters feel. Cambridge University Press.
Delli-CarpiniM. X.WilliamsB. (1994). Methods, metaphors and media messages: The uses of television in conversations about the environment. Communication Research, 21, 780–812. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365094021006007
25.
DenzinN.LincolnY. (2000) The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 1–32). SAGE.
GlickJ. A. (1999). Focus groups in political campaigns. In PerlmuttterD. D. (Ed.), The Manship School guide to political communication (pp. 114–121). University of Louisiana Press.
GunnJ. (2020). Political perversion: Rhetorical aberration in the time of Trumpeteering. University of Chicago Press.
35.
HallK.GoldsteinD. M.IngramM. B. (2016). The hands of Donald Trump: Entertainment, gesture, spectacle. Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 6(2), 71–100. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau6.2.009
HarpD.TremayneM. (2006). The gendered blogosphere: Examining inequality using network and feminist theory. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(2), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900608300202
38.
HartR. P. (2018). Civic hope: How ordinary Americans keep democracy alive. Cambridge University Press.
39.
HartR. P. (2020). Trump and us: What he says and why people listen. Cambridge University Press.
40.
HartR. P.ChildersJ. P.LindC. J. (2013). Political tone: How leaders talk & why. University of Chicago Press.
JarvisS. E.HanS. (2018). Votes that count and voters who don’t: How journalists sideline electoral participation (without even knowing it). Penn State University Press.
LipariL. (2001). Voice, polling, and the public sphere. In HartR. P.SparrowB. H. (Eds.), Politics, discourse, and American society: New Agendas (pp. 129–149). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
50.
LippmannW. (2012). Public opinion. Renaissance Classics.
51.
MacedoS. (Ed.). (2005). Democracy at risk: How political choices undermine citizen participation, and what we can do about it. Brookings Institution Press.
McGregorS. C. (2019). Social media as public opinion: How journalists use social media to represent public opinion. Journalism, 20(8), 1070–1086. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884919845458
MehltretterD. (2014). Speaking with the people’s voice. Texas A&M University Press.
56.
MerciecaJ. (2020). Demagogue for president: The rhetorical genius of Donald Trump. Texas A&M University Press.
57.
MertonR.KendallP. (1946). The focused interview. American Journal of Sociology, 51(6), 541–557. https://doi.org/10.1086/219886
58.
MischlerE. G. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Harvard University Press.
59.
MorganD. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). SAGE.
60.
NelsonT. E.ClawsonR. A.OxleyZ. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567–583. https://doi.org/10.2307/2952075
PattersonT. (2016a, June). Pre-primary news coverage of the 2016 presidential race: Trump’s rise, Sanders’ emergence, Clinton’s struggle. Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy (in Conjunction with Media Tenor). : Harvard University.
63.
PattersonT. (2016b, July). News coverage of the 2016 presidential primaries: Horse race reporting has consequences. Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy (in Conjunction with Media Tenor). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
64.
PattersonT. (2016c, September). News coverage of the 2016 national conventions: Negative news, lacking context. Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy (in Conjunction with Media Tenor). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
65.
PattersonT. (2016d, December). News coverage of the 2016 general election: How the press failed voters. Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy (in Conjunction with Media Tenor). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
66.
PerrinA. J. (2006). Citizen speak: The democratic imagination in American life. University of Chicago Press.
ShawA.BenklerY. (2012). A tale of two blogospheres: Discursive practices on the left and right. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(4), 459–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211433793
TrumpD. J.SchwartzT. (1987). Trump: The art of the deal. Random House.
82.
Van AelstP.StrömbäckJ.AalbergT.EsserF.de VreeseC.MatthesJ.HopmannD.SalgadoS.HubéN.StępińskaA.PapathanassopoulosS.BerganzaR.LegnanteG.ReinemannC.SheaferT.StanyerJ. (2017). Political communication in a high-choice media environment: A challenge for democracy?Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551
