Mfcttrf

In my mind, only people that are already excited about the candidate would go. This means the attendees are mostly voting for the candidate anyway. Obviously this is not the whole story, rallies must be beneficial or candidates wouldn't do them. So how do rallies gain candidates votes?

Campaign rallies generate media attention. The media attention can gain votes for the candidate.

Another issue is that campaigns don't necessarily need to gain supporters from the rallies. If the rally makes existing supporters more likely to vote, that also helps. You'll hear this referred to as turning out the base.

Campaign rallies also might increase donations, which are also valuable to candidates. Or they might increase volunteers, which are valuable to campaigns. Or they might encourage attendees to go out and talk about the candidate. That word of mouth advertising can be more effective than other forms of advertising.

Successful rallies achieve two key things:

1. They reinforce existing supporters. At a rally the candidate has a platform where they can 'preach their good word' to their followers, and bask in the social energy of the event.

Humans are social creatures, and we like to feel like we both belong to a group and that our views and ideas are supported by the group. Those who attend a rally then surround themselves with like minded people and help reinforce that their ideas are 'clearly very good', because why else would all those other people be there?

This leads to the second key point:

2. They reinforce the candidate's legitimacy: To anyone who wasn't already a supporter and didn't go to the rally, the social power of said rally may still be an important factor. That candidate has support, large groups of "your fellow citizens" clearly think they're a good idea, so maybe you too should think that they are a good idea...

If you have two candidates offering the same sort of ideas, and seem to view things the same way as each other, then which one would you want to vote for? The one who can fill stadiums with supporters, or the candidate no one is talking about?

Probably it's a case of candidates believing it has benefit more than actual benefit.

Occasionally a rally will produce an iconic image that winds up being very powerful. I recall a particular case not very long ago. Two politicians held rallies at the exact same time within sight of each other. One rally had overflow beyond the space that could possibly accommodate people inside, and they were outside watching on a "jumbotron." The other rally had plenty of empty chairs. And the TV coverage managed to catch this in a shot of the low-turnout candidate. There's this guy bad-mouthing the other guy, while standing in front of empty seats, and the other guy's overflow crowd is filling the background, with the other guy's image visible on the big-screen.

Also, there's the idea of a Pep Rally. If you've never been in a crowd that was agreeing hard then it won't have any possible meaning. If you have then you won't doubt. The first time I experienced this was at a science fiction convention where they showed vids of the Delta Clipper going through its paces. The crowd growled their approval.

Getting a bunch of people chanting, for example, has an effect on the brain. Chanting makes you feel good if you agree, and bad if you disagree. So the tendency is to agree in order to get along with your neighbors. And the rewards are pretty quick. Suddenly you and your neighbor are pals.

And occasionally the chanting will produce further iconic images. Chants of CNN Sucks! when the CNN reporter is trying to do a live report is pretty high on the list of "photo-bombs."

There is also an aspect of social proof. This is the idea that people in a crowd who agree will have a strong tendency to pull in any stragglers and get them to agree as well. The canonical example is a laugh track.