X/@ChrisMurphyCT
Murphy said that a “big crowd” must have gathered in South Windsor for this Democratic fundraiser. The contrasts between the quality of evidence of the event and the flood of critical comments paint a differently unsavory picture about the quality of attendance. Whatever evidence was to be produced that the event meant to be a fundraiser for local Democrats, the negative comments arrayed against it would mean the turnout was much less than the claimed figure.
Advertisement
The posting by a party activist Chris Murphy might well have caused a stir. Murphy was there with a huge crowd raising funds for local Democrats, and he had claimed to feel thankful for being included in the occasion. Alas, the very image from the post set the stage for doubt and ridicule as critics from all corners of the platform just could not stop themselves from piling on with derision. The image, after all, showed just a handful of participants in what looked like a rather humble outdoor setting.
The post was delightfully brief. Murphy expressed gratitude toward the attendees. However, what followed was anything but simple, a barrage of doubt, sarcasm, and political jabs turned into a public roasting session.
Another user wrote: “There’s nobody fucking there.. Big crown. . Fucking LIAR”. The tone was thus established at the very start-no support would come this way.
Another sarcastic comment: “Should have brought the National Guard in for crowd control.” The joke landed right where the image showed no scenes of need for any such being possible.
Now counting came in: users estimated the size of the “big crowd.” One said: “Huge turnout! All 12 did a great job.” Another said, “There were only like 14 people there. You raised $16.” And a third: “All 15 of them wow new definition of BIG.” The low estimates soon turned into a theme.
Another user continued in the same vein. “Is the crowd here with us now? Do you see them?” doubted that this crowd existed at all. “So why didn’t you show the crowd! Oh waiting for AI generated? I get it!” implied ironically that the photo might as well have been fabricated by artificial intelligence.
One user delivered an incisively scathing comment: “More people were present for my colonoscopy.” In other words, this sarcasm declared that the event was terribly attended.
Not every comment centred on the size of the crowd; others branched out into general political condemnations. Another user, “White Power Chris? We know Democrats don’t like get or Jewish people. Just ask Kamala,” threw in unrelated imaginaries in an attempt to disparage Murphy, whereas others invoked local heinous crimes just to sully Murphy by association.
Others focused their discussion on the donor circuit: “Chris has more critical comments of him on this thread, than he does at this so called donor event,” one observer noted, suggesting that the level of engagement—admittedly negative online engagement—has already surpassed any semblance of support in real life.
Thus the concept of a “big crowd” was laughed out: “Dozens is a big crowd to Democrats,” remarked one account. “YOU ARE A FRAUD. America rejected the Democratic Party last year.” Another followed with a more poetic-concise statement: “20 people = big crowd. Nice.”
The question was raised as to the very makeup of the attendees. “Damn 10 white people. Good job…,” said one comment observing the lack of diversities in the photo.
Big crowd in South Windsor today to raise money for the local Dems. Thanks for including me! pic.twitter.com/SjfLtu2ikB
— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 20, 2025
Proof was requested again and again in numerous comments. “Let’s see how big is the crowd,” one challenged. “Are you going to post the ‘Big Crowd’ images?😅” asked another.
Amid the cacophony, one thing became crystal clear: the story Murphy told just simply did not fit in with the version that the public was willing to accept. Whatever the case was-whether it was a really small crowd or simply a picture that did it no favors-the outrage and skepticism turned this post from petty local fundraising into a question all the way up to Murphy’s credibility, or lack thereof.
Advertisement
The incident was a dangerous reminder of the old dilemma facing many public figures: How much is weight to be placed on the narratives they put forward versus the version actually accepted by the public. For Murphy, what should have just been a simple thank you note became an instance of how quickly the tight-knit online community could rally around an opposing challenge. The “big crowd” may have felt big as they were in the moment, but online, it looked anything but. This situation has drawn comparisons to the recent campaign efforts of Jasmine Crockett.