Maddowblog - "The Politics of Crowd Size" - Pundits Try To Minimize Inaugeration Crowd

[TomCADem]

It is interesting that no political pundit cared to mention that President Obama's "smaller crowd" was larger than Dubya's first and second inaugerations combined.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/01/22/16640981-the-politics-of-crowd-size?lite

Many of President Obama's detractors seemed pleased yesterday morning when reports pointed to diminished turnout for his second inaugural. After historic crowds four years ago, most estimates said the 2013 audience would be less than half as big, and Obama's critics took saw that as meaningful evidence of ... something.

* * *

In a case like this, context is everything. Looking back through recent history, Bill Clinton's first inaugural drew about 800,000 people in 1993, which was considered an enormous crowd. In contrast, about 300,000 came to see George W. Bush's first inaugural, and 400,000 saw his second.

It's true that Obama's crowd yesterday wasn't nearly as big as the audience from 2009, but the 1 million people who showed up was significantly more than Bush's two inaugural crowds combined -- a detail some on the right chose to overlook when making a fuss yesterday morning.

It's also true that the 2013 inaugural crowd came up short of the 1.2 million people who attended Lyndon Johnson's inauguration in 1965, but this only helps underscore the larger point: Barack Obama's 2013 inauguration was among the biggest events ever held on the National Mall.

[MadHound]

1. They're only noticing this trend now?

Hell, underestimating crowd size for political purposes for at least twenty years or more.

[hay rick]

2. And half of Bush's crowds showed up to throw eggs.

And shoes.

[cherokeeprogressive]

3. Everyone who wanted to see it, saw it.

Other than that who cares...

[Cha]

4. So much bitching and whining

about the 2nd Inauguration of President Obama.. that was really just Awesome!