Chuck Todd and Kellyanne Conway Duke it Out Over Crowd Sizes [VIDEO]

I don’t get the obsession with Inauguration Day crowd sizes. You could say that the media started this fight by saying that the crowd at Obama’s 2009 inauguration was way bigger than Trump’s. Then White House spokesman Sean Spicer responded to these claims by claiming that Trump’s inauguration drew “the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period.”

You can compare photos with both of Obama’s inaugurations, and it does appear that Obama pulled in more people than Trump. But Trump still garnered more attendees than both George W. Bush’s and Bill Clinton’s inaugurations.

But what I don’t understand is why this is so important. Crowd size does not necessarily translate to national support. Obama’s large crowd sizes were not at all surprising, considering that he won D.C. overwhelmingly. He won over 90 percent of the vote in D.C. in 2012, and in 2008, he got more than 92 percent.

Hillary Clinton won over 90 percent of the vote in D.C. in 2016.

Trending: The Conservative Answer to Reforming the Criminal Justice Sysytem

It’s no surprise that Washington, D.C. does not like Trump. That means that the majority of the local population are more likely to boycott the inauguration. Trump’s crowd would have had to come more from travelers than from locals.

Nevertheless, it’s something that’s very important to the media. And for some reason, Sean Spicer – who was perhaps instructed by the President – saw fit to “correct” the media’s reporting of Trump’s crowd size compared to Obama’s. His responses were quickly pounced on by the media as “lies.” Kellyanne Conway responded to NBC’s Chuck Todd, noting that Spicer counter-acted the media’s narrative with “alternative facts.” Predictably, the media had a hey-day with that, calling her responses Orwellian double-speak.

I think it’s such a silly fight. Who cares whose crowd was bigger? The biggest inaugural crowd prior to Obama’s 2009 inauguration was Lyndon B. Johnson’s. I don’t think that necessarily meant LBJ must have been a well-loved president with widespread national support.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend