Call me the testy one if you want but I get annoyed whenever I respond to a point someone is making and that person then acts as if I made a big deal over nothing by virtue of my having responded. Pardon me, I will think or say, but aren’t you the one who brought it up? If it was no big deal, why did you bother mentioning it?
By now you’re aware that the Trump administration and the news media were engaged in a hot debate about how much larger Barack Obama’s inaugural crowd was than Donald Trump’s. After the “mainstream” press brought it up, Trump and his press secretary, Sean Spicer, were accused by people on both sides of the political aisle of being petty for reacting to it. ‘Doesn’t Trump have better things to focus on?’ they asked. Well shouldn’t that same question be put to the folks who evidently decided that crowd size was a top news story? There’s a ton of important stuff going on in the world, particularly with a new government taking the reins. How did crowd size manage to make the grade?
Naturally the leftwing media (and for those of you who still don’t know, that’s the same thing as what some refer to as the “mainstream” media) invested time and space on the crowd-size story because it reinforces the narrative that Obama is so much better liked than Trump. Why is that important? As Sean Spicer said, it’s all part of the Left’s strategy to de-legitimize Donald Trump. That being clearly the case, I don’t fault Spicer or Trump for challenging the crowd estimates and perceived bias in the reporting.
Do I think Trump had as large a crowd as Obama? Hardly so; but then why would we expect him to? Washington D.C. is a Democrat enclave surrounded by states where Democrats far outnumber Republicans. It should be a lot easier for a Democrat to draw a giant crowd, just as the home team draws a bigger crowd in a popular sporting event. Maybe if Trump fulfills his promise to drain the swamp the demographics in and around D.C. will finally change and so will the inauguration crowds.