What's a "Slight" Exaggeration of 900,000+ People?

It was big, I'm not denying that. I also agree it's very difficult, if not impossible, to get truly accurate numbers. As far as I could tell they were talking about the total for D.C. alone, not the rest of the country. Annie

Because it's so big, you could wonder at the possibility of people paying their own way (yes, they did) and traveling the vast distances to come from all different areas to converge on Washington. This Tea Party only ended in DC, it traveled across the nation holding rallies before this final event.

lets go with 'lots' then. the only thing i'm a bit suspicious about is because your country is so big it's possibly not going to be that hard to get an awful lot of people to protest about anything...

That's an excellent point. I have a feeling the vast majority of those who are the most strongly opposed to health case reform are those who feel pretty certain they have nothing to worry about. They either have good health insurance, probably employer provided or are fairly well to do or both. I know there are some here who will tell me they don't fit either description but I said the majority, not everyone. I know the ones leading the charge against the reform are from the insurance lobby. They've done a pretty good job at making people afraid of what the government would do if they were "put in charge" of our health care but I'm much more frightened of them. Anyway, no matter what the exact size of the crowd in Washington was let's just say a large number of people, many from far away, made the trip to protest. It's highly unlikely many of them are unable to afford to go to the doctor if they get sick! Annie

Well written rants are always welcome in my discussions and yours wasn't actually "off-topic" since it sort of flowed from the original topic...you know what I mean...lol! I'm not an "enemy of the wealthy" but I do believe many (not all) of them really have no empathy for the rest of the people. I also know many of them worked very hard for what they've accomplished and I appreciate that and have no problem with anyone being rewarded for hard work. I believe in hard work and personal responsibility but I also believe some people need a bit of a safety net and that health care isn't something that should be available only to the wealthy and we're getting closer to that point all the time. To drift off-topic myself, I think it's often the poor, the elderly and the sick or disabled whose voices aren't heard because they're unable to attend rallies or protests. Annie

Maybe I'm misreading you, Annie, but your response to iriscot sounds as though you're an enemy of the wealthy. The people I know who have attained wealth have done it through hard work and, in some cases, sacrifice. Even if those people who made the trip to Washington had the money to do it, that doesn't negate their reason, nor are they the only people who have strong feelings on tax issues. I'm not saying that you're necessarily of this mind, but it seems to me that so many people who are middle class or lower think the "wealthy" have no understanding of what it's like to be poor or to do without. I believe for many rich it's just the opposite. I think that many rich understand what it is to be poor and/or middle class because they came from that background but took the necessary steps to improve their situation. Also, many of those people who have risen above their circumstances know that the government has done nothing to help them and has in fact made leaving that situation very difficult. I honestly belief that the government war on poverty (I know your post is not about this subject) has done nothing but increase poverty and make those who are poor weak and dependent. This is a completely wrong attitude. How can we be a great nation if we're not independent thinkers or have the drive to achieve greatness? The government does not improve people's situations and that's why so many - rich, middle class, poor, Democrats and Republicans - are opposed to programs that will raise our taxes. They're tired of governments continuing intrusion into all aspects of our lives. Annie, if I have completely misread you, I apologize. I also apologize for ranting on when my rant is not your subject.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/12/yes-the-picture-is-real-nutroots/

I already saw the crowd and I wouldn't even begin t try to guess for myself how many were there. I've never claimed to be good at estimating crowd sizes. I must admit, I really can't stand Michelle Malkin and it's not because she's a conservative. When she talks she looks and sounds like she's a robot or in a trance. Annie

there was lots and lots

Please tell me Palin didn't give her own crowd estimate! Annie

Now, WHO would wanna be ME...lol? Annie

Not that I know of. You annie wannabe.

They argue numbers because they think it somehow negates that fact that it happened. They would rather play childish numbers games than have real discussion about the issues.

it always happens with protests - the protesters add on a 0 or two and those that don't like it take away a digit or two. i think everyone should stick with the simple method of counting that goes: one, two, many, lots and be done with it.

who's playing numbers ted? looks like everybody. i was (unsurprisingly) on the stop the war march several years ago and there were wildly conflicting estimates of how many were involved in each city. all were later shown to be completely out. like this one, yes it still happened and yes there were more than ten and yes there were less than a few billion. i think here (again) both sides are trying to measure the public's opinion by the turnout which will not work. anything wrong with opinion polls? or god forbid a referendum?

lol

6 inches 8 inches what's the difference? LOL

10 inches? a foot? some seem to have their own idea of what an inch actually is.

Sorry it was the Fire Dept. A British paper (the Guardian I think) put the crowd at 2 million based on news photos from the Inauguration and other major events in Washington DC.

Park Police stopped giving crowd estimates years ago. I think I'll believe the D.C. Fire Department who estimated between 60,000 and 70,000. http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m9d14-Video--Fox-News-falsely-hypes-912-Tea-Party-Protest-crowd-estimate Annie

Annie, can you show me a link to where the fire department made the claim. Perhaps a more reputable source than the examiner.

And sadly all Annie, or anyone else on the left seems to care about is who is right about the number of people. The message was completely ignored.

You should be asking why the spokesperson for FreedomWorks used ABC as a source for the crowd size and announced they'd reported something they hadn't. I agree it's difficult to know the exact number and I realize some would be likely to make it larger and others would be likely to make it smaller than it actually was but there's a much bigger difference between the two this time than usual. That's quite a big "margin for error". Annie

Note that I didn't quote it as a correct estimate, I stated that it was considered unverifiable. Even the estimate in the discussion is unverifiable because the DC police and the Park Service refused to give an estimate. Seems that when they've given estimates in the past, they've taken a lot of flak. The news source quoted in the discussion above, ABC, has today refused to cover an important vote in the Senate which cut off funding to an organization accused of fraud and criminal activity but which is closely affiliated with the president. It's a major news service, but if they don't report what happens in the US Senate, how reliable can they be?

you didn't but i've seen the daily mail quoted all over the place recently. ok, there are press rules about making stuff up but the tabloids easily get round them. by what you've said your media sounds a bit dodgy - want to fill me in on the details?

erm, i'm not sure what the media is like in your country but i make it a general rule to not believe what tabloids say until i've checked it out. (the daily mail is a tabloid). i would like to know an awful lot more about what happened before reaching a conclusion.

In my opinion, whether there were "tens of thousands" or "millions" of people at that protest, they don't necessarily represent the entire nation or even a majority of the American people. President Obama still has a good approval rating among the majority of Americans and there were many who weren't "generally satisfied" with him from the beginning and many of them won't be satisfied as long as he's in office. That's not to discount those who disagree with his policies and views. I guess what I'm trying to say is generalizations can be quite misleading. Just because a relatively small percentage of the 300 million + people in the United States showed up to protest in D.C. or elsewhere doesn't mean they represent the entire country. By the same token, just because a small percentage of those protesters seem to be part of a "wacko fringe group" (for lack of a better description...lol!) doesn't mean THEY represent all of those who are dissatisfied with what's going on right now. I think most Americans fall somewhere in the middle, meaning we're happy about some things but not so happy about others. Annie

I'm sorry if I didn't word that quite right. I was just trying to say IF someone intentionally exaggerated the numbers I honestly don't understand why they felt the need to do so. No matter how you slice it, it was a huge crowd. I get that this sort of thing always happens where the organizers and supporters of an even such as this one would be more likely to "round up" and the detractors to "round down". I was just struck by the big gap between the low and the high. To be as clear as I can, I'm NOT saying anyone here is lying about the numbers. I've already stated I'm terrible at judging crowd sizes so even if I'd have been there chances are if I'd have take a wild guess I'd have been off by a bunch. Annie

Thanks for the clarification. If I were there I wouldn't even try to count a large crowd like that. How can you count when you're among them? You're right, those who are for will give more and those against will give less.

I know! Isn't it funny that math is one thing that's an "exact science" but it's still spun by both sides! Annie

oh and this always happens about protests whatever they are about - you get several sets of conflicting figures. not usually as ambitiously bumped up as these seem to be though.