How many people attended March for Our Lives? Crowd in D.C. estimated at 200,000

[bripat9643]

As always, the left grossly inflates the attendance at its bogus astroturf events.

How many people attended March for Our Lives? Crowd in D.C. estimated at 200,000​

More than 200,000 people attended the March for Our Lives demonstration in Washington D.C. on Saturday, according to Digital Design & Imaging Service Inc (DDIS). The Virginia-based firm uses a proprietary method for calculating crowd size using aerial photos.

The peak crowd size was 202,796 people, with a margin of error of 15 percent, the firm said. The crowd reached its largest size at 1 p.m., according to the company's estimates.

The organizers put the total number of attendees at closer to 800,000.........​

 

[theHawk]

The left lying about another one of their “grass roots” movements funded by Soros?

 

[MarcATL]

The left lying about another one of their “grass roots” movements funded by Soros?

Post the evidence you have that it was funded by Soros.

Otherwise, the only liar here...is you.

 

[usmbguest5318]

How many people attended March for Our Lives?

Surprisingly, enough there was a noticeable uptick in the quantity of patrons at my preferred watering holes and hangouts -- "white tablecloth" places I would normally just show up without a reservation and have dinner were too busy for that. In and of itself and broadly speaking, that's to be expected when 200K to 800K people arrive suddenly in a city having a population of about 600K. What surprised me about it was that the rally consisted of many young adults and about-to-be-young-adults, and that's not a demographic one typically encounters in the places I frequent.

That anecdotal observation suggests that many supportive parents showed up too and that the appeal of the movement's objectives either spans the full spectrum of society or ignites zeal in a fairly well heeled and thus fairly well connected segment of society (i.e., upper-middle and higher income brackets). That's very different from what I've, again anecdotally, observed regarding the most ardent pleaders for materially impactful Congressional-level action to attenuate the incidence of unlawful gun-related shootings and deaths. I may be mistaken, but until Parkland, arbitrary gun violence, particularly mass shootings, had affected mainly middle. minority and working class communities. The Parkland shooting, in contrast, affected an upper-middle to upper income community. That it did strikes squarely at the "bread and butter" of Republican candidates' core of voters.

 

[bripat9643]

The left lying about another one of their “grass roots” movements funded by Soros?

Post the evidence you have that it was funded by Soros.

Otherwise, the only liar here...is you.

Post the evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government.

 

[edthecynic]

Post the evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government.

That the Russian agents met DIRECTLY with Tramp's campaign at Tramp Tower is a well documented FACT. Where have you been the past year?????

 

[bripat9643]

Post the evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government.

That the Russian agents met DIRECTLY with Tramp's campaign at Tramp Tower is a well documented FACT. Where have you been the past year?????

Just as I thought, no proof of collusion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The left lying about another one of their “grass roots” movements funded by Soros?

Do you have a problem with rich people spending loads of money on politics?

The Koch brothers have taken over right wing politics.

 

[theHawk]

The left lying about another one of their “grass roots” movements funded by Soros?

Do you have a problem with rich people spending loads of money on politics?

The Koch brothers have taken over right wing politics.

Nope. Waste all the money you want. It won’t change the outcome of elections.

 

[edthecynic]

As always, the left grossly inflates the attendance at its bogus astroturf events.

How many people attended March for Our Lives? Crowd in D.C. estimated at 200,000​

More than 200,000 people attended the March for Our Lives demonstration in Washington D.C. on Saturday, according to Digital Design & Imaging Service Inc (DDIS). The Virginia-based firm uses a proprietary method for calculating crowd size using aerial photos.

The peak crowd size was 202,796 people, with a margin of error of 15 percent, the firm said. The crowd reached its largest size at 1 p.m., according to the company's estimates.

The organizers put the total number of attendees at closer to 800,000.........​

Pure hogwash!
On a normal Saturday 133,000 riders take the DC Metrorail, During the march 334,000 rode the DC Metrorail, so that is over 200,000 alone, then add in busses, visitors staying in hotels, and locals and you are way beyond 200,000. Tramp's inauguration had less than 200,000 Metro riders and the pathological liar claimed he had 1.5 million attend.

 

[bripat9643]

Post the evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government.

That the Russian agents met DIRECTLY with Tramp's campaign at Tramp Tower is a well documented FACT. Where have you been the past year?????

That doesn't prove collusion, moron.

 

[edthecynic]

Post the evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government.

That the Russian agents met DIRECTLY with Tramp's campaign at Tramp Tower is a well documented FACT. Where have you been the past year?????

Just as I thought, no proof of collusion.

Sure they met for a game of tiddlywinks.

 

[edthecynic]

Post the evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government.

That the Russian agents met DIRECTLY with Tramp's campaign at Tramp Tower is a well documented FACT. Where have you been the past year?????

That doesn't prove collusion, moron.

Sure they met to tell knock-knock jokes.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I think the raw numbers -- 200K, 800K, something in between -- don't matter near as much as does (1) the mere fact that that many people showed up and from what segments of the population the attendees come.

I say that because one need only consider the statistical implications of 200K people openly and en masse advocating for some sort of federal gun-control legislation. To wit, to achieve a 99% confidence level (most polls go for 95%) and a margin of error of +/- 1, and a population of 250M people, one needs a sample size of ~16.6K people. [1] Assuming a crowd size of 200K, at the very least, 12 times that quantity of population showed up for the rally and there was no material counterprotest. Compound the 200K minimum in-D.C. quantity of advocates with those who participated in other locales around the country and the prospects for many an elected office holder or candidate become quite clear.

One important thing to note is that of a protest rally and an celebratory rally such as an inauguration. The message of the two types of gatherings are very different. The latter's message is "yeah, we did it!" The former's message is "this needs to happen and we're going to make it happen one way or another, 'you, elected leaders,' can choose to be part of the problem or part of the solution..." The temporal distinction is not to overlooked.


Note:

1. 
   
   
   Of course, 200K+ people showing up for a rally doesn't imbue the trait of randomness into a survey, but the sheer quantity of people, particularly considering the rally was mimicked in multiple cities, very materially makes up for that because common sense informs one that literally millions of like minded folks didn't (for myriad reasons) show up for the rally.
   
   Note that I performed my calculations using 250M as the population size. That's a gross overstatement of the population size because even though there probably are about 250M voting-age citizens in the U.S., only about 140M people voted in the 2016 election. Accordingly, the population truly should be stipulated as the quantity of people expected to vote, not the population of people who are eligible to vote. That said, with populations and sample sizes as large as are involved here, using the smaller population size has no material impact on the sample size; it'd still be ~16.6K were one desirous of a 99% confidence level.
   
   FWIW, to achieve a +/- 3 margin of error on a confidence level of 95%, a sample size of ~1000 is needed assuming a population of 250M or 140M. This relatively small sample size is why so many polls are structured around 95% and +/-3.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The left lying about another one of their “grass roots” movements funded by Soros?

Do you have a problem with rich people spending loads of money on politics?

The Koch brothers have taken over right wing politics.

Nope. Waste all the money you want. It won’t change the outcome of elections.

The issues I have here are:

A) You're as hypocritical as fuck

B) I don't like an election system which doesn't give people any real power over their politicians.