Does Size Matter

After watching the news last evening, I realized a striking similarity between president Obama's campaign stop in North Carolina and the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York: they both drew very small crowds. Last week, we all saw the pictures that compared the crowds at Obama's Pittsburgh rallies in 2011 and 2008; the turnout this year looked to be about 20% of what it was three years ago. The Obama campaign immediately trotted out their advance man in Western Pennsylvania who announced sadly that he had not properly done his job to turn out a crowd and that the smaller crowd greeting Obama was all his fault. Yesterday, however, we saw the pictures of the crowd that greeted Obama on his supposedly non-political campaign appearance in North Carolina. While those present seemed enthusiastic, there was hardly anyone there. Indeed, on the news show I watched, the next story showed the crowd greeting Herman Cain at an appearance in Tennessee. Cain's crowd seemed to be about three times the size of the one for Obama. So the president of the United States arrives majestically on Air Force One and draws one-third the number of folks who come out to see Herman Cain on his book tour? The numbers at the Obama rally were so strikingly small that even the reporter mentioned it (and we all know how the TV reporters favor Obama.)

Meanwhile, in lower Manhattan we have the ongoing protests of Occupy Wall Street. Indeed, the media has told us how the movement has spread across America. Most of those "rallies" across America were attended by less than 100 people. Many had 10 or 15 people there, but the press covers them as if this is a major movement. Even at the main event near Wall Street, the numbers are small. Nevertheless, the pictures on TV always seem to be taken at an angle so as to show what seems to be a large crowd. Little is said about the fact that many of the protesters are being paid to be present. No, this is a "grass roots" movement that just happens to be financed by the usual suspects on the left. Paid demonstrators used to be called "astroturf" but now they are known as Occupy Wall Street. Saturday night, there were shots of the OWS folks "taking over" Times Square. The crowds looked massive. Strangely, not one of the reports on the demonstration that I saw bothered to mention that on an average Saturday night when the weather is good, there is always, always a massive crowd in Times Square. It is not New Year Eve size, but the sidewalks are packed as folks go to the theaters that surround the area as well as to all the other entertainment venues near Times Square. So for someone watching the coverage who was unfamiliar with New York City, it looked like a massive outpouring of protest rather than the usual few.

The truth is that no matter how many folks turn out either for Obama or OWS, the media will still cover it as if these rallies are massive. But size does matter. In this case, size indicates that middle America is not buying either schtick. No one wants to go hear Obama rant about passing his bill or passing parts of his bill; they want action and not more speeches from Washington. Most people realize that Obama is just acting; he knows now and he knew at the start that his whole jobs bill would never get passed. Obama is using this as part of a re-election drama, not an attempt to help unemployed Americans. The only job he seems to care about is his own. He has lost his audience. The same is true with OWS. No one wants to destroy the economy in the name of fairness. The goal of the average American is a good job and a decent living, not retribution against other Americans who happen to have succeeded in life. Maybe for the far left it matters that they can bring down the successful so that we can all be poor together. The small crowds show just how unpopular that goal remains with the majority.