According to the article, from a statistical inference point, responses to the President-elect Donald Trump’s inaugurals ceremony reflect a less popular Republican government in office as compared to previous administrations. However, Republicans had a stronger response than Democrats. According to Trump speech, that drew doubt when he said, “You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historical movement the world has never seen before.” referred to well over 60 million electorates that voted for him. Nonetheless, the number is below those who voted for Clinton. However, his critics did not hesitate to mention that he was referring to the turnout at the ceremony. Reference is also made to the Women’s March, with the author speculating that its attendance was probably much higher than the inauguration ceremony.
To further substantiate his assertions, the author gives uses various numbers of attendees. For instance, the author highlights that about 1.8 million persons attended the inauguration of President Obama in 2009. Besides, another 1 million attended the second inauguration in 2013. The figures are incomparable to the attendance drawn by former President George W. Bush that was 300, 000 as well as 400, 000 persons respectively. In 1993 and 1997, the attendances at former President Bill Clinton were 800, 000 and 250, 000 respectively. Before the Friday’s inaugural ceremony, the United States Armed Forces Joint Task Force-National Capital Region and Joint Congressional Committee on Activities of Inauguration approximated that between 700, 000 and 900, 000 will attend the ceremony.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Statistics: Inauguration Ceremony and Women’s March".
The Meaning of Confidence Interval and Margin of Error to Trump’s Inauguration
Based on the statistics of the reported figures, there have been rife speculations that the Trump presidency is not as popular as that of his predecessors. Nonetheless, it is worth pointing out that this assertion might not be entirely true, especially given the fact that pictures of the inauguration ceremony taken from two different angles seem to convey a conflicting information. It is justifiable to state, therefore, that the aspect of bias might have a hand in misrepresenting the data collected for comparison. Nonetheless, if these figures are anything to go by, then it is safe to point out that Trumps Presidency is less popular as compared to that of President Obama, judging primarily from the attendance to their respective inauguration ceremonies.
In conclusion, Trump will quiet probably have more ground to make up to contest the public goodwill enjoyed by former Presidents in the early periods of their presidency. Nevertheless, it is arguable that the inauguration appears to assist Trump than to offend him in sealing that gap. As the good feeling manifested in the Inauguration is mainly from Trump’s political associates, Republican-leaning Independents and Republicans, and less from his natural opponents, the gap might not be entirely sealed until Democrats’ strong feelings of negativity towards him diminishes ( Kutner, 2017). The article also brings out the aspect of bias in the reporting of statistical data in the manner in which the figures posted are difficult to verify.
