Hoft Just Makes Stuff Up About Number Of Tea Party Protesters In Wisconsin

Here's Jim Hoft trying to estimate the Tea Party turnout at yesterday's counter-protest at the Wisconsin state capitol:

The AP today estimated that 70,000 protesters turned out in Madison today. If that number is accurate then at least 15,000 were Walker supporters.
This was a huge embarrassment to the left.

You could pull a muscle trying to follow Hoft's reasoning. Seventy thousand protesters showed up and roughly one out of every five must have been a Tea Party protester because ... why? Because Hoft said so, that's why.

Meanwhile, here's what Madison police said:

The rally, organized by the Tea Party-affiliated Americans for Prosperity, was a bit underwhelming compared to the anti-Walker rallies this week, today included. (Police estimated the total turnout at about 50,000, of which less than 10% were at the counter rally.)

Ouch! If that estimate is accurate, then the actual Tea Party turnout was only one third of what Hoft claims it was.

And that's still even higher than the estimate from the Wisconsin State Journal:

Early estimates of the pro-Walker crowd were around 2,000. Those groups seem to be staking out the sidewalk and the Capitol lawn as their ground while the pro-union protesters circle the Square in the street. The Capitol lawn is being churned into mud.

And that supposed article Hoft cited, which actually was from the U.K. Daily Mail reported that mere “hundreds of pro-bill demonstrators” joined pro-union groups:

Around 70,000 protesters gathered outside the Wisconsin Capitol today in the biggest demonstration yet against Republican Governor Scott Walker's budget bill.

For the first time pro-union groups were joined by hundreds of pro-bill demonstrators who gathered on the east side of the statehouse in Madison in a counter-rally led by conservative Tea Party activists.

So who is that a huge embarrassment for, again?

Of course, this isn't the first time Hoft has just made up grossly exaggerated Tea Party crowd “estimates.” See here, here and here.