To: txrefugee
It’s not 92% of registered Democrat voters, it’s 92% of the number that actually voted in 2016 (which is a lot less than the total registered voters). At least I think that’s what they’ve been saying.
Still seems incredible, but not as incredible as it would be if it were of all registered voters.
Still, can’t trust any numbers or ballots or counting of votes where Democraps are concerned. I hope this whole thing is examined very very closely.
14 posted on
12/13/2017 10:42:44 AM PST by
Enchante
(FusionGPS "dirty dossier" scandal links Hillary, FBI, CIA, Dept of Justice... "Deep State" is real)
To: Enchante
thanks for that clarification. makes sense.
34 posted on
12/13/2017 10:52:05 AM PST by
getitright
(Finally- a president who offers hope!)
To: Enchante
92% of ... A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
This was a mid term replacement Senate seat.
It wouldn’t matter if he’d won or not, I’d still not believe that turnout.
37 posted on
12/13/2017 10:54:10 AM PST by
bgill
(CDC site, "We don't know how people are infected with Ebola.")
To: Enchante
It’s not 92% of registered Democrat voters, it’s 92% of the number that actually voted in 2016 (which is a lot less than the total registered voters). At least I think that’s what they’ve been saying. You are correct.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson