I'm 68 too. But unlike the leftist shit stains here I have kept my sanity.
No, it's not. While it might not actually pan out that way when all is said and done, it is not misleading. What is actually misleading is comparing the RAW 2020 numbers against the RAW 2016 numbers, as MSNBC, CNN, and other outlets are currently doing...
I'm saying that it is important to note what the make-up of the electorate is when comparing numbers like this... While 205k looks impressive when compared against the 25k of 2016, it is nothing to be excited about when the 10% share of the youth vote is factored into the return numbers... To retain a 10% share of the vote, as they had last time, they needed to be at 267k votes at that point in time, but they were only at 205k (which means that youth votes are only making up a 7.68% share of the electorate this time around (so far)... This is not gospel by any means, but it is also not a good indicator sign for Dems...
The outlet said nothing about the electorate shares by age range... It solely compared raw 2020 numbers against raw 2016 numbers and acted as if that was such a great thing for Dems... They don't understand basic mathematics.
I am pointing out that they don't understand basic mathematics.
No. It has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
A 7.68% share of the electorate this time, compared against a 10% share of the electorate last time, is NOT good for Dems... We are seeing this same issue amongst black people...
Black people and college-aged people seem to be turning out weaker than they did in 2016... NOT a good sign for Dems...
Earl the Groaner is alright?
Earl (10-26-2020)
Bookmarks