Is that raw numbers, or percentages? Last time I looked (a day or so ago), Biden was a point or 2 ahead of Hillary and Trump was a point or 2 down from his 2016 %.Originally Posted by ukpumacat
Is that raw numbers, or percentages? Last time I looked (a day or so ago), Biden was a point or 2 ahead of Hillary and Trump was a point or 2 down from his 2016 %.
U really think players are going to duke without being paid over Kentucky?--Gilbert Arenas, 9/12/19
Both.
2016 he received 105,000 votes. This year he received 125,000 so far.
In 2016, he lost Philadelphia 82.4% to 15.5%
This year, he is losing 80.8% to 18.3%
So, somehow the "fraud" in Philadelphia helped Trump.
~Puma~
^Thanks.
U really think players are going to duke without being paid over Kentucky?--Gilbert Arenas, 9/12/19
I think inaccuracies is better term than fraud.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"I have touched all the so-called capitals of basketball, but when it gets down to the short stroke, the only true capital of basketball is in Lexington." AL McGuire
No, fraud works fine for me.
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
It means the left only needed 80.8%
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
If you’re going to cheat, you’re going to do it in a way that’s masks that cheating as much as possible.
Ha. Gotcha.
“Guys, let’s cheat so that Biden wins.”
“Ok, how will we do that boss?”
“Let’s have him win the county by less than Hillary did. NO ONE will see that coming.”
“Um, boss, how does that help him win??”
Interesting point. So you’re saying it’s not plausible? Sounds a lot like this Russia story I seem to remember
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks