D
That chart must be using old data...
You can get rid of illegal immigrants but you can't stop the robots.Media asking questions one layer deep.
Up your game dawgs
before but it makes as much sense as saying that the guy in blackface playing the buffoon is really just doing an elaborate performance art piece
The tweet was from Nov 9th. So yeah the data is a little old.That chart must be using old data...
The curent vote tally for Clinton and Trump respectively is 64.2 to 62.2
124 million votes between the two of them.
2012 was 65.9 to 60.9 for Obama and Romney
127 million votes between them
2008 is a total aberration of turnout and dem voting.
In a year with less votes, Trump increased the raw number over Romney. In fact, in a down year he is the winningest GOP nominee ever now.
Obama got 51.9% of the two party vote 2012.
Clinton got 51.6% of the two party vote in 2016.
.
This year was a historically low TOTAL voter turnout overall. The lowest in 20 years per the CNN headline.
Trump simply had an amazing ground game and pulled in increased votes with a year the didn't have extra margins to give.
Can't come to Miami though.Did you know that you can drive from one ocean to the other without going through a single County that Hillary won?
The tweet was from Nov 9th. So yeah the data is a little old.
Not sure what you were trying to demonstrate with those percentages as they don't really address the point of the chart, which is that republican turnout was relatively consistent with the last 3 years (only fluctuating within 3.3% of each other, or, 2 million votes), while the Dems have seen a 9.5% drop in voters (6 million votes).
The chart isn't a knock on Trump or the republican party, but just demonstrating the Trump didn't incite some great increase in voter turnoutand that the bigger story is how the Dems have seen almost 10% of their voter base disappear since 2008
EDIT: I think it's just demonstrating there wasn't a surge in republican supporters which is what a lot of early pundits discussed
Science bitch.I mentioned earlier that his anti climate change stance would hurt NASA as the world leading authority on the matter. And so it begins...