Why do I bother with you guys? Did you happen to notice the number of significant figures in those two numbers. Or else you can't read a simple chart. Jesus! By the way did you see the word "estimated," and also, I might add, if they made the colored chart from the data in the other chart the two significant figure number is wrong. It should be 3.3 not 3.2
Yup, I saw estimated, totally irrelevant to the 3.2 reported and 3.3 reported above. Reported is an actual number, estimated is not. Why is there a discrepancy? Try harder explain rather than argue.
Try proving fraud....no one has to explain why a graphic has estimated or rounded numbers and is not anything official.... If these magic numbers are true then go to court or STFU... I am sure Rudy is as crack legal mind and going to get to the bottom of it.
This is the explanation: The numbers are clearly rounded with 1 decimal. Depending of the way it is rounded you can have different results. Notice: The website that posted the numbers is not an offical website, nor have the numbers been audited and declared as officially correct. Not a single Court will accept these numbers as official.
The "completed" vote numbers appear to always truncate any fractional aspect. This is going over some posters head yet they pretend they can go to court and make a case without understanding this. Note the final stats all say 99% even when the count is basically done.
Not that I place great credibility on polsters: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...yes-i-think-this-election-was-stolen-n2579970 According to this polster, “Pollster: It's Curious How Biden Underperformed Hillary Clinton In Every City...Except These Four.”