TRUMP surges past democrats with suburban women!

[Daryl Hunt]

I already posted that link. Again, are you saying the original breitbart article is good or bad? No deflecting, just answer the question.

But the opensecrets does NOT support the brietbart article that tries to use the link to legitimize it as a source. In fact opensecrets contradicts the briebart article.

Again, do YOU support the Briebart article as fact?

Breitbart article
Women who live in America’s suburbs are supporting President Donald Trump’s re-election bid, says a new report at OpenSecrets.org, that shows Trump is benefiting from a surge in large-dollar donations from women in suburbs – more than any Democrat candidate.
While mainstream media are reporting some polls that suggest Trump is losing the support of women, the report by Open Secrets, part of the Center for Responsive Politics, shows the president has over 10,500 large-dollar contributions from women in suburbs, and has received $8,293,135 from them – the largest amount than any of the Democrat 2020 candidates.



The article is correct. You are just a moron, obviously.

Cool, just out of curiosity what happens when you compare:

SUM(Red Crime Family) to SUM(Blue Crime Family) from that chart ?

What does that say about whom "Suburban Women" support ? Thanks in advance.

"It's the things that make you go, hmm, hmm, hmm" -- Things that make you go hmmmm, C+C Music Factory

The poster claimed the article was bullshit. It clearly wasnt..open secrets also claimed small donations from women for trump weren't available.
Things that make you go hmmm lol

Do the math. The totals were available. If Rump is getting the highest large amount donations from the Women from the Suburbs and he is listed as 5th in the total then that means that the bulk of the Suburban smaller donations is going to, of all people, Bernie. In reality, Rump isn't doing that well in the suburbs when you take the totals and the top 4 Dem Candidates total. The Math doesn't agree with brietbart. And you can mask it all wish but you can't change that.

Women originally in the suburbs showed little support for Trump. It has increased, showing suburban women are now supporting him. He has the largest totals amongst large donations of all the candidates individually, not collectively by party. Only you read it that way in your cockeyed view. That was the basis of the opensecrets article. Geeesh.

He has the largest "Large" contributions but Bernie has the highest at almost twice as much total for suburban women donations. Meaning, Bernie is getting a boat load of small donations from suburban women and so is Pete. What that all means is, Suburban Women will, for the most part, NOT vote for Rump. When you take the total of the top 4, Rump has only about a sixth of the amount. And then most of that is from large donations. Suburban Women will vote Democrat this time around by a large margin.

 

[NightFox]

I already posted that link. Again, are you saying the original breitbart article is good or bad? No deflecting, just answer the question.

But the opensecrets does NOT support the brietbart article that tries to use the link to legitimize it as a source. In fact opensecrets contradicts the briebart article.

Again, do YOU support the Briebart article as fact?

Breitbart article
Women who live in America’s suburbs are supporting President Donald Trump’s re-election bid, says a new report at OpenSecrets.org, that shows Trump is benefiting from a surge in large-dollar donations from women in suburbs – more than any Democrat candidate.
While mainstream media are reporting some polls that suggest Trump is losing the support of women, the report by Open Secrets, part of the Center for Responsive Politics, shows the president has over 10,500 large-dollar contributions from women in suburbs, and has received $8,293,135 from them – the largest amount than any of the Democrat 2020 candidates.



The article is correct. You are just a moron, obviously.

Cool, just out of curiosity what happens when you compare:

SUM(Red Crime Family) to SUM(Blue Crime Family) from that chart ?

What does that say about whom "Suburban Women" support ? Thanks in advance.

"It's the things that make you go, hmm, hmm, hmm" -- Things that make you go hmmmm, C+C Music Factory

The poster claimed the article was bullshit. It clearly wasnt..open secrets also claimed small donations from women for trump weren't available.
Things that make you go hmmm lol

Yeah it is bullshit, since the numbers cited don't support the premise when you take into account that the election will boil down to TWO candidates from the major crime families, unless of course you're going to try and argue that "suburban women" whose Dem primary candidate of choice don't get the nomination are going to support Donny (possible but not likely).

Breitbart claimed trump is leading with suburban women large sum donations. He clearly is.
There is no bullshit. The article is correct.

No he's not leading when you use the only metric that makes sense, namely : Republican versus Democrat.

The Democrats aren't going to run 11 candidates against Trump, so it only makes sense to take the aggregate of the BLUE (all the Dem Primary Candidates) and the aggregate of the RED (Trump).

It's a disingenuous headline at best and a complete fucking ludicrous one at worst.

 

[TNHarley]

Breitbart article
Women who live in America’s suburbs are supporting President Donald Trump’s re-election bid, says a new report at OpenSecrets.org, that shows Trump is benefiting from a surge in large-dollar donations from women in suburbs – more than any Democrat candidate.
While mainstream media are reporting some polls that suggest Trump is losing the support of women, the report by Open Secrets, part of the Center for Responsive Politics, shows the president has over 10,500 large-dollar contributions from women in suburbs, and has received $8,293,135 from them – the largest amount than any of the Democrat 2020 candidates.



The article is correct. You are just a moron, obviously.

Cool, just out of curiosity what happens when you compare:

SUM(Red Crime Family) to SUM(Blue Crime Family) from that chart ?

What does that say about whom "Suburban Women" support ? Thanks in advance.

"It's the things that make you go, hmm, hmm, hmm" -- Things that make you go hmmmm, C+C Music Factory

The poster claimed the article was bullshit. It clearly wasnt..open secrets also claimed small donations from women for trump weren't available.
Things that make you go hmmm lol

Do the math. The totals were available. If Rump is getting the highest large amount donations from the Women from the Suburbs and he is listed as 5th in the total then that means that the bulk of the Suburban smaller donations is going to, of all people, Bernie. In reality, Rump isn't doing that well in the suburbs when you take the totals and the top 4 Dem Candidates total. The Math doesn't agree with brietbart. And you can mask it all wish but you can't change that.

Women originally in the suburbs showed little support for Trump. It has increased, showing suburban women are now supporting him. He has the largest totals amongst large donations of all the candidates individually, not collectively by party. Only you read it that way in your cockeyed view. That was the basis of the opensecrets article. Geeesh.

He has the largest "Large" contributions but Bernie has the highest at almost twice as much total for suburban women donations. Meaning, Bernie is getting a boat load of small donations from suburban women and so is Pete. What that all means is, Suburban Women will, for the most part, NOT vote for Rump. When you take the total of the top 4, Rump has only about a sixth of the amount. And then most of that is from large donations. Suburban Women will vote Democrat this time around by a large margin.

They dont even have trumps numbers for small donations.

 

[Redfish]

Republicans have gotten stomped in the suburbs in recent elections
If it ain’t women......must be white males voting for dems

your fantasy world is amazing, winger. not a drop of truth in any of it.

 

[TNHarley]

Breitbart article
Women who live in America’s suburbs are supporting President Donald Trump’s re-election bid, says a new report at OpenSecrets.org, that shows Trump is benefiting from a surge in large-dollar donations from women in suburbs – more than any Democrat candidate.
While mainstream media are reporting some polls that suggest Trump is losing the support of women, the report by Open Secrets, part of the Center for Responsive Politics, shows the president has over 10,500 large-dollar contributions from women in suburbs, and has received $8,293,135 from them – the largest amount than any of the Democrat 2020 candidates.



The article is correct. You are just a moron, obviously.

Cool, just out of curiosity what happens when you compare:

SUM(Red Crime Family) to SUM(Blue Crime Family) from that chart ?

What does that say about whom "Suburban Women" support ? Thanks in advance.

"It's the things that make you go, hmm, hmm, hmm" -- Things that make you go hmmmm, C+C Music Factory

The poster claimed the article was bullshit. It clearly wasnt..open secrets also claimed small donations from women for trump weren't available.
Things that make you go hmmm lol

Yeah it is bullshit, since the numbers cited don't support the premise when you take into account that the election will boil down to TWO candidates from the major crime families, unless of course you're going to try and argue that "suburban women" whose Dem primary candidate of choice don't get the nomination are going to support Donny (possible but not likely).

Breitbart claimed trump is leading with suburban women large sum donations. He clearly is.
There is no bullshit. The article is correct.

No he's not leading when you use the only metric that makes sense, namely : Republican versus Democrat.

The Democrats aren't going to run 11 candidates against Trump, so it only makes sense to take the aggregate of the BLUE (all the Dem Primary Candidates) and the aggregate of the RED (Trump).

It's a disingenuous headline at best and a complete fucking ludicrous one at worst.

The entire article is about the individuals. While dem vs repub might make more sense, that isnt the issue here.
Take it up with open secrets lol

 

[depotoo]

Breitbart article
Women who live in America’s suburbs are supporting President Donald Trump’s re-election bid, says a new report at OpenSecrets.org, that shows Trump is benefiting from a surge in large-dollar donations from women in suburbs – more than any Democrat candidate.
While mainstream media are reporting some polls that suggest Trump is losing the support of women, the report by Open Secrets, part of the Center for Responsive Politics, shows the president has over 10,500 large-dollar contributions from women in suburbs, and has received $8,293,135 from them – the largest amount than any of the Democrat 2020 candidates.



The article is correct. You are just a moron, obviously.

Cool, just out of curiosity what happens when you compare:

SUM(Red Crime Family) to SUM(Blue Crime Family) from that chart ?

What does that say about whom "Suburban Women" support ? Thanks in advance.

"It's the things that make you go, hmm, hmm, hmm" -- Things that make you go hmmmm, C+C Music Factory

The poster claimed the article was bullshit. It clearly wasnt..open secrets also claimed small donations from women for trump weren't available.
Things that make you go hmmm lol

Yeah it is bullshit, since the numbers cited don't support the premise when you take into account that the election will boil down to TWO candidates from the major crime families, unless of course you're going to try and argue that "suburban women" whose Dem primary candidate of choice don't get the nomination are going to support Donny (possible but not likely).

Breitbart claimed trump is leading with suburban women large sum donations. He clearly is.
There is no bullshit. The article is correct.

No he's not leading when you use the only metric that makes sense, namely : Republican versus Democrat.

The Democrats aren't going to run 11 candidates against Trump, so it only makes sense to take the aggregate of the BLUE (all the Dem Primary Candidates) and the aggregate of the RED (Trump).

It's a disingenuous headline at best and a complete fucking ludicrous one at worst.

There you go, reading into it more than what their point was. Nowhere did they state collectively by party. Only by candidate.

 

[rightwinger]

Trump Surges Among Women in Suburbs | Breitbart
Hi guys good luck in 2025 with Eric trump lol

Interesting info.

Tell me: In one sentence, what does the article say when you read it?
.

breitbart.com is your source? They lie almost as much as Rump does.

Suburban women could decide 2020: Who are they giving to?
the study is by opensecrets.org

That is LARGE dollar denominations and not the total amount nor the total number of donors. As usual, you are misrepresenting a factual site. If that were the only thing then you would be right but in reality, Rump is rated 5th behind the leading 4 for total amounts from Suburban Women Donors. That conflicts with what you are claiming. What you present only means that Rump is getting a high amount of LARGE donations from Suburban Women Donors. That means the others are getting the lions share of every other Woman Donor.

More dog and pony show.

Breitbart didnt claim he was beating women in general. Good gawd man, shut up already.
You bashed a source that was correct.
Quit acting like a little girl. You were wrong. Grow up.

They misrepresented that the overwhelming majority of donations went to Democrats

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Cool, just out of curiosity what happens when you compare:

SUM(Red Crime Family) to SUM(Blue Crime Family) from that chart ?

What does that say about whom "Suburban Women" support ? Thanks in advance.

"It's the things that make you go, hmm, hmm, hmm" -- Things that make you go hmmmm, C+C Music Factory

The poster claimed the article was bullshit. It clearly wasnt..open secrets also claimed small donations from women for trump weren't available.
Things that make you go hmmm lol

Do the math. The totals were available. If Rump is getting the highest large amount donations from the Women from the Suburbs and he is listed as 5th in the total then that means that the bulk of the Suburban smaller donations is going to, of all people, Bernie. In reality, Rump isn't doing that well in the suburbs when you take the totals and the top 4 Dem Candidates total. The Math doesn't agree with brietbart. And you can mask it all wish but you can't change that.

Women originally in the suburbs showed little support for Trump. It has increased, showing suburban women are now supporting him. He has the largest totals amongst large donations of all the candidates individually, not collectively by party. Only you read it that way in your cockeyed view. That was the basis of the opensecrets article. Geeesh.

He has the largest "Large" contributions but Bernie has the highest at almost twice as much total for suburban women donations. Meaning, Bernie is getting a boat load of small donations from suburban women and so is Pete. What that all means is, Suburban Women will, for the most part, NOT vote for Rump. When you take the total of the top 4, Rump has only about a sixth of the amount. And then most of that is from large donations. Suburban Women will vote Democrat this time around by a large margin.

They dont even have trumps numbers for small donations.

But they have the totals. Do the math. Rump only leads in the large donation category. That means that more people donated to the others by a very wide margin with smaller donations. You can try and us fuzzy math if you want but you can't change the fact that Rump cannot depend on Suburban Women to get reelected.

 

[depotoo]

Interesting info.

Tell me: In one sentence, what does the article say when you read it?
.

breitbart.com is your source? They lie almost as much as Rump does.

Suburban women could decide 2020: Who are they giving to?
the study is by opensecrets.org

That is LARGE dollar denominations and not the total amount nor the total number of donors. As usual, you are misrepresenting a factual site. If that were the only thing then you would be right but in reality, Rump is rated 5th behind the leading 4 for total amounts from Suburban Women Donors. That conflicts with what you are claiming. What you present only means that Rump is getting a high amount of LARGE donations from Suburban Women Donors. That means the others are getting the lions share of every other Woman Donor.

More dog and pony show.

Breitbart didnt claim he was beating women in general. Good gawd man, shut up already.
You bashed a source that was correct.
Quit acting like a little girl. You were wrong. Grow up.

They misrepresented that the overwhelming majority of donations went to Democrats

No, they didn’t. They did not speak of collectively. You guys are just butt hurt because they didn’t. Lol

 

[Daryl Hunt]

breitbart.com is your source? They lie almost as much as Rump does.

Suburban women could decide 2020: Who are they giving to?
the study is by opensecrets.org

That is LARGE dollar denominations and not the total amount nor the total number of donors. As usual, you are misrepresenting a factual site. If that were the only thing then you would be right but in reality, Rump is rated 5th behind the leading 4 for total amounts from Suburban Women Donors. That conflicts with what you are claiming. What you present only means that Rump is getting a high amount of LARGE donations from Suburban Women Donors. That means the others are getting the lions share of every other Woman Donor.

More dog and pony show.

Breitbart didnt claim he was beating women in general. Good gawd man, shut up already.
You bashed a source that was correct.
Quit acting like a little girl. You were wrong. Grow up.

They misrepresented that the overwhelming majority of donations went to Democrats

No, they didn’t. They did not speak of collectively. You guys are just butt hurt because they didn’t. Lol

Sounds to me like you are more than a little butthurt that you got caught in yet another lie. Works for me. Nice try on the deflection though. We just ain't buying what you are selling.

 

[TNHarley]

Interesting info.

Tell me: In one sentence, what does the article say when you read it?
.

breitbart.com is your source? They lie almost as much as Rump does.

Suburban women could decide 2020: Who are they giving to?
the study is by opensecrets.org

That is LARGE dollar denominations and not the total amount nor the total number of donors. As usual, you are misrepresenting a factual site. If that were the only thing then you would be right but in reality, Rump is rated 5th behind the leading 4 for total amounts from Suburban Women Donors. That conflicts with what you are claiming. What you present only means that Rump is getting a high amount of LARGE donations from Suburban Women Donors. That means the others are getting the lions share of every other Woman Donor.

More dog and pony show.

Breitbart didnt claim he was beating women in general. Good gawd man, shut up already.
You bashed a source that was correct.
Quit acting like a little girl. You were wrong. Grow up.

They misrepresented that the overwhelming majority of donations went to Democrats

It was about the individuals. Not party.
My gawd. I dont understand the confusion here. Are you guys that fuckin butthurt?

 

[depotoo]

The poster claimed the article was bullshit. It clearly wasnt..open secrets also claimed small donations from women for trump weren't available.
Things that make you go hmmm lol

Do the math. The totals were available. If Rump is getting the highest large amount donations from the Women from the Suburbs and he is listed as 5th in the total then that means that the bulk of the Suburban smaller donations is going to, of all people, Bernie. In reality, Rump isn't doing that well in the suburbs when you take the totals and the top 4 Dem Candidates total. The Math doesn't agree with brietbart. And you can mask it all wish but you can't change that.

Women originally in the suburbs showed little support for Trump. It has increased, showing suburban women are now supporting him. He has the largest totals amongst large donations of all the candidates individually, not collectively by party. Only you read it that way in your cockeyed view. That was the basis of the opensecrets article. Geeesh.

He has the largest "Large" contributions but Bernie has the highest at almost twice as much total for suburban women donations. Meaning, Bernie is getting a boat load of small donations from suburban women and so is Pete. What that all means is, Suburban Women will, for the most part, NOT vote for Rump. When you take the total of the top 4, Rump has only about a sixth of the amount. And then most of that is from large donations. Suburban Women will vote Democrat this time around by a large margin.

They dont even have trumps numbers for small donations.

But they have the totals. Do the math. Rump only leads in the large donation category. That means that more people donated to the others by a very wide margin with smaller donations. You can try and us fuzzy math if you want but you can't change the fact that Rump cannot depend on Suburban Women to get reelected.

That was not what the article was about. It is what you wanted it to be about. Because it wasn’t you go on a several pages long rant trying to make a point they weren’t making, claiming their original point was wrong, when it wasn’t. Give it up! Your butt hurt is unbelievable.

 

[depotoo]

breitbart.com is your source? They lie almost as much as Rump does.

Suburban women could decide 2020: Who are they giving to?
the study is by opensecrets.org

That is LARGE dollar denominations and not the total amount nor the total number of donors. As usual, you are misrepresenting a factual site. If that were the only thing then you would be right but in reality, Rump is rated 5th behind the leading 4 for total amounts from Suburban Women Donors. That conflicts with what you are claiming. What you present only means that Rump is getting a high amount of LARGE donations from Suburban Women Donors. That means the others are getting the lions share of every other Woman Donor.

More dog and pony show.

Breitbart didnt claim he was beating women in general. Good gawd man, shut up already.
You bashed a source that was correct.
Quit acting like a little girl. You were wrong. Grow up.

They misrepresented that the overwhelming majority of donations went to Democrats

It was about the individuals. Not party.
My gawd. I dont understand the confusion here. Are you guys that fuckin butthurt?

Obviously they are. And to go on this long of a rant must be fearful, too.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

breitbart.com is your source? They lie almost as much as Rump does.

Suburban women could decide 2020: Who are they giving to?
the study is by opensecrets.org

That is LARGE dollar denominations and not the total amount nor the total number of donors. As usual, you are misrepresenting a factual site. If that were the only thing then you would be right but in reality, Rump is rated 5th behind the leading 4 for total amounts from Suburban Women Donors. That conflicts with what you are claiming. What you present only means that Rump is getting a high amount of LARGE donations from Suburban Women Donors. That means the others are getting the lions share of every other Woman Donor.

More dog and pony show.

Breitbart didnt claim he was beating women in general. Good gawd man, shut up already.
You bashed a source that was correct.
Quit acting like a little girl. You were wrong. Grow up.

They misrepresented that the overwhelming majority of donations went to Democrats

It was about the individuals. Not party.
My gawd. I dont understand the confusion here. Are you guys that fuckin butthurt?

Not me. I find this entertaining as hell.

 

[TNHarley]

The poster claimed the article was bullshit. It clearly wasnt..open secrets also claimed small donations from women for trump weren't available.
Things that make you go hmmm lol

Do the math. The totals were available. If Rump is getting the highest large amount donations from the Women from the Suburbs and he is listed as 5th in the total then that means that the bulk of the Suburban smaller donations is going to, of all people, Bernie. In reality, Rump isn't doing that well in the suburbs when you take the totals and the top 4 Dem Candidates total. The Math doesn't agree with brietbart. And you can mask it all wish but you can't change that.

Women originally in the suburbs showed little support for Trump. It has increased, showing suburban women are now supporting him. He has the largest totals amongst large donations of all the candidates individually, not collectively by party. Only you read it that way in your cockeyed view. That was the basis of the opensecrets article. Geeesh.

He has the largest "Large" contributions but Bernie has the highest at almost twice as much total for suburban women donations. Meaning, Bernie is getting a boat load of small donations from suburban women and so is Pete. What that all means is, Suburban Women will, for the most part, NOT vote for Rump. When you take the total of the top 4, Rump has only about a sixth of the amount. And then most of that is from large donations. Suburban Women will vote Democrat this time around by a large margin.

They dont even have trumps numbers for small donations.

But they have the totals. Do the math. Rump only leads in the large donation category. That means that more people donated to the others by a very wide margin with smaller donations. You can try and us fuzzy math if you want but you can't change the fact that Rump cannot depend on Suburban Women to get reelected.

They dont have the suburban women small contributions for trump. How can you come to a conclusion when you dont have the numbers?
You are a liar. Are you and trump related?

 

[depotoo]

Suburban women could decide 2020: Who are they giving to?
the study is by opensecrets.org

That is LARGE dollar denominations and not the total amount nor the total number of donors. As usual, you are misrepresenting a factual site. If that were the only thing then you would be right but in reality, Rump is rated 5th behind the leading 4 for total amounts from Suburban Women Donors. That conflicts with what you are claiming. What you present only means that Rump is getting a high amount of LARGE donations from Suburban Women Donors. That means the others are getting the lions share of every other Woman Donor.

More dog and pony show.

Breitbart didnt claim he was beating women in general. Good gawd man, shut up already.
You bashed a source that was correct.
Quit acting like a little girl. You were wrong. Grow up.

They misrepresented that the overwhelming majority of donations went to Democrats

No, they didn’t. They did not speak of collectively. You guys are just butt hurt because they didn’t. Lol

Sounds to me like you are more than a little butthurt that you got caught in yet another lie. Works for me. Nice try on the deflection though. We just ain't buying what you are selling.

The only lie told here was by you. You wanted to change the articles intent. Tell opensecrets. Quit arguing with those that read it for what it simply was, a-look at each candidate, rather than by party.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Do the math. The totals were available. If Rump is getting the highest large amount donations from the Women from the Suburbs and he is listed as 5th in the total then that means that the bulk of the Suburban smaller donations is going to, of all people, Bernie. In reality, Rump isn't doing that well in the suburbs when you take the totals and the top 4 Dem Candidates total. The Math doesn't agree with brietbart. And you can mask it all wish but you can't change that.

Women originally in the suburbs showed little support for Trump. It has increased, showing suburban women are now supporting him. He has the largest totals amongst large donations of all the candidates individually, not collectively by party. Only you read it that way in your cockeyed view. That was the basis of the opensecrets article. Geeesh.

He has the largest "Large" contributions but Bernie has the highest at almost twice as much total for suburban women donations. Meaning, Bernie is getting a boat load of small donations from suburban women and so is Pete. What that all means is, Suburban Women will, for the most part, NOT vote for Rump. When you take the total of the top 4, Rump has only about a sixth of the amount. And then most of that is from large donations. Suburban Women will vote Democrat this time around by a large margin.

They dont even have trumps numbers for small donations.

But they have the totals. Do the math. Rump only leads in the large donation category. That means that more people donated to the others by a very wide margin with smaller donations. You can try and us fuzzy math if you want but you can't change the fact that Rump cannot depend on Suburban Women to get reelected.

That was not what the article was about. It is what you wanted it to be about. Because it wasn’t you go on a several pages long rant trying to make a point they weren’t making, claiming their original point was wrong, when it wasn’t. Give it up! Your butt hurt is unbelievable.

I took the time to do the math and it didn't add up to your claims. In your world, did they have a course called Fuzzy Math 101?

And I am having a ball over here. This is entertaining, cupcake.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Do the math. The totals were available. If Rump is getting the highest large amount donations from the Women from the Suburbs and he is listed as 5th in the total then that means that the bulk of the Suburban smaller donations is going to, of all people, Bernie. In reality, Rump isn't doing that well in the suburbs when you take the totals and the top 4 Dem Candidates total. The Math doesn't agree with brietbart. And you can mask it all wish but you can't change that.

Women originally in the suburbs showed little support for Trump. It has increased, showing suburban women are now supporting him. He has the largest totals amongst large donations of all the candidates individually, not collectively by party. Only you read it that way in your cockeyed view. That was the basis of the opensecrets article. Geeesh.

He has the largest "Large" contributions but Bernie has the highest at almost twice as much total for suburban women donations. Meaning, Bernie is getting a boat load of small donations from suburban women and so is Pete. What that all means is, Suburban Women will, for the most part, NOT vote for Rump. When you take the total of the top 4, Rump has only about a sixth of the amount. And then most of that is from large donations. Suburban Women will vote Democrat this time around by a large margin.

They dont even have trumps numbers for small donations.

But they have the totals. Do the math. Rump only leads in the large donation category. That means that more people donated to the others by a very wide margin with smaller donations. You can try and us fuzzy math if you want but you can't change the fact that Rump cannot depend on Suburban Women to get reelected.

They dont have the suburban women small contributions for trump. How can you come to a conclusion when you dont have the numbers?
You are a liar. Are you and trump related?

Simple math. They gave the total. Then they gave the subtotal of the large donors. It's 5th grade math. Sorry, but they didn't offer Fuzzy Math 101 that you took in the schools that I attended.

 

[Dana7360]

Trump Surges Among Women in Suburbs | Breitbart
Hi guys good luck in 2025 with Eric trump lol

Interesting info.

Tell me: In one sentence, what does the article say when you read it?
.

The Russian bot you're replying to is delusional but just doing their job to spread disinformation and lies,

The reality is that the exact opposite is happening. All over the nation. We white women are disgusted and horrified with trump and are voting against him in droves.

The proof of that russian bot's lies is with the election earlier this month in Pennsylvania and Virginia. To some extent Kentucky.

It's always best to just ask that russian bot "how's the weather in Moscow comrade?"

 

[Daryl Hunt]

That is LARGE dollar denominations and not the total amount nor the total number of donors. As usual, you are misrepresenting a factual site. If that were the only thing then you would be right but in reality, Rump is rated 5th behind the leading 4 for total amounts from Suburban Women Donors. That conflicts with what you are claiming. What you present only means that Rump is getting a high amount of LARGE donations from Suburban Women Donors. That means the others are getting the lions share of every other Woman Donor.

More dog and pony show.

Breitbart didnt claim he was beating women in general. Good gawd man, shut up already.
You bashed a source that was correct.
Quit acting like a little girl. You were wrong. Grow up.

They misrepresented that the overwhelming majority of donations went to Democrats

No, they didn’t. They did not speak of collectively. You guys are just butt hurt because they didn’t. Lol

Sounds to me like you are more than a little butthurt that you got caught in yet another lie. Works for me. Nice try on the deflection though. We just ain't buying what you are selling.

The only lie told here was by you. You wanted to change the articles intent. Tell opensecrets. Quit arguing with those that read it for what it simply was, a-look at each candidate, rather than by party.

Actually, opensecrets just presented the facts with no narratives. You provided the narratives to fit your own agenda. And you used your own Fuzzy Math to arrive at it.

still being entertained, how about you?