[Steely Tom]

They know this number to three decimal places of accuracy?

Doubt it.

[GeorgiaDawg32]

It’s another hit piece. Trump has them scared and I, for one, am enjoying watching “them” squirm..

[tsowellfan]

Pure propaganda in my opinion. How would they even get a general number. I don’t believe this story at all.

There absolutely no way they can determine a person’s eligibility to vote let a lone the person’s real name.

Now, Hillary Clinton’s followers are all typical democrat voters and will all vote since most of them don’t even exist.

[ConservativeInPA]

Do they know if they are even real people? There are millions of social media accounts that have no human being associated.

[usafa92]

Exactly. Let’s assume for a moment every number in this article is accurate. Trump has 3.1M followers On Facebook of which about 1.5M would be eligible to vote. Little Jebbie he has 240,000 followers on Facebook. Any way they cut this Jebbie is getting hammered. I have never seen the elites go to these lengths to try and discredit somebody. It’s hilarious. The Republican party will fight harder against its own candidates than it ever will against Hillary.

[Nervous Tick]

>> They know this number to three decimal places of accuracy?

Why not. After all, 97.37% of all statistics are made up on the fly. What the heck, make that 97.378%.

[LS]

According to a study done by our own Sam Adams, it is irrelevant because even at 40 percent Trump crushes everyone else and in the week of the debate alone added more followers than most candidates even had---and you can bet they were interested in politics.

And Sam's #s differed from those given here for Rubio if I recall. But Trump's opposition won't be Rubio. It will be a socially anemic Bush or Cankles.

[editor-surveyor]

Depends on the size of the sample.

If they got their data from the site servers, it is probably correct.

[Jane Long]

Yep. I think it’s been disputed, on other forums/social media, etc., earlier today.