More smoke and mirrors. What I refuted was your insertion of variables that were pure assumptions on your part.
So now that you backed yourself into a corner with a series of lies, you claim PGC stats are smoke and mirrors.
In my example I never claimed the numbers I used actually represented what happened in the state. It was simply a statistical demonstration of how much the sample size and distribution would have had to change in order to get a statewide decrease of 5%. But, the PGC data makes the example a mute point, because sample size and distribution did not shift as RSB claimed.