The increase could have been by 393,000 had he not publicly gone against the validity of mail in voting. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Your point in no way refutes mine. If you don’t understand why then I seriously question your intellectual capabilities. What you’re doing right now is affirming a disjunct which is a logical fallacy. Here’s an analogy you might be able to understand: Africa’s population has grown a lot in the past decade, but it would have grown by even more than it did if not for AIDS. Correct or incorrect?