I'm clearly missing the problem here? He has the wrong statistic (literally the opposite quantity), but what part of his statement doesn't make sense?
The question answers itself. He didn't take the time to have the right statistic and is running with a flagrant lie to insinuate something. What part of a civic society is founded on falsities?
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. You can bend a statistic any way you want, the problem is most people don't understand statistics and how they can be used to prove any point; they simply believe those that support their argument and don't understand, or don't want to understand, any counter arguments. As a result, they want to define society on their viewpoint and view an opposing viewpoint not just as wrong but as evil; even when the opposing viewpoint actually points out out how reality benefits them. It's like when the reality is manufacturing is not returning to the US, at least not to the days when you could build a car on sheer manpower alone, so they think those jobs will return, when the reality is if they return it will be in the form of high tech facilities, in non-unions states, that use robots and a few skilled techs running the facility, not 20 union members, with high school educations, turning wrenchs putting together the transmission and another union members 100 building the car. They want to believe those jobs will return ignoring the realities of the market. It just proves the maxim that you can't go broke, or get elected, underestimating the intelligence of the average American or voter.