Sometimes in debates on various issues, either side of the debate can claim a broken record as strong evidence/proof of their point of view - whether we're talking about politics, economics, science, sport or anything else. The reality is that we have enough events and ways of measuring them that simply from a normal distribution records will regularly be broken in something, without being anything else than just normal. If you highlight the specific issue after the fact then the odds of it happening may have been extremely low - but we don't however notice the absence of anything special happening, that gets taken for granted, so just the extremes get noticed and assumed to mean something strange is happening.
As a sporting aside (to avoid tarnishing this with a specific political debate), I am a fan of Test Cricket. Watch any Test series, like The Ashes, and you can virtually guarantee that in any series a lot of records will be broken - though the types of records can vary and sometimes get grounded upon specifics eg to give just three from memory: "Highest sixth-wicket English partnership in Brisbane", "Most runs scored by an individual over a series since 1922", "First time ever the top 3 batsmen in an Innings have all scored a century". All no doubt meant much to the individuals afterwards and are entertaining to know but it is one of those quirks. Had any not happened, nobody would have asked beforehand whether those would have happened. The more caveats you add the easier it is to reach a record; expand it into including a record by being a "top 10" of an event historically and you reach far more. Every Olympics someone sets a World Record in something.
Records can obviously be evidence for something, perhaps. But they are not proof and may not even be significant.