She Won, Part III: The Devil Is In The Data

[liberalla]

Last edited Thu Jun 19, 2025, 07:24 PM - Edit history (1)

88 counties flipped red. None flipped blue. Trump swept every swing state—each just above the mandatory recount thresholds. What are the odds? About one in never.

She Won, Part III: The Devil Is In The Data

Darkness Our Old Friend

Watching the results roll in on election night, we can probably all agree—our collective gut was telling us something was just… off. Kornacki wasn’t nacki-ing, the blue wave never appeared, and a familiar dread—reminiscent of 2016—began to creep in. But this time was different. This time, we knew.

Between 2020 and 2021, Trump’s allies illegally breached voting equipment in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Colorado, and Arizona. And thanks to a Federalist Society-led appeals court in Georgia, “Teflon Don” got away with breaking the law—again.

At 9:32 p.m. on November 5, Elon Musk preemptively declared victory with a cryptic tweet: “Game, set, match.” Thirty minutes later, Ted Cruz’s smug face squatted on the nation’s screens like he was claiming a throne. Many went to bed discouraged that night. But some of us? We went to bed determined.

Because if you’ve never been to Texas, let’s get one thing straight: everyone hates Ted Cruz.

So, we got to work.


When The Math Ain’t Mathing...

OK, now they dive into the numbers. The nitty gritty data, statistics, graphs, experts, etc.


Read on here:
https://thiswillhold.substack.com/p/she-won-part-iii-the-devil-is-in



_______________________________________________________

Part I: She Won. They Didn't Just Change the Machines. They Rewired the Election.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220411342

Part II: She Won, Part II: Seven Judges. Direct-to-Cell Satellites. A Hijacked Election.
https://democraticunderground.com/100220412804
__________________________________________________________


*** I am adding info from Election Truth Alliance

The ETA is specifically calling for a hand audit of paper voting records. This would be a non-routine review of paper voting records for the purpose of determining whether votes were counted correctly.

"it’s NOT too late to do widespread hand audits of the results"

Check out the Audit Advocacy Toolkit from ETA (https://electiontruthalliance.org/audit-advocacy-toolkit)
for detailed information, resources and specific steps you can take to push these hand audits forward.
They have a downloadable pdf file to assist you.

ETA is working hard on this and there's much more on their website. They also have a youtube channel.

[pfitz59]

1. Trump's 'win' was a statistical improbability

all polls showed an even race, or Kamala with a slight lead. Losing ALL the swing states is improbable.

[Celerity]

11. not in multiple swing states and even in a few national polls

you said

all polls showed an even race, or Kamala with a slight lead

no

some examples:

https://www.270towin.com/2024-presidential-election-polls/

[paleotn]

22. Polls were extraordinarily close. Many within the margin of error....

Yet everything swung against her on election night. Not impossible. Just very, very, very improbable. 88 swing counties going red. Not one going blue. Not one. All just outside the mandatory recount range. Weird.

But,. hey! Getting struck by lightening 3 or 4 times in quick succession isn't impossible.

[EdmondDantes_]

45. Basically the entire country shifted red at the presidential level

Nearly 90% of counties in the country shifted red. Not even a little unsurprising that the swing counties would given that. Leaving out the full story makes it easy to create a false impression.

https://vividmaps.com/2024-presidential-election-county-by-county/

Getting struck by lightning is rare. Getting struck by lightning in a lightning storm while holding a big metal rod is a lot more likely.

[Tribetime]

25. That still shows that harris should have won at least two or three

Swing states

[SheltieLover]

2. Kick

[yellow dahlia]

3. Our gut feelings match the real math.

[questionseverything]

4. So all 88 swing counties going red, and winning all 7 swing states outside the recount margin?

Chances are (according to this article)

1 out of 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That number looked so insane I went back and double checked, it’s correct

Some one on here the other day told me with numbers and probability you can’t really have an “impossible “ chance but I would say this is pretty close

[Wiz Imp]

14. The assumptions made to come up with that figure are ridiculous

The person who wrote this is being completely dishonest. It's a perfect example of somebody using statistical data to lie by manipulating them to produce the outcome you want. It is garbage. (or the record - I was a professional Statistician for 34 years). All these claims being made in these posts have absolutely zero evidence backing them up.

[TheRickles]

15. Could you give us a couple of specific examples to help us sort this out? Thanks.

[LymphocyteLover]

20. Unless they show exactly how they calculated that probability-- and all the input data

it's not to be trusted and very likely bogus -- or rests on a very specific set of assumptions that may not be very likely.

I'd love to see how they made that calculation!

[TheRickles]

31. The article at the link describes their calculations: if 88 counties all flipped in one direction

and none went the other way, then by figuring that each race is a 50/50 toss-up (which they admit is a huge leap), the overall odds become 1 in 2^88 (ie, 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 repeated 88 times), or one in a gazillion. There does seem to be something there, even with some shaky assumptions.

[Wiz Imp]

37. You can't just look at those that flipped.

There were likely hundreds of other counties just as close that didn't flip. A first year student in Statistics would be able to tell you what he tried to do here is ridiculous.

[TheRickles]

39. But why didn't any counties flip in the other direction? That is the key question.

[EdmondDantes_]

46. Because 90% of counties across the country went more red in 2024 than in 2020

https://vividmaps.com/2024-presidential-election-county-by-county/

The number you're citing about a bunch of 50/50 races is just utterly absurd. What was the polling in those races, what was the money situation, what other races were on the ballot, what is the socio-economic status of those districts in 2020 compared to 2024? That person is making things up and calling it math or a model. It's garbage in, garbage out.

[TheRickles]

47. Thank you for providing an actual answer: 90% of counties went redder.

And yet, because so many of these counties are in low-population rural areas, Trump still did not get a majority of the popular vote. It's why America looks so red in the red/blue, county-by-county maps - he won massively in total land area, but not in population.

[Wiz Imp]

49. Most areas went more for Trump than in 2020.

It's unusual and can even be considered unlikely, but the idea that it's like "1 in a gazillion unlikely" is insane.

[LymphocyteLover]

53. OK thanks. But the 50-50 toss-up is a big assumption for every state

-- certain swing states were clearly leaning more towards Dump and there could have well been a surge in support for Dump at the end.

Plus there is also the factor that there was an overall big shift towards Dump from 2020, like a 5-7 point swing on average across the country, including blue states. Plus he won the popular vote.

I'm not saying there wasn't cheating or vote theft, but I don't find the swing state probability argument meaningful in itself.

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. Zero evidence?

Now wait a minute- I’m sure there is just as much evidence for 2024 election denialism as there was for 2020 election denialism…they just haven’t found their Rudy and Sidney willing to risk disbarment to take the “evidence” to court.

[Wiz Imp]

29. Here's the thing - I am actually open to believing that the election wasn't 100% fair

The problem is, there have now been at least a half dozen people or groups supposedly presenting their "evidence" and not a single one of them have shown legitimate data that can be checked and verified. It's all pure speculation. It's actually kind of sad that there are people on the "left" making similar arguments about 2024 to what the "right" made and still make about 2020. The idea that ALL Democratic politicians are ignoring supposedly clear evidence of a stolen election is ludicrous. There are thousands of brilliant people working as Democratic politicians and associated with them. If a single one of them found any of these arguments remotely feasible - they would surely speak out about it. The fact they haven't tells you everything you need to know.

Thankfully, the Democrats don't have idiot lawyers like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell.

[questionseverything]

28. They use their names, the data they use is from government reports

The presentation is very detailed, please provide your rebuttal in detail

[Wiz Imp]

34. They use their names? This Will Hold is somebody's name?

I'm not going to waste time rebutting nonsense. Go ahead and have fun screaming about this nonsense non-stop for the next 4 years. It's not going to help anything, but if it makes you feel better, then that's something positive, I guess.

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. Denial is a powerful coping mechanism, and part of grieving a loss

But it’s unhealthy when it persists, and it doesn’t help Dems win elections.

Questions never answered satisfactorily:

If Musk rigged/tampered/flipped votes, why not flip more house races?

Why did Musk allow himself to be publicly humiliated in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, when he could have rigged to election for the candidate he donated millions to and supported loudly and proudly?

This is Kooky CT nonsense, and a waste of time and resources.

[questionseverything]

7. Just curious, are you an American citizen

Just wondering with the Canada flag

[Wiz Imp]

13. I'm an American citizen and I agree with them

I would like to see somebody try to provide logical answers to those questions.

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. Dual citizen

Californian by birth, Canadian by choice.

Member of the reality-based community wherever I go.

[questionseverything]

24. Where do you vote?

[Fiendish Thingy]

27. Nanaimo BC. Nt

[bluestarone]

6. I've gotta ask this question.

Has any of these findings been offered to Marc Elias?

[Fiendish Thingy]

32. They aren't "findings", they are theories

And of course Elias is aware of them, and has dismissed them (at least as of inauguration day).

Elias is a serious lawyer who’s not willing to risk disbarment by introducing fraudulent “evidence” in a court of law.

[Clouds Passing]

8. Harris/Walz won

[Wiz Imp]

38. You convinced me. Congratulations! What a great argument you present!

[Clouds Passing]

44. I'm not a lawyer, never was a debator. I read the evidence.

Don't need to cut people down wiz.

[Botany]

9. Thanx for posting this

N/t

[Bluestocking]

10. A lot of Democratic voters were unhappy with the way Biden was treated

Myself included. As a lifelong democratic voter I always vote for all the Democratic candidates for every election. Unfortunately not everyone is like me so I am not surprised we lost. We lost because of all the voters that did not vote.

[Botany]

12. Many did vote but Peter Thiel's Palantir was running a clean up operation that would hide any evidence of ..

… of flipped or deleted votes.

“The Digital Janitor: also known as forensic sanitization, it was now being embedded into Eaton-managed hardware connected directly to voting systems. Palantir didn’t change the votes. It helped ensure you’d never prove it if someone else did.”


https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220411342

[Festivito]

16. Unless someone includes how many full paper recounts were done in US, ...

this won't be believed.

[ancianita]

19. I can't believe any of this if it's only from a substack source. There have to be other sources. The Marc Elias Group

has investigative capacity and we haven't heard a word from him on 2024 irregularities.

[questionseverything]

30. Elias is a lawyer, not a computer technician

[chowder66]

41. His firm is also litigating 55 cases.

[questionseverything]

42. Elias is an incredible player in this fight for democracy

[chowder66]

50. Indeed he is.

[Hornedfrog2000]

21. Why are some people

Acting like its their job to stop members from believing something isnt mathing?

[Cha]

23. Bookmark TY

🕯️🕊️💙🌈🇺🇸🌊

[et tu]

26. i'm not a math person but

all the swing states to krasnov????
some hand counts won't do any harm
and might do a lot of good. we all know
that the rw lies and doesn't mind cheating
let's not be ostriches!

[obnoxiousdrunk]

33. Cant wait for

Part vii.

[oasis]

35. Certainly worth pursuing.

[Faux pas]

36. K n R

[calimary]

40. If it's true that "everyone hates Ted Cruz," how does he stay in office?

Not doubting you, here. It just starts me worrying about how much monkey-business is going on to boost REPUBS in ways we never see, that they don’t deserve.

[Takket]

43. yeah... this "math" is trash..........

Here are two things said in the article.........

"No, it’s not a coin flip."

"But to be generous—and to keep the math conservative—let’s assume each of the 88 counties had a simple 50/50 chance of flipping red or blue."

So... he says it is not a coin flip, and then models it as a coin flip. At this point, you can safely closer your browser window and go on about your day.

What he has given you is the odds of flipping a coin 88 times, and getting heads all 88 times.

This is meaningless. Because this is not how elections work. There are no coin flips here. People make a concision choice of who to vote for, and those votes are counted up.

And as you can see here, 89% of counties voted "more red" in 2024 than they did in 2020:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/06/us/politics/presidential-election-2024-red-shift.html

And that should be telling you it would actually be WEIRD for Harris to be flipping red counties to blue, when the shift to the right was in 89% of counties. What few counties she did better in were either already blue and stayed blue, or were red but she didn't do well enough to overcome the deficit between 2020 and 2024.

No coin flips. Dumb/disengaged voters absolutely killed us. your "i never follow politics because both sides are awful but my aunt of facebook says Harris will bring endless war" idiots.

for a REAL analysis of what happened: try this. (Hint: this is what the DNC is going to use to figure out why we lost and how to fix it, not fairy tales).

https://catalist.us/whathappened2024/

[musette_sf]

48. Kick

[Foolacious]

51. Discrepancies between early/mail-in votes and day-of-election votes.

Some of the evidence is of the "Wow, that seems really unlikely" variety. And some of it is of the "this is an inconsistency that is unexplainable... unless the Republicans cheated" variety. Here is some of the latter form of evidence from the posted article that I'll present here for (I hope) further clarity:

"Drop-off" is an election-related term of art that refers to the amount by which an up-ballot candidate's vote exceeds that of a down-ballot candidate of the same party. For example, if Democratic presidential candidate Smith receives 50% of the vote in the state of Jeffersonia, and Democratic senate candidate Jones receives 48% of the vote in the same state, then Smith's drop-off margin is 2%. (In fact, 2% is actually a typical drop-off margin.) If Smith receives 1% fewer votes than Jones, then Smith is said to have "negative drop-off".

Now, if a candidate has a certain amount of drop-off within a state, there is no reason for the amount of that drop-off to vary depending on whether the votes being analyzed are mail-in votes, early votes, or day-of-election votes. If Smith is less popular than Jones, then that will be true by about the same margin regardless of whether we're looking at day-of votes or early votes or mail-in votes. There is no reason for a candidate to have a significantly different drop-off among mail-in votes versus day-of votes.

But in the 2024 presidential election in Pennsylvania (which is the data being most heavily analyzed right now), this discrepancy is exactly what we see. Trump and Harris have similar drop-offs among mail-in voters: 1.96% versus 1.48%. But in day-of voting, Trump's drop-off more than doubles to 4.15% (which is good for him), while Harris's drops by almost half to 0.87% (which is bad for her). This is not a case of "Well, I guess Trump was just more popular". There is no mechanism aside from fraud that yields this kind of discrepancy among voters within a single party.

[Metaphorical]

52. Why this is important?

1. There are statistical patterns here that are unlikely, and moreover, they are targeted to a set number of swing sets. Does it prove anything? No. However, it introduces a reasonable question of doubt.
2. Will it invalidate the election? No, probably not, especially given the current players behind the scenes.
3. However, if the discrepancies are NOT questioned, then the same method will be used in the next election and the next and the one after that. I think it is unlikely, but given this in context of everything else (Musk's buying votes, bomb threats, etc., this needs to be addressed, and if so, resolved.
4. This is not rocket science. If it can be demonstrated that it is possible, then it needs to be taken seriously.
5. Almost every authoritarian government comes into power through some form of vote rigging or similar shenanigans, and stays in power by continuing the charade, even when people are aware that the charade exists. However, by showing that the charade exists also undermines the legitimacy of that regime.

Also, for what it's worth, I am a statistician and a demographer. Yes, the data looks fishy as hell.

[Doodley]

54. Quite simply, the polls were close anyway, but they were wrong. Statistically, that isn't that unlikely.