Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Botany

(76,929 posts)
Thu Jun 26, 2025, 10:52 AM Jun 2025

She Won, Part IV: And So Did Hillary. The Red Flags That Became Red Carpets. [View all]

We’ve already shared the astronomically improbable statistics from the 2024 election. We know Kamala Harris won. And the numbers you’re about to see are just as staggering. This isn’t about “unlikable candidates,” hacked emails, or mean tweets. It’s about the data.

Because when you strip away the noise and run the numbers—paired with fox-in-the-henhouse oversight—what emerges isn’t just suspicious. It’s mathematically impossible to ignore. And what we’re living through right now, both in the U.S. and around the world, was made possible by the silence after the 2016 election.

Snip

The 2016 election data reveals a widespread undervote anomaly that can’t be explained away by “unpopular candidates.” No, there’s a lot more to it than that. Historically, undervote percentages—representing ballots where voters skipped the presidential line—hovered around 0.5%. But in 2016, that number suddenly spiked to around 1.67%, more than tripling the norm.

The shift wasn’t limited to swing states—it hit across the board. Colorado jumped to 2.76%, California to 2.94%, Maine to 3.10%. Even red states like Indiana (2.59%) and Kansas (3.37%) showed dramatic increases. This wasn’t a natural shift in voter behavior. It was a statistical siren.

Snip

In unpacking the 2016 data, we found statistical improbabilities across all key states. But Michigan tells a different story. A race decided by just 10,704 votes recorded 75,335 undervotes in Detroit and Flint—most of which were disproportionately concentrated in Black, urban precincts where Hillary Clinton was expected to dominate.

Snip

The historical undervote norm is typically around 0.5%, but in Michigan that year it was a 14.4% undervote rate, odds of that occurring naturally are 1 in 10⁹⁸. That’s a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion octillions. Because the voting equipment just happened to “fail” in Black, urban precincts—and thanks to Michigan’s voting laws at the time, the recount was halted.

https://thiswillhold.substack.com/p/she-won-part-iv-and-so-did-hillary

Republicans cheat end of story. Trump, “It will be rigged so well you won’t have to
vote again.” Trump, has also promised that 2026 will be a blow out win.









23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
k and r BoRaGard Jun 2025 #1
Bookmarking questionseverything Jun 2025 #2
Read all 4 parts Botany Jun 2025 #3
Please put all 4 parts links in one op questionseverything Jun 2025 #22
And You All Thought Mr.Bee Jun 2025 #4
Palast AND DENVERPOPS Jun 2025 #7
We Are Seeing The Creation Mr.Bee Jun 2025 #9
Weird that the author doesn't even attempt to explain why they disregard unpopular candidates EdmondDantes_ Jun 2025 #5
Your theory is based on the supposition that all voting machines are accurate all the time questionseverything Jun 2025 #23
Another Substacker hoping to make a living off unfounded conspiracy theories. Silent Type Jun 2025 #6
If the numbers are accurate, these are jarring statistical anomalies. Pacifist Patriot Jun 2025 #11
It's like the BS few weeks ago about Harris getting no votes in NY precinct. True, but Biden didn't either in 2020. Silent Type Jun 2025 #12
No idea where you got that idea. phylny Jun 2025 #13
I'm assuming you know what a precinct is? Here's a link to one of the conspiracy theory posts about that precinct. Silent Type Jun 2025 #15
You assume correctly!! phylny Jun 2025 #21
The numbers in the article are not true Sympthsical Jun 2025 #18
That's precisely the context that I would need. Pacifist Patriot Jun 2025 #19
Have to say, Botany . . . peggysue2 Jun 2025 #8
I've been convinced for awhile now, especially the the 2024 election. He couldn't have won without cheating. Joinfortmill Jun 2025 #10
the g.o.p. felon has cheated at everything his whole life BoRaGard Jun 2025 #14
We understand statistical anomalies, but zorbasd Jun 2025 #16
This is so embarrassing Sympthsical Jun 2025 #17
"Keep your eyes on the prize." H2O Man Jun 2025 #20
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»She Won, Part IV: And So ...