This is the number that ought to stop every Republican in Washington cold: in the 30 comparable Senate races used for the original analysis, the GOP candidate finished below President Trump’s 2024 two-party share in 29 of them.
That does not prove a stolen election. It does prove the pattern is real, measurable and far too consequential to wave away with another consultant’s memo about “the political environment.”
The original chart put a simple line through the wreckage: Republican 2026 vote share landed at roughly 85% of President Trump’s 2024 share, state after state.
We rebuilt the Senate side of that claim from the ground up.
The Federal Election Commission publishes the official 2024 presidential workbook compiled from state election offices. Using President Trump’s and Kamala Harris’s certified totals, we calculated President Trump’s two-party share in each state rather than trusting a screenshot or somebody else’s rounded percentages.
The workbook supplies the state-by-state raw vote totals behind that comparison, not a model-generated estimate. That lets every 2024 percentage in the worksheet be traced back to the official Trump and Harris vote columns before it is compared with the current Senate returns.
We used the same two-party denominator in every state: Trump votes divided by the combined Trump-and-Harris total. That consistent denominator matters because the analyst’s original 30-race chart compares the Republican and Democratic candidates rather than every ballot cast for third parties or independents.
For 2026, the current Senate results table provides candidate-level shares for all 35 contests and identifies civicAPI as its live results feed. Those returns are still preliminary in several states; the FEC itself warns that 2026 federal results are not yet available as a certified national compilation and directs readers to state election offices.
On the exact 30-state Democrat-versus-Republican subset shown in the first chart, our result was blunt: 29 of 30 Republican shares were lower than President Trump’s 2024 share. Maine was the lone exception.
Our through-zero regression coefficient was 0.848. The centered R-squared was 0.885.
In plain English, the current data snapshot lands almost exactly on the analyst’s advertised 0.85 line, while the fit accounts for roughly 88% of the state-to-state variation in Republican share.
The analyst later expanded the test to every Senate contest and reported 34 of 35 Republicans below President Trump, a 0.849 coefficient and an R-squared of 0.87.
But the explosive “0.15%” line needs to be handled honestly.
If each state were an independent coin flip with a 74.3% historical chance of Republican underperformance, the probability of seeing at least 29 underperformances in 30 trials is about 0.154%—roughly one in 649.
Change that baseline and the answer moves fast. At 70%, the same calculation is about 0.031%, or one in 3,202. At 75%, it is about 0.196%, or one in 509.
The analyst’s later defense names a 68.6% historical baseline and gives a one-in-1,670 estimate. An exact independent-binomial calculation at 68.6% produces about 0.018%, or one in 5,521.
That mismatch means the advertised tail number cannot be treated as settled until the historical dataset and statistical method are fully disclosed.
And there is another major caveat: 30 Senate races are not 30 isolated laboratory experiments. They share the same president, economy, national media, party brands and midterm climate.
Correlation across states makes a simple independence model too aggressive.
So no, 0.15% is not the probability that the election was illegitimate. R-squared is not the percentage of ballots controlled by a formula.
And a fitted coefficient does not prove vote switching, preplanning or an algorithm inside election machines.
The analyst’s rebuttal argues that the line held as later counts and additional races came in, and that a proportional decline is different from the usual equal-point national swing.
That is where the argument should go next: disclose the full historical comparison, freeze the model, publish the code and test it against certified returns. Then compare paper ballots, poll-book check-ins, voter files and machine totals wherever state law permits.
Republicans should not claim more than the evidence proves. They should also stop pretending a 29-of-30 directional result and an independently reproducible 0.848 line are nothing.
The math has raised a serious question. Transparent records, hand-count checks and rigorous audits can answer it.
Continue reading...
[ H/T WLT Report ]
