This is the kind of pattern that should stop every American cold.
A stunning new analysis alleges that one mathematical formula tracked Republican losses across the 2026 midterms with remarkable accuracy — before the final votes were even counted.
The claim is simple, explosive, and impossible to ignore: Republican Senate candidates retained roughly 85% of President Trump’s 2024 vote share, while Democrats allegedly captured the remaining 15% in state after state.
And according to the researchers examining the results, the pattern did not stop with a handful of races. It allegedly repeated across hundreds of counties.
The Gateway Pundit brought the analysis to a much wider audience Tuesday, reporting that the results lined up so closely with a single formula that the outcome appeared to have been mapped in advance.
The report says researchers first noticed Republican Senate candidates repeatedly finishing near 85% of President Trump’s 2024 share. It then points to the same alleged transfer pattern in governor races across Texas, Kansas, Iowa, Ohio, South Carolina, and North Carolina.
The latest chart goes further, plotting actual 2026 county results against a “perfect prediction” line derived from President Trump’s prior support. The report says the dots remained in an unusually tight band instead of scattering as local turnout, candidate strength, and demographic differences might normally produce.
Its conclusion is blunt: the relationship is allegedly too uniform to dismiss as ordinary political movement and warrants an immediate investigation.
The numbers being discussed are extraordinary.
The original statewide analysis, published under the title “The 15% Band,” compared President Trump’s 2024 vote share with Republican performance in 2026 Senate and governor races.
The formula offered by the analyst was straightforward:
Republican 2026 vote share = 0.85 × Trump’s 2024 vote share.
Democrat performance was then described as the Harris 2024 share plus approximately 15% of President Trump’s prior support.
Here is the chart and explanation that ignited the controversy:
Our own review of a published 32-state Senate comparison found that the average Republican retention rate was approximately 84.4% — strikingly close to the alleged 85% formula.
Thirty of the 32 results landed within five percentage points of the formula. Seventeen were within two points, and eight were within a single point.
That does not by itself prove that ballots were altered or that an illegal mechanism controlled the election. But it does confirm that the broad numerical pattern being discussed is real enough to demand a transparent, independent examination.
The allegation grew even more serious when the analysis moved from statewide races to county-level results.
The later model reportedly examined 692 counties and found 673 of them falling within five points of a formula based on President Trump’s 2024 share, with adjustments for deeply Republican and heavily Hispanic counties.
The visual is undeniably startling: county after county clusters tightly around the model’s prediction line.
If hundreds of supposedly independent elections repeatedly produced results following one compact formula, voters deserve to know why.
Was this an extraordinary but natural national swing driven by turnout, candidate quality, incumbency, and changing voter behavior?
Or does the pattern expose something election officials, statisticians, lawmakers, and independent auditors need to investigate?
Those questions should not be mocked, censored, or waved away. They should be answered with the underlying data.
The county-level claim has not yet been established by a ballot audit, court finding, machine log, or complete public dataset. The analyst should release every included county, every raw input, the exact coefficients, the inclusion rules, and the code used to generate the chart.
Election officials should then make the corresponding voter files, poll-book reconciliations, chain-of-custody records, adjudication logs, and audit results available for public inspection wherever the law permits.
The timing also matters because several states were still reporting unofficial totals when the analysis was released.
Ohio’s Secretary of State says its November 3 totals remain unofficial until certification and directs readers to county election boards for local returns. The state says certified totals are normally published roughly three weeks after Election Day.
Minnesota’s Secretary of State explains that state and federal results remain unofficial until the November 19 canvass, while county totals remain unofficial until local canvassing boards complete their work. Recounts can also be requested after canvassing, and official totals may be amended.
Oregon’s official results portal was still updating its count Tuesday morning and provides county-level exports for public review. The state also notes that write-in totals continue to be finalized through county election officials.
Uncertified totals make preservation even more important. Every reporting snapshot should be saved, and the formula should be rerun against the final certified returns.
If the pattern disappears after certification, the public should see that clearly.
If it survives — especially across hundreds of counties — officials will have much harder questions to answer.
Americans have heard “nothing to see here” far too many times. Confidence is not restored by demanding silence from people who notice unusual numbers.
Confidence is restored with sunlight, records, reproducible analysis, and audits that withstand scrutiny.
The alleged 85/15 formula does not alone establish that the 2026 election was fixed.
The pattern is still far too consequential to ignore, and the people responsible for administering our elections should welcome a complete public examination.
Release the data. Run the audits.
Let the evidence speak.
Continue reading...
[ H/T WLT Report ]
![If you know ANYONE who has cancer, WATCH THIS NOW! [From Noah]](https://wltreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/john-richardsons-cancer-book-showcase.png)