Topher in Certain Circles

Politics is my soap opera. Been watching it for years!

[Topher in Certain Circles @cbchasse3]

Thank you to anyone reading this. I don't do DM. If we are gonna converse, let's do so in the open.

[Gain of Fauci @DschlopesIsBack]

There are still MILLIONS of Dems that believe Kyle Rittenhouse killed black people in Kenosha and that Trump supporters killed police officers on January 6th.

These people vote in our elections.

[The Constitutionalist 🇺🇸 @WeWillBeFree24]

It's time for Marco Rubio to act.

We've reached a breaking point.

The President can make a proclamation under INA 212 declaring entry is detrimental to U.S. interests.

Rubio can pause all VISAs not just H1B and coordinate entry stops with DHS, until we figure out who the hell is actually in this country and remigrate all of them who lied on their applications.

Start acting within the full power of the law, and stop playing with these Judges.

[Eric Daugherty @EricLDaugh]

🚨 HOLY SMOKES. Governor candidate Steve Hilton just revealed the stunning reality of California fraud: They ALLOW mail-in ballots to BACKDATE by HAND so they can be counted late, and not invalid

"It's NOT just the postmark. YOU CAN HAND-WRITE THE DATE!"

"Just to be really clear: you can BACKDATE YOUR BALLOT."

"BY HAND."

"And it will be counted."

"That's how insane this system is."

This is MADNESS!! 🤯

BILLY BUSH: "That is OUTRAGEOUS."

@hotmicsbilly

[Gunther Eagleman™ @GuntherEagleman]

I never imagined us winning the Senate and having a Senate Leader block all of our winning.

John Thune plays for the other team.

[Spencer Pratt @spencerpratt]

Folks, we're dealing with a fraction of a percentage point difference, there's still hundreds of thousands of votes outstanding, and LA officials have given us the next 3 weeks to count! Let's git-r-dun!

[MAZE @mazemoore]

They started out with the bogus narrative that five police officers were killed at the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. Merrick Garland even held a moment of silence for the "five officers who lost their lives" during the riot.

Slowly that's morphed into one officer died after the riot from natural causes and four committed suicide from the trauma. That's still not the truth.

What Tapper doesn't tell you in this video is that two of the four officers who took their own lives were not even at the Capitol during the actual riot. They showed up that evening to secure the area after all of the rioters had been removed. Tragically, they both killed themselves about six months later but to blame it on the trauma of "insurrection" (which is exactly what Tapper is doing in this video) is just another reason why nobody trusts this guy.

[Libs of TikTok @libsoftiktok]

ATTENTION PARENTS:

Did you know that schools are REQUIRED BY LAW to hand over all records pertaining to your child??

You do not need to pay lawyers or waste time filing FOIAs.

You simply need to put in a request. If they refuse just say “FERPA.”

If they still refuse, DM me.

They are breaking the law and we will make sure they are held accountable.

[JD Vance @JDVance]

I’ve referred these allegations to DOJ’s new Fraud Division for criminal investigation. Minnesota state officials are not above the law, and if they facilitated fraud, lied under oath about what they knew, or harassed and intimated whistleblowers, they must face justice.

[Neon White Rabbit @RedPillRabbit]

Illegals were buying homes with tiny down payments, forcing up prices, backed by the US government, while YOU COULDN’T AFFORD one yourself.

TREASON.

[Truth Is Freedom @TruthAnswersAll]

THE FORMULAS
WHAT THEY MEAN AND WHY THEY MATTER

I derived four deterministic linear formulas from the ballot drop data:

Raman% = 27.87 + (3.19 × drop number)
Pratt% = 22.05 - (1.17 × drop number)
Bass% = 40.20 - (1.86 × drop number)
Other% = 9.88 - (0.16 × drop number)
The Starting Points

The constants - 27.87, 22.05, 40.20, 9.88 - represent each candidate’s baseline. Where they genuinely stood when post-election counting began. Real votes. Organic support. These are the numbers before anything unusual occurs.

The Slopes - How the Formula Runs

The slope is the increment applied to each candidate every single drop. It gets multiplied by drop number - 1, 2, 3, 4 - which means the effect escalates automatically with each drop.

So for Raman it isn’t just plus 3.19% every drop. It’s:

Drop 1: 27.87 + (3.19 × 1) = 31.06%
Drop 2: 27.87 + (3.19 × 2) = 34.25%
Drop 3: 27.87 + (3.19 × 3) = 37.44%
Drop 4: 27.87 + (3.19 × 4) = 40.63%
Drop 5 predicted: 27.87 + (3.19 × 5) = 43.82%

Each drop pushes her further from her baseline. It is built in. Automatic by design.

The slopes also sum to exactly zero.

+3.19 - 1.17 - 1.86 - 0.16 = 0.00

Every percentage point Raman gains comes precisely from the other three candidates/groups combined. This is a closed system. Conservation of votes. The formula doesn’t create votes - it redistributes them.

The R Values - The results were remarkable

To validate these formulas I ran linear regression analysis. The Pearson correlation coefficients, R values, came back as follows:

Raman vs Pratt: R = 0.9966
Raman vs Bass: R = 0.9934
Raman vs Batch: R = 0.9984
Raman vs Other: R = 0.9794

R values measure how perfectly data fits a straight line. They run from 0 to 1.

0 means completely random.
No pattern whatsoever.

1 means a perfect straight line.
Every point exactly where predicted.

For context:

0.70 is considered strong in social science research.
0.85 gets researchers excited.
0.90+ is extraordinarily rare in human behavioral data.

Squaring them to get R² values:

Raman vs Pratt: R² = 0.9932
Raman vs Bass: R² = 0.9869
Raman vs Other: R² = 0.9592
Raman vs Batch: R² = 0.9968

That last number, 0.9968, means that 99.68% of Raman’s vote share movement across these drops is explained by a single variable. Drop number. Nothing else. Just counting to five.

You get R values like that in physics experiments. In controlled laboratory conditions. Measuring the expansion of metal under heat. Not in elections. Not in a major American city with millions of diverse voters casting ballots across weeks.

The Slope Relationship

The slope of 3.110 between Raman and Pratt is particularly significant.

It means for every percentage point Pratt lost Raman gained 3.110 points. Every drop. Without variation. Without noise.

Candidates in a democratic election don’t move in mathematical opposition to each other at a fixed ratio across 200,000 ballots. Four variables in an equation do.

Why The Shutoff Had To Exist

Because drop number keeps increasing, the formula keeps pushing percentages further from baseline. Left unchecked by drop 7 the math produces:

Raman: 27.87 + (3.19 × 7) = 50.2%
Pratt: 22.05 - (1.17 × 7) = 13.9%
Bass: 40.20 - (1.86 × 7) = 27.2%

So the formula was never intended to run to completion. It was designed to run until a specific objective was achieved, Raman leading Pratt by a sufficient margin to secure the runoff and then stop.

The stopping condition appears to have been triggered at approximately 38,000 votes into drop 5. The precise moment Raman crossed 3,000 votes ahead of Pratt.

After that point the remaining 9,800 votes in drop 5 distributed at approximately the baseline that existed after drop four.

The formula completed its task. Then it stopped. And the numbers went back to looking normal.

[Paul @WomanDefiner]

They used Covid to nuke small businesses, opened up commercial real estate and then brought in 20 million people in 4 years while giving them federally backed loans Americans didn't qualify for to buy up those businesses and any available housing.

You should be furious about this.

[Disgraced Propagandist @DisgracedProp]

People demanding "proof" of election fraud are not understanding how crime works. I worked at Manhattan DA for over 2 years, one in Homicide. We never had video proof of the crime. We almost never had DNA. These are things that occur on CSI on TV, not in real life. And we still convicted people all the time.

What we had was testimony and circumstantial evidence. Travel times, bank records, cell phone data, gate access codes. Motive, capability, benefit, time and place. Never direct proof. Of course the defendant always denied the crime, but there was enough evidence to show that one had to have occurred nonetheless.

If what we have in the LA Mayoral election is a statistical anomaly that is beyond reasonable explanation with anything besides fraud, that is enough to prove a crime. This has been true since the beginning of Western Civlization.

[Insurrection Barbie @DefiyantlyFree]

On election night in Los Angeles County, I pulled every statewide race directly from the California Secretary of State’s official results page. Same ballots. Same voters. Same night.

The governor’s race the most important, most advertised race on the entire ballot received roughly 100,000 fewer total votes than the controller and secretary of state races. On the same physical ballot.

The exact numbers from the official SOS website:

•Governor total votes: 796,467
•Controller total votes: 901,756
•Secretary of State total votes: 889,586

That means 105,289 more people voted for state controller than voted for governor. And 93,119 more people voted for secretary of state than voted for governor.

Do you know what the state controller does? Most people don’t. It is one of the most obscure offices on the ballot. Yet it got more votes than the race that determines who runs the largest state in America for the next four years.

All Republican governor candidates combined on election night: 222,712 votes

Republican controller candidate (Herb Morgan): 302,552 votes

Republican secretary of state candidate (Don Wagner): 291,650 votes

That means roughly 70,000 to 80,000 people voted Republican in the controller and secretary of state races but did not cast a Republican vote for governor on the same ballot.

These are not different ballots. These are not different voters. This is one piece of paper. Governor is at the TOP. Controller and secretary of state are further DOWN.

People don’t undervote on the top ballot. They undervote on the bottom ballot.

How does this make any sense?

What am I missing people who are smarter than me?

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

The level of fraud here is mind-blowing

[End Wokeness @EndWokeness]

Latin America since USAID defunding:

🇨🇱 Kast ("far right") wins in Chile
🇧🇴 Paz ("far right") wins in Bolivia
🇵🇪 Fujimori ("far right") wins in Peru
🇪🇨 Noboa ("far right") wins in Ecuador
🇭🇳 Asfura ("far right") wins in Honduras
🇨🇷 Fernandez ("far right") wins in Costa Rica

Extremely telling development

[Libs of TikTok @libsoftiktok]

BREAKING: Nithya Raman just defeated Spencer Pratt after giving a concession speech on election night and then getting the largest number in almost every mail-in ballot dump.

They just cheated in an election right in front of our eyes.

[Disgraced Propagandist @DisgracedProp]

Somebody else needs to help me do this with charts and graphs but I’ll try with words first.

- In a normal election, you have 2 candidates, R & L. People cast votes. Proportionally, the votes of each candidate rise and fall in little chunks but take an overall steady line due to the force of averages. One of the lines eventually tops out, and that candidate wins on election night.

- In a mail in election, you have 2 candidates R & L. In this instance, some mail ins (if allowed) may come in after Election Day. But still, due to the force of averages, their lines with have little ups and downs but maintain a steady upward trajectory both during and after the election until one wins.

Now it has become the norm that after the election in mail in states, Dem candidates tend to go from tied or losing to drastically ahead AFTER the election, against the force of averages. How?

There are two legal, non fraudulent explanations:

1) that “Dems vote late by mail.” Dubious, considering that it used to be that Rs were known as absentee voters, but technically possible that for some never explained reason, Ds vote later than Rs by mail and that explains the statistical anomaly of why Dems lines shoot up after Election Day.

2) ballot harvesting. The far more likely explanation. Legal in California, this is when huge amounts of ballots are collected by political activists (unions, NGOs etc) and submitted on behalf of large populations of people in churches, workplaces etc. Both sides do it, but it is technically possible that Dems are much better at it. This is how insiders explain the “red mirage” statistical anomalies in 2020 and that have become so common since. Also explains why the prediction markets clinched Raman as winning while she was still down.

However, there is something different happening in Pratt v Bass election. A third candidate, a second, much less popular and less well known Dem is in the race, Nithya Raman. And this time, the late mail in ballots—mailed on Election Day or just before which is why they are “late mail in”—didn’t go to “the dems” they went specifically to Nithya Raman. Pratt stayed flat. Bass stayed flat. Nithya went way up after the initial count was reported. Unprecedented.

Oddly, the mail in mailed any time before Election Day did not favor nithya at all. Only the late mail ins counted after initial numbers were reported massively favored her. So we’re meant to believe that Nithya voters specifically voted not just by mail by late by mail, while the other Dem and Pratt voters did not. Bass voters stopped voting late mail in entirely, as they had last election against caruso, and Nithya voters started?

Could it be “Dems vote late by mail?” No, because then both Nithya and Bass, both Dems, would have risen at roughly the same rate, only without Pratt. But nithya massively over performed just enough to oust pratt, which would not have been possible had she and bass split the votes.

Could it be ballot harvesting? Also no. You can harvest a church or workplace and predict roughly that your harvested votes will favor Dems, but how could you feasibly predict which Dem out of two? Nithya’s support, always squarely in third place during the polls, is mostly educated white women, definitely not the type to vote late or be harvested. But that’s actually besides the point. How could a vote harvester, who is supposedly delivering filled out and sealed ballots from a constituency the harvester believes will lean left, know which left wing candidate this or that batch favors? And moreover, why would they then send only those batches after the election, while submitting all the other mail in ballots for bass before the election?

Occams Razor points to the much simpler explanation. Whoever is harvesting the votes isn’t just harvesting them, they’re somehow controlling the votes themselves, whether by filling them out or throwing away competing votes they don’t like. This is the definition of voter fraud.

[Flopping Aces @FloppingAces]

One of the clearest tells in politics is this: watch what a system is willing to break to keep the wrong person from getting the keys.

That’s the through-line connecting two stories that dropped this week.

A former senior CIA official allegedly invented an entire fake ultra-classified Special Access Program, used it to siphon millions through a made-up contract, and convinced a defense contractor to buy hundreds of gold bars “for continuity of government” purposes.

Those 303 bars, worth roughly $40 million, plus $2 million in cash and 35 luxury watches, ended up in his basement. Normally that kind of scandal gets buried inside the Intelligence Community forever. This time it became front-page news in the Washington Post with multiple outlets running it. That doesn’t happen by accident.

At the same time, Senate Democrats ... joined by seven Republicans ... voted to block advancement of FISA Section 702 renewal, even though the authorities expire next Friday. Their stated reason? They don’t want Bill Pulte anywhere near the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. They claim he’s unqualified and dangerous with sensitive information.

If Pulte were truly just some lightweight, why risk one of their own favorite surveillance tools to stop him?

Acting appointments give reformers more room to move fast and cut deep. Trump has already signaled he wants Pulte to shrink ODNI and surface information tied to 2020. The Intelligence Community appears to be treating that possibility as an existential threat.

When institutions start damaging their own machinery ... whether by leaking scandals they usually hide or by torching their own spy powers ... they’re not acting from strength. They’re showing you exactly what they fear losing control of.
(article below)

[Stephen Miller @StephenM]

They are migrants returning home.

[Andrew Follett @AndrewCFollett]

A new California law bans:

1: Neutral election observers from challenging a ballot.

2: Law enforcement from enforcing election law.

3: Law enforcement from inspecting voting machines.

Of course California elections are corrupt! They literally made it illegal to enforce laws!