What I am about to say may jeopardize my account, but it REALLY has to be said NOW, because we are wasting valuable time... And I decided to have the courage to post this even though I know how excited we all were (me too, I initially)... Well, here it is...

Shiva's premise is sadly unsalvageably flawed.

His premise:

• If 80% of a district's Straight Party Votes are for the Republicans...
• ... Then 80% of a district's Individual Candidate (party breakaway / party protest) Votes must be for the Republican Presidential nominee.

Anyone who thinks logically realizes quickly how wrong that premise is, on so many levels.

Think again: Most people in America vote straight party; either all D or all R. What is the only reason for using individual choices? Well, it's what you do if you like your party but STRONGLY dislike certain candidates within your own party and would RATHER prefer the opposing party's candidate in that spot. An "Individual Candidate Choice" ballot is a PROTEST VOTE AGAINST (aspects of) YOUR OWN PARTY.

So Shiva assumes that anyone who BREAKS AWAY from the Republican Party (by refusing to vote Straight Party) MUST still vote for Trump (R) on their "Individual Choice" ballot. He does not consider WHATSOEVER that the breakaway vote COULD be against Trump.

In other words: Contrary to his claims, there is actually NO correlation between Straight Party Vote % for Party X and Individual Candidate Vote % for Party X's President. The whole purpose of going Individual Candidate is to BREAK AWAY from your party in some way. Therefore, trying to plot that difference on a line "as if it means anything" is Democrat-level-retardation (sad to say it).

For him to be right, the following statement would HAVE TO be true (which it's clearly not): "People who break away from the Straight Republican Party vote, do that because they want to vote FOR Trump for President BUT want to pick Democrats for House/Senate". As batshit insane as that statement sounds, that's EXACTLY what would have to be true for Shiva to be correct in his claim that "The breakaway vote (individual choice vote) percentage for President Trump MUST match the overall percentage of Straight Party Republican votes".

Next up is the other, fatal flaw which other people on TheDonald have already explained (and I individually created identical graphs earlier today before even seeing other people's posts, because I was stunned by the silliness of Shiva's math too). The problem is: Shiva's X axis is "Republican straight party votes / All straight party votes". And his Y axis is "(Trump individual choice votes / All individual choice votes) MINUS the X axis (the Republican percentage of all Straight Party votes)". This does not plot what he thinks it does. He thinks it shows voter fraud. What it actually shows is basic mathematical reality: The more Republicans are in a district, the less Trump votes (as a pile-percentage) will be in the pile of voters that "broke away from their party", because a bigger share of the breakaway vote pile will be republican defectors in a heavily republican area. And the inverse is true too; the vast majority of the breakaway "individual choice" pile in a Democrat area will be overwhelmingly for Trump. In fact if there are zero Republicans in an area, then 100% of all "individual choice" (breakaway) votes will be for Trump; and the exact opposite happens in Republican areas. Therefore we end up with the diagonal line showing declining Trump share aka "bigger pile of Republican party breakaway votes" in heavily Republican areas, in Shiva's video.

In fact, using Shiva's exact math, but changing all the variables, swapping Trump to Biden and swapping Democrats to Republicans, and vice versa, would draw the EXACT SAME line graphs, showing "diagonally falling line of Biden support the more Democrat an area is"! Because Shiva is misunderstanding and misrepresenting very flawed math.

Again: The more a party controls a certain area, the more of the "breakaway vote pile" will be defectors from THAT party. You will ALWAYS get a diagonal line trending downwards, for BOTH parties!

A lot of people are misunderstanding Shiva's misleading, incorrect graphs, and think they mean "The more republican an area is, the less Trump votes". That is NOT what they mean. They are simply showing "The more republican an area is, the more of the overall party protest breakaway vote pile will be against Trump/the Republicsn party". Well DUH!

To clarify even more to help people understand: If you, for example, say that a FLAT 4% of all Republicans everywhere in America dislike Trump, and those people all do a "breakaway Individual Choice vote" against him, then the MORE Republicans are in a district, the MORE Anti-Trump breakaway votes will exist in the Individual Candidate pile. For example, 4% of 1,000 republicans is 40 anti-Trump "protest votes", but 4% of 1,000,000 republicans is 40,000 anti-Trump "protest votes". So, again: The MORE REPUBLICAN a district is, the LESS votes/support Trump will have in the breakaway "Individual Candidates" ballot pile. Therefore, as the Straight Republican Party % goes up, the Trump Individual Choice % goes down.

This problem is THE most severely flawed premise of Shiva's, because he assumes that "party breakaway" vote percentage FOR PRESIDENT must exactly match "straight party" vote PARTY percentage. But reality is the inverse of that. The whole point of breaking away is that you're voting AGAINST portions of the party. This diagonal downwards line holds true even if we assume that only 3-6% of republicans left Trump.

The final flaw of Shiva's presentation is that he tried to draw trendlines that went "horizontal until X=20%, and then diagonal downwards after 20%" on his plot, but that was not true at all. The data plot points were all clearly diagonal even from the beginning, as a logical result of the flawed math that I and others have described. In ONE of his graphs there seems to be a flatter start, but that's very easily explained by "sticky Democrat" demographics of that particular city. A flat start (the left hand side) in his graph means "there is an extremely low proportion of Straight Republican votes in that area (X axis = 0-20%), and there is also an extremely low amount of Democrats breaking away for Trump there; so the line is drawn as a flat line since breakaway votes from Democrats going for Trump are on the same low level as the low amount of Straight Republican votes in that city". Or, summarized more briefly: Any "slightly flat" starts on the graphs just mean that Democrats in heavily blue areas are refusing to cross over to Trump, and therefore the breakaway votes from Democrats switching to Trump are as low as the Straight Republican votes there.

If you've read this far, here's actually the biggest bombshell: It would actually have been weird and indicative of fraud if the lines WEREN'T going diagonally downwards for Trump. If they had been straight horizontal lines (or even upwards trajectory), as Shiva believes they were meant to be, then THAT would have shown election fraud BY Trump to swap "Republican defector / protest votes" in Republican areas back to himself to maintain a flat/positive line... So thank GOD that Shiva's line WASN'T a flat horizontal line! It would have been very clear evidence of election fraud by OUR side! (As I said earlier, a STRAIGHT line would require that the people who are defecting away from "Straight Republican" do so because they want to vote TRUMP for President AND DEMOCRATS for House/Senate, which would be batshit insane!)

A really big "red flag" during Shiva's movie-length presentation was that he could never clearly elucidate exactly what he was showing. He confused himself many times. He referred to his X/Y axes inconsistently throughout the video and struggled to speak clearly and confidently. It looked as if he was going over everything himself and still trying to understand what exactly he was looking at. Heck, he rambled so much that the two guests only got about 10 words in total in the 80 minute long presentation. That is because the premise and math was a mess. I am VERY sad to say it. Shiva means very well, but his math is fatally incorrect and is wasting our time that we SHOULD spend searching for actual evidence. :-(

I wanted to contact Shiva privately but he does not seem to list any contact email anywhere on his online presence (a little bit amusing for a man who claimed to have invented email, heh)...

Anyway, please carry on the amazing work everyone. The crowdsourced work being done here is incredible! I am excited to see what else we uncover in the coming days and weeks! I am as energized as I was in 2016 against Crooked Hillary! Let's do this! Let's burn down the establishment swamp!

Edit: Despite my best efforts to be abundantly clear and easy to follow (hence the length and repetition of my post), a few people are still having trouble with the math. So I put together a comment to attempt one more time to explain it: https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8XO2YxF/x/c/1BjFNXpNSu

And one more thing to keep in mind here: What I have said here is the actual truth, and it will come out no matter what some diehards want to believe. The question you have to ask yourself is; Do you want to fix this Shiva situation NOW? Or do you want to get hit by the shrapnel from that grenade when it explodes and his clownish math gets ridiculed? We really only have those two choices as a community. This is an absolute black and white situation without any shades of gray. His math is awfully broken and we have to decide how we proceed forward now. Do we continue hitching our horses, wasting time and getting ridiculed? Or do we get back on track and focus where our help IS needed?

Edit: Well, all I can say is that I tried. For those who were able to understand the math: Thank you, and remember to pass it on to those willing and able to understand. It pains me to see ignorance in our community. These are the most important times of our lives, and a large portion of the community is being willfully ignorant and wasting our time with Shiva's clownish maths. It's very painful to see.