From that I don't conclude that the women vote numbers were fudged in favor of Trump (after all, if anyone was gonna rig this election, it was gonna be the Hillary camp, or the 'deep state' behind her) but that the Hispanic and African American votes were likely fudged against Trump.
It's been a recurring pattern in recent major elections and referenda. We've now had more or less 50-50 split votes in the Scottish independence referendum, the Brexit referendum and the 2016 US presidential election. How is it that in these major-issue-votes, a country is almost always divided down the middle? Is a large majority of the people never on the same page on any major issue? That 50-50 split is pretty useful for perpetuating the worn-out 'left-right' paradigm we've lived under for decades. When one party gets 51% in an election, it's always plausible to have the other party get elected 4 or 5 years later because the last election was 'so close'.
In this way, these bogus left/right parties can maintain control and pursue their identical policies forever. If an outsider President or PM were ever elected in a Western nation with, say, 80% of the vote and if he/she performed decently enough, it would be pretty hard to justify why, in an election 4 years later, his/her support had plummeted and he/she was kicked out.
That's why 'they' never want a truly populist and decent leader to get into power; with his or her 'left' or 'right' track record, they'd never be able to get him/her out, short of assassination. Russia is an interesting contemporary example of this, where Putin has been in power in some capacity for the last 16 years, and there's no sign of his popularity waning. And guess who really, really hates Putin and Russia...
So a reasonable estimation would put the real result of the popular US presidential vote somewhere between 60 and 70% in Trump's favor. You'll have to bear with me as I make the case for that; there is of course only circumstantial evidence to go on (though future leaks with harder evidence supporting my hunch wouldn't go amiss - hint, hint!)
Media bias
We know there was massively biased media against Trump. We know the reasons said media gave for its bias against Trump (he's a Hitler, he's a Russian agent, he's a sexist, etc, ad nauseum). But the real reason is very likely this: the level of media vitriol leveled against him was inversely proportional to the level of public support for him. Whether the Establishment had real-time figures on Trump's public support levels (I'm not referring to the cooked polls here, but actual, objective data), or whether it 'instinctively' gauged that its horse was losing to Trump (I'm inclined to think that with all its hi-tech surveillance apparatus it was the former), the saturation of anti-Trump media messages across the entire spectrum, which escalated to stratospheric levels as election day drew nearer, is indicative of just how 'all in' they had to go to arrest and reverse a contest that was running away from them. They launched - to borrow a euphemism from Brexit - 'Project Fear', in a desperate but deliberate attempt to frighten voters off Trump. They wouldn't have done that if they thought they had it in the bag, or if they didn't fear a Trump presidency.
Key to this barrage of invective against Trump was digging up as much dirt as they could find on him. A number of women came forward claiming sexual molestation. But that was only something thrown in very late in the game. Until then, the best they had was to repeatedly accuse Trump of being a Kremlin agent and traitor to his country and accuse Russia of 'subverting the US electoral process'. That claim was so outlandish that it very likely encouraged people to vote for him over Hillary.
Debate polls
For starters, in nearly all snap online polls conducted after each of the TV debates, Trump was the people's clear favorite. Before anyone argues 'but they're not scientific polls', just look at how wrong those were about Clinton 'winning by a landslide'.
Other polls
The main reason official, 'scientific' polls were so spectacularly wrong is that they deliberately oversampled Clinton supporters (or 'likely Liberal types') before putting the question to that vetted sample. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say. Those polls got the answer they wanted to hear. Random polls, ones which did not pre-select 'who they were talking to', did not. Here's one that put the following biased question (in Clinton's favor) to 100,000 random people:
"New polls suggest Trump is getting crushed by Clinton. Do they reflect how you are going to vote?"This poll used social media through an app called Zip Question and Answer that allows users to both ask and answer questions with instant results from a cross-section of demographics and geography. The result? 64% in favor of Trump, and 36% for Clinton.
Means and Motive
In this day and age, there are far more 'scientific' means of gauging popular opinion than pre-sampled polls. The Establishment, with its access to - and obsession with - 'Total Information Awareness', knows this only too well. Big data analytics - the process of collecting, organizing and analyzing large sets of data to discover patterns and other useful information - is used by business and bureaucracies alike, to say nothing about its prevalence in the security and military sectors. They have so much data at their fingertips that the US Dept of Defense announced - a decade ago - an operational global surveillance architecture called 'Sentient World Simulation', which is a:
"synthetic mirror of the real world with automated continuous calibration with respect to current real-world information, providing a virtual environment for testing Psychological Operations (PSYOPS) so that military leaders can develop and test multiple courses of action to anticipate and shape behaviors of adversaries, neutrals, and partners."And this is probably only one such program among others. I mention it here to give you an idea of the scope and depth of information at their disposal - and what they do with such information. This isn't to say that they can predict the future or execute actions that always work in their favor - they don't, not by a long shot. I mention it only to point out that, when and where it really matters - like when an outsider is threatening to 'drain a swamp' that its denizens enjoy just as it is - the Powers That Be in the US deep state have the means to predict something as momentous and disastrous (for them) as an impending election shock, and to react quickly to it and minimize its fallout.
In summary, I think it's safe to say that certain 'higher-ups' had a fairly good idea that an overwhelming Trump victory was coming, even if all their media talking heads below them went into shock on November 9th.
Counting the votes... then flipping them
Commercially-available big data analytics suggested back in June that Hispanics only favored Clinton by four percentage points (41% Hispanics in favor of Clinton vs 37% in favor of Trump), a whopping 40% loss from the 44 percentage points Democratic candidate Obama enjoyed over Republican Mitt Romney in 2012. Another analysis from June suggested that Trump was in favor with 26% of Black voters, the highest percentage in this demographic for any Republican candidate since Richard Nixon in 1960.
Despite this, the New York Times' exit poll data from November 8th had just 8% of Blacks who voted doing so for Trump, a figure that is way off the June data projection. That same data had 29% of Hispanics voting for Trump, 9 percentage points down from the June projection.
According to data compiled here, 133,980,000 people voted, which is about 58% of the eligible electorate, and about the same turnout as in 2012. About 14 million Hispanics cast votes. 29% of this figure gives us 4,060,000 Hispanic votes for Trump. 37% of this figure gives us 5,180,000. The difference is 1,120,000 votes. About 15 million Blacks cast votes. 8% of this figure gives us 1,200,000 Black votes for Trump. 26% of this figure gives us 3,900,000. The difference is 2,700,000 votes.
Adding together these projected versus 'real' results for Hispanics and Blacks gives 3,820,000 votes projected back in June by big data analytics as going to Trump... that instead ended up going to Clinton.
The official count currently stands, according to the Associated Press tally cited here, at Clinton having won 61,324,576 votes (47.85%) and Trump 60,526,852 votes (47.23%). There are apparently a few more votes yet to be counted, with big media outlets already saying that Clinton has a more than one-million-vote lead in the popular vote, something that is literally incredible for the reasons I've outlined here.
If we take away the above 3,820,000 votes from Clinton and give them to Trump, their vote tallies become 57,504,576 for Clinton and 64,346,852 for Trump - a 'landslide' win, though a result that still falls short of matching his likely success. Clearly, votes were flipped across the board and not just in the Hispanic and Black demographics.
Social media evidence
This evidence falls into the big data analytics category, but it's worth highlighting on its own: Trump crushed Clinton on social media. Even back in early August, the basic stats looked like this:
Trump: 10,174,358 Likes
Clinton: 5,385,959 Likes'Live streams' on Facebook:Twitter
Trump Live Stream Post — 135,000 likes, 18,167 shares, 1.5 million views
Clinton Live Stream Post —11,000 likes, 0 shares, 321,000 views
Trump: 10.6 million followers
Hillary: 8.1 million followers
Youtube Live Stream
Trump: Averaged 30,000 live viewers per stream
Clinton: Averaged 500 live viewers per stream
Trump: 2.2 million followers
Clinton: 1.8 million followers
Trump: 197,696 subscribers
Hillary: 24,429 subscribers
The turnouts out at their respective rallies also spoke volumes. Clinton was barely filling small community centers and local colleges, while Trump's far larger venues were often overcrowded, and often unable to hold the amount of people that showed up. Back during the primaries, Republicans turned out to back Trump as their candidate - smashing state turnout records in the process - giving him more votes than any candidate in Republican history. By the last week of campaigning, Team Clinton, racked with illness and no-shows, was cancelling rallies while Trump was speaking in 5 states on one day.
No exit poll
The US used to have exit polls. It doesn't anymore. What it has now are questionnaires that ask voters dozens of trite questions but not the question that really matters: 'who did you vote for?' The rationale they originally gave for changing the nature of exit polls was to be able to provide breakdown analysis of which type of voter (white, woman, Hispanic, college-educated, etc) voted for which candidate.
But the exit poll is first and foremost meant to be a check against vote manipulation; the US Establishment has turned it - and the process of recording and counting votes in general - into a privatized, digitized smokescreen behind which it can manipulate outcomes on election day. This explains why the media, based on the exit poll data published on the evening of the election, still believed the race was either neck-and-neck or that Clinton was going to win it.
Real exit poll data would have told them exactly who was going to win: Trump, and by a landslide. But instead the 'exit polls' oh-so-conveniently matched the rigged pre-election polls showing 'a country split down the middle' instead of the reality: two-thirds behind Trump's movement against the Establishment.
Late call
When Obama won by less against Romney last time around, they called it at 11pm (US Eastern). The same happened in 2008. In fact, US elections are almost always called at 11pm US Eastern. This election however, wasn't called until 2am. Was the delay due to ensuring that millions of popular votes were flipped to Clinton, even as the Establishment accepted their 'woman president' wasn't to be?
In the face of Trump winning an overwhelming majority in the popular vote, and while accepting him as the next president of the US, did the 'deep state' transfer votes to Hillary to trick Americans into believing that she won the popular vote so as to divide the American people and kick start at home the kind of 'color revolution' that successive US governments have so often fomented abroad?
Don't forget the large number of dead voters, and immigrants/illegal immigrants caught voting, I've heard different numbers up to 3 million. Plus the practice of legalizing felon voters right before the election. The Dems have a lot of tricks to pad their vote.