Data Guru: We Looked at Phone GPS Info of Anti-Trumpers in Chicago, Discovered Treasure Trove of Incriminating Info

If your memory stretches back further than that of a sparrow — not a common trait in our headline-obsessed media, but more widespread outside it — you might recall the triumphant tone from the left when Kamala Harris was positioned as the Democratic frontrunner.

“It’s really hard to overstate just how different the environment is for Democrats now,” Maya King of The New York Times announced enthusiastically from a “boisterous rally” for Harris in Atlanta, where she was joined on stage by Megan Thee Stallion and Quavo from Migos.

King went on to say, “It’s the clearest illustration yet of just how different the Democratic presidential campaign is under Harris — and how much she’s energizing a part of the Democratic coalition that had been checked out.”

The message, repeated ad nauseam: The excitement! The buzz! The crowds!

And yet, this same candidate lost the swing states and failed to secure the popular vote. How could that be? The "vibes" were supposedly immaculate. The crowds? Impressive. The momentum? Palpable — or so it seemed.

Meanwhile, for those whose focus lasts only as long as the latest headline, there was news of enormous protests erupting in cities across the country this past weekend against President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, head of the Department of Government Efficiency.

This followed high-profile rallies from Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as part of their “Fighting Oligarchy” tour.

More energy! More vibes! More massive turnouts! You half expect Maya King to reappear to remind us again how “it’s really hard to overstate just how different the environment is for Democrats now.”

But if you’re wondering why crowd size and “vibes” don’t always translate to electoral success, entrepreneur and data analyst Tony Seruga has some insights. He’s been analyzing these events using GPS-based data, and — no surprise — the numbers don’t quite match the headlines.

Take the “MASSIVE protest” in downtown Chicago this past weekend. Organizers claimed 30,000 people attended. But according to Seruga, only 7,498 mobile devices were actually picked up in that area.

It gets worse when you break it down. Seruga analyzed the data with a combination of demographic info — “age, gender, income, education level” — and psychographics, which includes “lifestyles, values, attitudes, interests, personality traits, social class, activities, and how they make purchasing decisions.”

In a post on X Saturday evening, he explained, “For more insight into what data we also look at in addition to GPS location data would be demographic and psychographic data using over 6,000 different databases, i.e., like the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Pew Research Center, market research firms like YouGov, Experian, specialized tools like ESRI’s Tapestry Segmentation, consumer surveys, social media platforms like 𝕏, Facebook, Linkedin.”

He also claimed, “By cross pollinating each device with other devices regularly within close proximity to the target device we are able to build a detailed profile for each target.” He went on to name six groups allegedly responsible for boosting turnout: “Disruption Project, Rise & Resist, Indivisible Project, Troublemakers, the Democratic Socialists of America and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Seruga further asserted, “We have also identified 11 additional groups paying for protests, demonstrations and riots, many are linked to foreign bad actors in countries funding terrorism.”

As for the individuals tracked via GPS, 92 percent had reportedly been to five or more events in support of Kamala Harris or causes like antifa, BLM, or pro-Palestinian protests.

It’s important to point out that Seruga’s dataset hasn’t been made publicly available. Still, this isn’t the first time he claims to have found inflated crowd numbers and evidence that the support might not be as organic as it seems.

And where else has he spotted these patterns? If you were paying attention earlier, you already know: these rallies appear to mirror the same characteristics — suggesting they’re more performative than authentic.

Of course, political theatrics are nothing new and exist across the spectrum. Pretending otherwise is either willful ignorance or naïveté. But mistaking the spectacle for a genuine grassroots movement is like confusing astroturf with the real thing.

The media, likely to remain sparrow-minded in the coming days, will continue spotlighting these “crowds” with breathless coverage. But those without short-term memory loss should approach it all with caution — especially in light of the data and patterns Seruga claims to have uncovered.