This guy does a great job of explaining the limitations of using the Edison/NYT data. He worked within those limitations and still could prove a huge batch of votes were basically 100% Biden and enough to flip GA.
This definitely helped me. I kept hearing (and believing) the "jumps" but couldn't wrap my mind around it until I saw the data. Helps explain why we're not able to use the data to make exact claims (due to rounding). The problem remains whether the source data matches (this is just fed to NYT).
Unless someone has access to the source data, they could easily manipulate the original data if required to show "proof" and say they accidentally sent the data in batches wrong (but the totals would still match).
This guy does a great job of explaining the limitations of using the Edison/NYT data. He worked within those limitations and still could prove a huge batch of votes were basically 100% Biden and enough to flip GA.
This definitely helped me. I kept hearing (and believing) the "jumps" but couldn't wrap my mind around it until I saw the data. Helps explain why we're not able to use the data to make exact claims (due to rounding). The problem remains whether the source data matches (this is just fed to NYT).
Unless someone has access to the source data, they could easily manipulate the original data if required to show "proof" and say they accidentally sent the data in batches wrong (but the totals would still match).