before accepting calculations from anonymous (or even non-anymous) sources, insist on a citation to original data so that it can be checked. I'm told (but haven't seen reference by Werise) that this comes from NYT json data static01.nyt.com/elections-asse…. I'll comment on this data. 
2/ first, I extracted the data into a csv format using the R package jsonlite. I hadn't used this program before but it worked easily first try.
3/ A first and important problem with this dataset: it does NOT give actual vote counts in integers. It gives total votes and Trump and Biden share only to 3 digits. As a result, candidate counts are accurate only to nearest ~3000. Calculated increments can be off up to ~6000.
4/the dataset contains an entry at 2:14 am (a few minutes prior to supposedly smoking gun entry) which clearly reverses an entry at 1:51 am. This looks to me like garden variety accounting error correction reversing a double count. Further, it corrects more Biden votes than Trump
5/ note that (because of the imprecision of the Trump/Biden share data - only 3 digits), the calculated votes apparently reversed don't exactly match. Keep in mind that this NYT dataset is a secondary report and, while related to official count, is NOT the official count.
6/ now watch what happens at 2:18 am when you step back a little. I've highlighted the large vote increase at 2:18, but four minutes later, this entry appears to have been reversed (together with some other entries). The reversal is heavier in Biden votes than entry reversed.
7/ this analysis seems to me to be a nothingburger. I understand that there's lots to be suspicious of, but I'm not persuaded so far that one can discern fraud merely by inspecting NYT data. And definitely not in this case as presented so far.
8/ @We_Have_Risen sent a cordial reply challenging my rejection of his analysis. I've considered his reply and stand by my criticism. He did use NYT JSON data - which is what I had been told that he used and which had been used in my analysis. He provided diagram shown below.
9/ we are using the same data. I cross-checked by re-plotting data in my collation of NYT JSON data to the plot detail in his diagram. The issue is the interpretation. He focused entirely on the uptick. I observed that uptick that concerned him had accompanying downtick.
10/ in the case of the uptick just prior to the one in Werise's ellipse, I observed previously that this uptick was reversed by a matching downtick. (Excerpt below repeats earlier tweet.)
11/ similarly, the uptick that bothers Werise was almost immediately reversed in a corresponding downtick a few minutes later. These two incidents appear to me to be garden variety error corrections.
12/ since the entry in question was almost immediately reversed, it didn't have any impact on the final count. The Edison feed to NYT is not an official count in any event.
13/ it would be nice to get an explanation of the precise reason for the entry and reversal. My guess is that it will be something like the Wisconsin county where there was an erroneous data entry by collater that was quickly corrected.
14/ Bottom line: I don't see anything sinister in this sequence of data.
I think that conduct of election was unsavory and that there seem to be legitimate grievances, but this (IMO) is not one of them.
I think that conduct of election was unsavory and that there seem to be legitimate grievances, but this (IMO) is not one of them.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
