You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
There are more than 100 precincts in Iowa with some kind of irregularity or inconsistency in the returns across one of the various vote counts, according to our analysis, easily covering the narrow margin in the racehttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/upshot/iowa-caucuses-errors-results.html …
I don't see any evidence obvious evidence that the errors favor anyone--the precincts in error are quite representative. But it is hard to evaluate with precision without knowing which of the various results in a given precinct are right
We could just assume, for instance, that all the tabulations are right and the SDEs are wrong when in conflict. But then you look at how many of the vote tabulations can't be right and it's hard to make that assumption.
Take this seemingly obvious case. There's no way to get from that final alignment to that SDE. But final alignment may not be right: only 1 delegate was at stake, and they should realign down to just 2. Did Klob beat Bernie 1 on 1 w Biden votes? Maybe. https://twitter.com/TashmanZachary/status/1225429540408905728?s=20 …
For this sort of reason, a perfect 'recount' of all the various preference cards may not be possible either, since many of the caucuses may not have been properly conducted
There are 62,000 individual values (12 candidates, 3 numbers, 1700 sites) to be recorded and calculated by hand, then transferred to digital. A few hundred wrong is under 1%. Not unexpected at all.
Does it favor either?
ofc it favours pete, u think they would rig it for bernie?
Any trend in the errors, like favoring one nominee for instance?
No trend
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
