8 ms·

But that's because elections these days are incredibly close. It's like being upset that the best statistical answer to "who will win a coin toss" is "well it's

by mgfist 2y ago

But that's because elections these days are incredibly close. It's like being upset that the best statistical answer to "who will win a coin toss" is "well it's 50/50".

genewitch 2y ago
Are you sure about that? 89% of counties turned red. Looking at 1.5% total difference is missing the forest for the trees. Trump got all swing states. To quote: "this is absolutely a mandate." https://youtu.be/zG3n2IeaTPA https://youtu.be/zG3n2IeaTPA edit: facts cannot be insolent. The youtube link is a guest on the view named Stephen something, from this week, saying the words that i typed into the comment box. Not clicking it is doing yourself a disservice; as it is "source cited." Don't get mad at me for relaying this information.
- roenxi 2y ago
  Sure. And what was the probability of something like that happening? About a coin flip. It is an election using First-Past-the-Post counting. A 50:50 probability doesn't mean the final count will be close, it (usually, anyway) means there is evens odds which side is about to win decisively. The county results are expected to correlate, as are the swing states in all likelihood.
  - genewitch 2y ago
    the probability of 89% of blue counties (in 2020) switching to red counties is a 50-50 chance? can you show your work?
    - roenxi 2y ago
      https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/ You'll note that the distribution mode for a Trump win was 312 electoral votes; which is what he got. They do a good forecast - it suggests there was a 50-50 chance Trump wins, and if he wins the most likely outcome is ... exactly what happened. If it was a Harris win the best bet is she would have gotten 319 electoral votes with high correlation in the swing states too.
      - genewitch 2y ago
        you still didn't watch the video i linked^, and you did not answer my actual question: 89% of counties turning red compared to the 2020 election is a 50-50 chance? Can you show your work? ^ The person in the video explains why thinking it is 50-50 chance is detrimental to the liberal cause.
- aaronbrethorst 2y ago
  Counties don't vote and Trump's popular vote "mandate" is smaller than Clinton's popular vote win in 2016. Here's a fun stat: literally 40 states have a population that is less than the population of Los Angeles county alone. Why doesn't Los Angeles itself have 80 senators? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia... Setting aside 2000 and 2016 (EC winners lost the popular vote), you'd have to go back to 1968 and Nixon's squeaker of an election over Humphrey to find a closer popular vote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin#List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
  - genewitch 2y ago
    Out of curiosity, do you recall seeing a "county map" of the blue votes in the 2020 election?
    - kemayo 2y ago
      Why would we have? It's pointless. As the GP said, land doesn't vote. The more interesting map is the one where you weight the display by population, since it gives a much more accurate representation of how the USA is divided: https://engaging-data.com/pages/scripts/d3Electoral/countyelection2.png https://engaging-data.com/pages/scripts/d3Electoral/countyel... The tool on that website is actually pretty informative to play with if you want to quickly see how adjusting the map style can change the perception. https://engaging-data.com/county-electoral-map-land-vs-population/ https://engaging-data.com/county-electoral-map-land-vs-popul...
      - verzali 2y ago
        Bit of a tangent, but I've always wondered why the United States has a very clear dividing line between the populated east and relatively empty west. It's really visible in the first map you shared. Is there a historical reason behind that line? Or some geographical boundary?
- nobody9999 2y ago
  >https://youtu.be/zG3n2IeaTPA https://youtu.be/zG3n2IeaTPA >note: not clicking that because you disagree with me is really doing yourself a disservice. I won't click the link because I'm here for discussion with the users of this site, not some random video you thought was interesting/useful. Why do you find it interesting/useful? What arguments are made? How do those arguments comport with your beliefs? Let's have a discussion. So tell me what you think, don't link to some rando on youtube.
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    Also it is a video. Asking literate people to go watch a video is disrespectful of their time.
    - genewitch 2y ago
      It is a video of a guest on the view saying the words that i typed. It was "citing a source."
      - bee_rider 2y ago
        The View is just a chit-chat show anyway, so a source that proves that somebody said something on it doesn’t prove anything compelling. Anyway, my computer can’t play YouTube (ad blocking issues). The underlying thing that is annoying people, I think, is that this is (as far as I can tell based on what you’ve written) a factual mathematical issue. That sort of thing is easily conveyed via text and equations. Why would anybody want to watch a video of somebody explaining math?
        genewitch 2y ago
        > The View is just a chit-chat show anyway, so a source that proves that somebody said something on it doesn’t prove anything compelling. This is a fallacy. I repeated numbers, that person was also repeating numbers, however, they're on a national news program and no one has given any reason that the numbers stated were wrong. It does not matter who says something, you have to weigh it on the merits of the statements. It isn't a "factual mathematical issue" it's a sociological issue, and it's bearing out in this comment thread - burying one's head in the sand because "Los Angeles is bigger and has more people" or "land doesn't vote" or "so what, it wasn't a majority" is missing the forest for the trees. Something about the platform did not work for our neighbors. A platform that worked in 2008, 2012, (2016 if you reckon the pundits are correct), and 2020 - it ceased working in 2024; and merely "doing the same thing" going forward won't work. I think the unspoken part is this: "If the left just pushes on as it has been, the midterms and 2028 aren't going to be '1.5%' margins" People often assume i am part of the opposition party.
- kemayo 2y ago
  I don't think someone can claim a "mandate" based on not even having won 50% of the vote. You need to at least be able to say that over half of the voters wanted you to win in order to use language like that. That 1.5% is the only thing that mattered for "mandate" purposes. Trump won, but on a razor's edge, and that should give him some pause. (It won't.)
- mgfist 2y ago
  Well, the great thing is we have betting markets for this now. Given your confidence, I'm assuming you made a lot of money betting on Trump?

by mgfist 2y ago

But that's because elections these days are incredibly close. It's like being upset that the best statistical answer to "who will win a coin toss" is "well it's 50/50".

genewitch 2y ago

Are you sure about that? 89% of counties turned red. Looking at 1.5% total difference is missing the forest for the trees. Trump got all swing states. To quote: "this is absolutely a mandate." https://youtu.be/zG3n2IeaTPA https://youtu.be/zG3n2IeaTPA edit: facts cannot be insolent. The youtube link is a guest on the view named Stephen something, from this week, saying the words that i typed into the comment box. Not clicking it is doing yourself a disservice; as it is "source cited." Don't get mad at me for relaying this information.

roenxi 2y ago
Sure. And what was the probability of something like that happening? About a coin flip. It is an election using First-Past-the-Post counting. A 50:50 probability doesn't mean the final count will be close, it (usually, anyway) means there is evens odds which side is about to win decisively. The county results are expected to correlate, as are the swing states in all likelihood.
- genewitch 2y ago
  the probability of 89% of blue counties (in 2020) switching to red counties is a 50-50 chance? can you show your work?
  - roenxi 2y ago
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/ You'll note that the distribution mode for a Trump win was 312 electoral votes; which is what he got. They do a good forecast - it suggests there was a 50-50 chance Trump wins, and if he wins the most likely outcome is ... exactly what happened. If it was a Harris win the best bet is she would have gotten 319 electoral votes with high correlation in the swing states too.
    - genewitch 2y ago
      you still didn't watch the video i linked^, and you did not answer my actual question: 89% of counties turning red compared to the 2020 election is a 50-50 chance? Can you show your work? ^ The person in the video explains why thinking it is 50-50 chance is detrimental to the liberal cause.
aaronbrethorst 2y ago
Counties don't vote and Trump's popular vote "mandate" is smaller than Clinton's popular vote win in 2016. Here's a fun stat: literally 40 states have a population that is less than the population of Los Angeles county alone. Why doesn't Los Angeles itself have 80 senators? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia... Setting aside 2000 and 2016 (EC winners lost the popular vote), you'd have to go back to 1968 and Nixon's squeaker of an election over Humphrey to find a closer popular vote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin#List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
- genewitch 2y ago
  Out of curiosity, do you recall seeing a "county map" of the blue votes in the 2020 election?
  - kemayo 2y ago
    Why would we have? It's pointless. As the GP said, land doesn't vote. The more interesting map is the one where you weight the display by population, since it gives a much more accurate representation of how the USA is divided: https://engaging-data.com/pages/scripts/d3Electoral/countyelection2.png https://engaging-data.com/pages/scripts/d3Electoral/countyel... The tool on that website is actually pretty informative to play with if you want to quickly see how adjusting the map style can change the perception. https://engaging-data.com/county-electoral-map-land-vs-population/ https://engaging-data.com/county-electoral-map-land-vs-popul...
    - verzali 2y ago
      Bit of a tangent, but I've always wondered why the United States has a very clear dividing line between the populated east and relatively empty west. It's really visible in the first map you shared. Is there a historical reason behind that line? Or some geographical boundary?
nobody9999 2y ago
>https://youtu.be/zG3n2IeaTPA https://youtu.be/zG3n2IeaTPA >note: not clicking that because you disagree with me is really doing yourself a disservice. I won't click the link because I'm here for discussion with the users of this site, not some random video you thought was interesting/useful. Why do you find it interesting/useful? What arguments are made? How do those arguments comport with your beliefs? Let's have a discussion. So tell me what you think, don't link to some rando on youtube.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  Also it is a video. Asking literate people to go watch a video is disrespectful of their time.
  - genewitch 2y ago
    It is a video of a guest on the view saying the words that i typed. It was "citing a source."
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      The View is just a chit-chat show anyway, so a source that proves that somebody said something on it doesn’t prove anything compelling. Anyway, my computer can’t play YouTube (ad blocking issues). The underlying thing that is annoying people, I think, is that this is (as far as I can tell based on what you’ve written) a factual mathematical issue. That sort of thing is easily conveyed via text and equations. Why would anybody want to watch a video of somebody explaining math?
      - genewitch 2y ago
        > The View is just a chit-chat show anyway, so a source that proves that somebody said something on it doesn’t prove anything compelling. This is a fallacy. I repeated numbers, that person was also repeating numbers, however, they're on a national news program and no one has given any reason that the numbers stated were wrong. It does not matter who says something, you have to weigh it on the merits of the statements. It isn't a "factual mathematical issue" it's a sociological issue, and it's bearing out in this comment thread - burying one's head in the sand because "Los Angeles is bigger and has more people" or "land doesn't vote" or "so what, it wasn't a majority" is missing the forest for the trees. Something about the platform did not work for our neighbors. A platform that worked in 2008, 2012, (2016 if you reckon the pundits are correct), and 2020 - it ceased working in 2024; and merely "doing the same thing" going forward won't work. I think the unspoken part is this: "If the left just pushes on as it has been, the midterms and 2028 aren't going to be '1.5%' margins" People often assume i am part of the opposition party.
kemayo 2y ago
I don't think someone can claim a "mandate" based on not even having won 50% of the vote. You need to at least be able to say that over half of the voters wanted you to win in order to use language like that. That 1.5% is the only thing that mattered for "mandate" purposes. Trump won, but on a razor's edge, and that should give him some pause. (It won't.)
mgfist 2y ago
Well, the great thing is we have betting markets for this now. Given your confidence, I'm assuming you made a lot of money betting on Trump?