Feel good news story: "Most mysterious song on the internet" identified after 17 years

I agree with the last thing you said. It seems true to me.

But the first… Why would 15 million more votes break differently? That’s not really how statistics usually works. Why would the population of non-voters be so radically different from the population of voters. That suggests an extremely non-random sampling for both groups. Also, I struggle to call that missing group ‘democrats,’ since that name is defined by how you vote, and they did not vote.

Simpler explanation… we have a jar with 200 marbles… some of those marbles are red, some of those marbles are blue. We pulled out 72 red marbles, and 68 blue ones. And you’re thinking if we pulled out 15 more, they would all be blue. It’s not impossible btw, just extremely unlikely.

well, mid terms in 26, which gives the DNC a chance to figure out some things, followed by names to start being floated. One article I read basically said as one of it's points is that the dems need to pick some one not from a coast and instead from the interior of the country.

Coz its not randomize...
From the data you have shared seems like Red votes have little to none variations, while Blue votes had a huge dive, its not proporcional from what I can see.

Thus questioning why Blue voters did noy showed up is the correct question IMO.

Maybe they thought their vote did not matter, maybe they are feed up with the whole system, maybe they did not want to take part in this awful election.

The thing is that this was supposed to be a close race, it it was not, but the incentives to vote where there.

exactly, thanks Cucho. Glad my point wasn't too unclear. I hate being misunderstood when i feel like I articulated it right. (not DJ's fault)


Hey DJ, you gotta keep us appraised on the election fallout planning with your wife. I'm super curious how that will evolve. If you get frustrated about it, vent here instead of taking it out on her lol

A few points you all should know:

1) 2020 was the unusual year, not 2024. We had the highest turnout as a percentage of the voting population since 1960 that year. 2024 is more normal, not the other way around. I don't think we could reasonably expect the turnout to be so high - perhaps ever again in our lifetimes (60 years is a long time folks, most of us won't live that much longer).
2) the best estimator of the total population is the sample -> this is basic statistics (like week one stuff in an undergraduate course)

When you say there were 15 million missing votes, I direct you to point 1.
When you say 15 million additional votes would be all, or heavily weighted towards, Democrats, I direct you to point 2.
Note: 15 million more votes might have swung things over to more balanced, in some weird reversion to the mean, but I seriously doubt it.

______________________________

If I had a dollar for every time someone on this site erroneously said something was not random, when it almost certainly is random (or at least mostly random), I'd have a surprising number of dollars given the tiny amount of members on this site. I could probably afford a decent meal, despite all of the inflation we've been experiencing.

______________________________

@BB, I'm working on it. But I'm also looking for work out of the US. The thing is, Harris's crushing defeat was actually good for me. The country really dodged a bullet there, because there's no doubt who won, and therefore no expectation of another attempted insurrection. Consequently, we have a terrible President, but the county is not in imminent danger.

Yep, thats pretty much how statistics work.

You guys are assuming 15mil people didn't show up when the stats show that a good portion of them did show up, they just voted for Trump.

i feel like we're looking at different sets of data but ok.

That's certainly possible. Here's why I would not have expected 15 million additional votes, in case that helps:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_tur ... _elections

I'm looking at the same data DJ linked.

I'm looking specifically at a section that shows a shift from 20 to 24 in 1% of the Black Male Vote, 5% of the Asian Male Vote and 7% of Hispanic Females, 13% of the Hispanic Male Vote and 7% of all Other votes moved from voting Biden in 20 to Trump in 24. You can't lose that many votes and expect to win, when just 4 years ago the race was close and the Dems barely won.

If we randomly pick another 17 million people and force them to vote, those votes are largely going to pan out just like the general election with a variance of plus/minus a few %.

Which is why, it might swing slightly more towards Harris ("variance of plus/minus a few %"), but also why it is almost inconceivable that it would have caused her to win - and by win, I just mean the popular vote... Winning the electoral college is even less believable to me unless many of those votes were exactly where she needed them to be.

There where 15 mill blue voters that did not showed up, not that if 15 mill more random people vote they would all vote blue.

No... technically, there were probably close to 50 million blue voters that did not show up. But let's not forget that there were probably 55 million red voters who also did not show.

If we were to increase the total numbers by 15 million, more than half of them (based on the sample we have) would still have been red.

I'm being lazy right now... these numbers are in the ballpark. I don't feel like spending the time doing the math. So take them as very rough estimates that would lead you to the same conclusions a more serious estimate would give you.

I don't see how Barney and Cucho are looking at the same chart we are, seeing all those blue "-s" and all those red "+s" and still thinking it was just Dems not showing up. Voters flipped. Pure and simple.

I find this conversation about 15% of the Male Latino vote flipping humorous when compared to our conversation about 9 months ago about if Hispanic/Latinos can be considered White Supremicists. A lot of you guys laughed at the idea but I warned you that this is a real phenomena. Here we are seeing the results in a pure 15% shift in those voters and ya'll still can't believe what's right in front of you. (Leader of the Proud Boys is not white btw)

i've never laughed at that. I've always said that no one is worse to minorities than minorities.

anyway, yeah I'm not looking at the same chart that you guys are. I'm looking at other stats and clearly the same ones Cucho is looking at.

I have a really really hard time believing people who did not vote for Trump in the past FLIPPED and voted for Trump in this election. that seems almost impossible to believe.

Latinos/Hispanics are largely Catholic. Is it that hard to believe that Catholics have a hard time being aligned with a party that supports expanding gay and trans rights?

Well, they did, BB. In large numbers.

I think it's the economy, mostly, and in that regard Biden is a complete failure (even if maybe he shouldn't be, that's how people see it). By extension, Harris would be seen as more of the same.

That second point is unfair, btw. She'd probably be worse.

So on the one hand you have a charismatic leader, who is seen as a friend to big business. On the other you have someone, with so little charisma I'm shocked she ever reached public office, who really failed to communicate any way she would change or more importantly improve America.

You and Cucho are acting like you weren't told that she was unsuitable. But I told you that, on this site, before she was even chosen to replace Biden. I was furious about it. I'm still furious about it.

________________________

@sixty, while I'm sure that matters too, I'd bet immigration was the bigger issue to them, as shocking as that might sound.

that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that I can't believe anyone that someone who voted Biden would now vote Trump. It seems impossible to me.


What I CAN believe (and this is what I've been trying to say) is that someone who voted Biden would simply not vote this time around. That seems very believable and completely normal, even.


I would also believe that someone who did not vote last time would show up this time to vote Trump. I don't think that happened much but I would believe that for sure.

It's not shocking, I'm sure all 3 had to do with the way voting went. She was crowned the Border Czar. She was supposed to work with Central American countries to help provide economic opportunities for their population so the immigration would be reduced. Besides leading the Senate that was her only job that was publicized. I don't know that she did anything because the situation did not improve. And that hurt her.

Yes, partially because of immigration itself, but it's more than that. You could change "immigration" to any other word or appointment. She failed to produce results. 4 years went by and she has nothing to show for it. It's that old adage; She had one job!

@BB:

Do you really believe that someone whose purchasing power has been cut by a third, whose job may be at risk due Biden's idealistic views of the future (and preferential treatment of certain industries), and who's angry about Biden's seeming lack of ability to influence foreign events might not punish Harris (and more importantly Democrats) by voting for Trump?

I think a lot of people could justify changing their vote, on a pure ****-you-we-believed-you-and-you-didn't-deliver reasoning, to punish the Democrats.

I would have, if it didn't mean voting for Trump. I'm guessing I'm more the exception than the rule.