It's only a statistical improbability if the conditions were relatively similar to past elections. Mass mail-in voting, by itself and not even considering fraud, could fundamentally change the election dynamic and make bellwether counties statistically irrelevant.
Except that Bellwethers essentially resonate with what the majority of what America wants. That's their entire purpose. It is only improbable if the changes were fraudulent which it was.
More specifically, bellwether counties resonate with what the voting demographic wants. If mass mail-in voting somehow got more people to vote than would otherwise, more specifically getting lazier people to vote, this could easily change the voting demographic dynamic. This is just one theory, as is fraud another theory. Another theory could be that Trump got more people to vote than ever before, but got more new people to vote against him rather than for him, thus changing the voting demographic dynamic.
This is true and why allowing unsolicited mail out of ballots without strong audit controls was known as an invitation to fraud from the very beginning.
How would that change the bellwethers? It wouldn't at all. Unless you're saying that mail-in voting caused there to be massive amounts of fraudulent ballots. Then it would change things.
And for the record, Trump didn't just win the bellwether counties, he fucking smashed them. With double digit leads. One of them was a 23 point lead.
My point is that it wouldn't necessarily change the bellwether counties at all, but enough other counties get a much higher Dem turnout. The bellwether counties are a statistical anomaly. There is a predictable correlation between how they vote and how the rest of the country votes. It's not unreasonable to assume the voting population demographic could change drastically, but affect different counties/states/regions differently, potentially having little affect on bellwethers, but having a massive effect elsewhere.
This explanation is plausible, even if it's not likely. Since there are other plausible explanations, the statistics and probability in the OP post don't tell the whole story, and can't be taken at face value.
Yeah, that's ridiculous. It's not plausible at all. It might be technically possible, but it's highly implausible to the point that no reasonable person would even consider it. The voting was not very different, despite the mail-in ballots in most places. The anomalies only exist in important swing state counties. In most counties, the turnout is consistent and normal. Then you have certain fraud-ridden democrat counties, such as some in Detroit that have 80+% turnout because of obvious fraud.
It's only a statistical improbability if the conditions were relatively similar to past elections. Mass mail-in voting, by itself and not even considering fraud, could fundamentally change the election dynamic and make bellwether counties statistically irrelevant.
Except that Bellwethers essentially resonate with what the majority of what America wants. That's their entire purpose. It is only improbable if the changes were fraudulent which it was.
More specifically, bellwether counties resonate with what the voting demographic wants. If mass mail-in voting somehow got more people to vote than would otherwise, more specifically getting lazier people to vote, this could easily change the voting demographic dynamic. This is just one theory, as is fraud another theory. Another theory could be that Trump got more people to vote than ever before, but got more new people to vote against him rather than for him, thus changing the voting demographic dynamic.
This is true and why allowing unsolicited mail out of ballots without strong audit controls was known as an invitation to fraud from the very beginning.
How would that change the bellwethers? It wouldn't at all. Unless you're saying that mail-in voting caused there to be massive amounts of fraudulent ballots. Then it would change things.
And for the record, Trump didn't just win the bellwether counties, he fucking smashed them. With double digit leads. One of them was a 23 point lead.
My point is that it wouldn't necessarily change the bellwether counties at all, but enough other counties get a much higher Dem turnout. The bellwether counties are a statistical anomaly. There is a predictable correlation between how they vote and how the rest of the country votes. It's not unreasonable to assume the voting population demographic could change drastically, but affect different counties/states/regions differently, potentially having little affect on bellwethers, but having a massive effect elsewhere.
This explanation is plausible, even if it's not likely. Since there are other plausible explanations, the statistics and probability in the OP post don't tell the whole story, and can't be taken at face value.
Yeah, that's ridiculous. It's not plausible at all. It might be technically possible, but it's highly implausible to the point that no reasonable person would even consider it. The voting was not very different, despite the mail-in ballots in most places. The anomalies only exist in important swing state counties. In most counties, the turnout is consistent and normal. Then you have certain fraud-ridden democrat counties, such as some in Detroit that have 80+% turnout because of obvious fraud.