Bits and Qubits are two entirely different things.
One refers to QM and the other doesnt, as in QM refers to entanglement.
"Before analyzing in detail the resulting distinction between quantum and classical information, let us take note of some common misconceptions about the relationship of information to the physical world related to the increasingly popular idea that information is physical in nature. The greatest and most common error of this sort is naively to identify information with the physical systems that may be used in communicating it."
Jaeger, G. (2009).
Entanglement, information, and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Springer.
They are not entirely different, but very similar. For one, both are part of information theory and derive their origins from there. For another, both were used before to characterize physical systems. Finally, this:
Meaning a bit or "qubit" can be in two different places at once
is a fundamentally problematic way of looking at qubits. The reason that information theory and its formalism was adopted in physics is in part to avoid (or bypass) the inconvenience of describing physical systems using classical formalisms (math), but without being able to relate the mathematical descriptions (classical formalisms) of the physical systems to the systems themselves. This is still an area of much debate, but the use of information theory provides a way to frame experimental results, methods, findings, etc., which is useful, free of any interpretative framework for the measurement process, and capable of stimulating further progress.
However, as soon as one relates qubits to quantum systems, one has introduced the same problem which has plagued modern physics since Einstein and Bohr had their no-holds-barred combat match about the completeness and interpretation of quantum mechanics. By using information theory, one can adopt the probabilistic interpretation of QM without actually applying this to the physical systems. The fact that the mathematics imply e.g., an electron as being in more than one location in physical space is avoided entirely. Additionally, while the probabilistic interpretation still implied that the photon actually was somewhere in some form (an interpretation that couldn't be validated), the use of information theory makes this irrelevant. It
only considers possibility states as abstractions. The success of QM formalism (which is incredible) is maintained, but the problem of making physics actualy describe the physical is put aside.
In this way, a qubit is exactly like a bit, but is not binary. Of course, qubits do have some relation to actual physical systems. However, so do bits used in standard computing. The difference is not particularly important, as a central reason for the adoption of information theory and "qubits" in quantum physics is the abstract nature of mathematical characterizations of quantum systems. So not only do both bits and qubits come from the same source (the formalizing of information by Miller, Shannon, Weaver, and others), they are both used to describe abstractly elements which can be realized in some sense physically yet need not be (as the section I quoted above is careful to point out).
An original bit, an electrical bit, cant, while a photon can, depending the mathematical probability (or state).
An original bit isn't electrical at all:
The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information
Neither "bit" nor "qubits" exist in places at all. They are descriptions of possibilities. One is a description in which two states are possible, and
only two states, are possible. It could be the flip of a coin.