CNN Exit Polls - This math is odd...
CNN Exit Polls - This math is odd...
See all exit polls data for the 2024 US elections. For more information on voting and election results, visit cnn.com/election.
According to these CNN exist polls, 53% of respondent voters were women, and 47% were men. 54% of female respondents voted for Harris, 44% for Trump. 54% of male respondents for Trump and 44% for Harris. That means Harris should win the popular vote, if these polls are indicative of the election as a whole. But, she isn't winning the popular vote, she's losing by more than five million votes. That must mean that many more women than men voted on election day, but many more men than women voted early and/or by mail/absentee. Isn't that kind of odd? You'd think the gender breakdown of mail in and early voting would be roughly the same as election day voting. The only other thing I can think of is these exit polls just aren't indicative of the election broadly. Maybe CNN's exit polls aren't capturing a large or diverse enough sample size?
You're viewing a single thread.
No, it means that a decent proportion of Biden voters (nearly 1/7 as of now, with votes still to count) stayed home this time around. Why, with so much at stake? You'll have to ask them.
I thought to myself before the election. If the Dems lose it's not entirely on them this time. The (non-)voters will have made their choice.
I still stand by that. I know the internet trolls are feasting on the Dems bad narrative. This one is just as much is on those voters as it is on whatever failings will be pinned on the party in the coming future.
They would vote for a white man, but not a Black woman.
I'll vote any color but orange...
I don't think they did. Anecdotally, I don't know a single person that backed Biden that didn't vote. Out of the few dozen to maybe 100 people in my circles, there should have been a few descents by that math. There wasn't.
I didn't buy 2016, I don't buy this one either. The polls are too far from the actuals results. They had a decade to install Republican officials at every level, and they did it.
Manipulating election results is trivial. I think the R's just proved that in their final push to Fascism. They had to win this one or they'd never be in power again.
Elections are very closely watched by all sides. And they are massively distributed, run by local people who are accountable in their communities. They don't just run Presidential elections every four years. They run midterm Congressional elections, county and local elections, school voard elections, and so on.
Could someone with ill intent stuff a sack full of ballots in their car without being detected? Maybe. But you would need a massive operation to account for millions of ballots. Fraud at that scale is bound to be detected. If at the end of this thing there really are upwards of 10M fewer votes for Harris than Biden, that can't be explained by anything else than people simply not showing up.
Seems like one simple fraud check that would discover cases of "lost" ballots would be to cross-check the number of people entering the polling station (or having their name crossed off a roll sheet before voting, if they do that) vs number of votes counted from that station. Do they do that?
But you would need a massive operation to account for millions of ballots.
Not really...look at X and how successful it's been on changing the discourse of the US. I don't think an election would even take that scale of tomfoolery. Maybe the US really is this big of a steaming pile of shit, but I don't buy it.
There's a big difference between how a single (now private) company operates vs. a voting system which is decentalized to each state (and even each county). Fuckigng with the actual votes will be detected.
Now, if you're saying that X is fucking with everyone's minds and lying to them to get them to vote for Trump, you may be right there. But in that case, they don't need to also try and mess with the actual voting process.
Fuckigng with the actual votes will be detected.
No, it won't...It's not auditable.
Says who?
It literally is though?