40
Why Kamala Harris' Pennsylvania chances are tied to a statewide dynasty
(www.semafor.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
40 points (88.5% liked)
politics
19233 readers
2509 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Kamala change on fracking could very well cost us the state.
It's insane it's not what the national voters want, it's not what battleground voters, it's not even what the platform is...
But Kamala loves fracking now, so we all get fracking.
https://www.wvia.org/news/pennsylvania-news/2024-10-10/pa-voters-split-on-fracking-but-show-widespread-support-for-stronger-regulations
Can anyone give me a single valid reason for her to be pro-feacking besides donations, which will need to be used to make up for her stance on fracking?
I'm assuming the Dems think those 58% anti-fracks are going to vote for them anyway. The Dems are trying (as they always do and fail) to court some of the 42% that might be pro-frack and anti-trump.
Nope, if she could count on 58% of the votes, it wouldn't be a battleground state...
Fracking switches from being an issue between candidates to not being one. It isn't like Trump is anti-fracking.
What?
They're both pro fracking, and Kamala could gain votes by being against it
Who would be anti fracking but otherwise vote for Donald Trump?
No one in their right mind.
But these folks might vote Stein, costing Harris the State in a FPTP system.
Or they might not vote at all, hurting Harris if the election turns out to be particularly close.
A sizeable chunk of the folks who would have voted for RFK Jr, I'd guess.
So people not voting for Harris anyway, which is why I won't what votes she would lose.
....
Pennsylvania is a battleground state Kamala might not win.
58% of voters there want to ban fracking.
Both candidates are pro-fracking.
Kamala changing her stance to against fracking will help get votes, win Pennsylvania, and stop trump.
I'm sorry if what I'm saying still isn't clear, but I can think of no simpler way to put it, I wont see anymore of your replies so if you still need assistance ask someone else
And I'm asking how. What person voting for President is making being against fracking the reason for their vote? Who is the single issue voter against fracking?
Yeah, 58% of Pennsylvania voters don't like fracking, but who is going to change their vote because of this shift, either to Trump or to third party?
I'd not discount the single issue voter yet.
The former? No one. But to a third party like Stein, that's a lot more plausible. We're already seeing this elsewhere (e.g. with Muslim voters endorsing Stein due to Harris not being strong enough on protecting Gaza) so worrying about a single issue vote can make sense here.
Ultimately though I agree with you - Harris is likely to gain more from the moderate Republican never trumper pro fracking votes than she'll lose from the single issue anti-fracking votes.
That's the point of switching to pro-frack?
That would be the point but we're discussing why she's still pro-fracking
I already said that the Dems believe they can court some of the pro-frack without losing the anit-fracks. I think this is wrong, but that's why they are doing this.
You just don't agree with the strategy, but it's still the answer.
....
58% want to ban, they don't need any pro-fracking votes...
This is common everywhere fracking has been done, the people that live around it don't want it.
And Dem voters across the country don't want.
So Kamala being pro-fracking is zero gain of votes, and hurts the environment making climate change worse.
I asked for a valid reason, it's apparent you won't give one. There's no point in anything else if you still don't get it.
No the problem is you need to define valid for everyone else. You not liking a valid reason doesn't make it less valid. Clearly this word means something different to you in this context.
Here's the valid reason:
No, this would gain some votes. Moderate Republicans who can't stomach the other guy are looking for reasons to make an exception and vote Dem, and this is one of them.
Being anti-fracking wouldn't take votes away from the GOP voters, but would get those votes who are otherwise voting for Stein and such. Since there are other plans in play to convince those voters to go to Harris instead, aiming for the never trumper votes makes sense here.
Yep. So she's pro-fracking because she's trying to get some of that 42% that's pro-fracking, while counting that most of the 58% will support her anyways. Considering Harris's past record on fracking, they have better odds of working with Harris to stop fracking once she's in the White House than they would if the other guy wins.
I figure some of those 58% are the Republican anti-fracking vote.
To draw in the moderate Republican vote? Which helped push Biden past the line in 2020?
Erm, from the article,
So actually most do support it. Which is why Harris had to change her position.
Curious as to the of first name here? Unless you personally know Harris or met Harris, it seems - I can't quite put my finger on it, but - almost disrespectful?
Unless I've missed something harris says she does not support a ban on fracking not that she wants to expand fracking. That's an important distinction, as opposing fracking is not the same thing as supporting a ban.
I think the article you linked contains An error, if you click through to the polling itself, you find this:
More importantly:
So among independents and Republicans support is actually quite low.
Opinion time:
So in my opinion harris stance seems to align more with the dominant view on fracking, that it should be discouraged but not outright banned and is especially a winner among independents.
From a wider perspective, I think building up solar and wind has greater impact and takes less political willpower (later on in that polling you can see wind and solar are supported by 90+% of people). so i think harris is making a smart choice long term. Fracking doesn't make economic sense in a world with established solar and wind infrastructure as even a small drop in demand can push fracking into unprofitable territory.
You can see this somewhat in the current administration, people like environmentally friendly policy when it isn't framed as environmental policy. There is a reason the biggest us climate bill ever is called the inflation reduction act and not the ghg reduction act.
As I said elsewhere why does she need so much money to fight the most unlikable person ever? What is her position? Cause to win she seems to have reversed every stance she had 6 years ago in 2018, but send money!
The entirety of the American election cycle is a grift.