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.

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?

To draw in the moderate Republican vote? Which helped push Biden past the line in 2020?

It’s insane it’s not what the national voters want, it’s not what battleground voters

Erm, from the article,

In general, about half of those surveyed support fracking, while 30% oppose,

So actually most do support it. Which is why Harris had to change her position.

But Kamala

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 than four in ten (42%) Pennsylvanians support an outright ban on fracking.

More importantly:

Six in ten (60%) Democrats, 38% of independents, and even a quarter (26%) of Republicans support an outright ban.

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!