Sen. Bob Casey, the son of a popular former governor, is fighting for a fourth term against a Republican challenger who’s openly celebrating the retirement of Joe Biden.
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
Kamala changing her stance to against fracking will help get votes
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?
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?
I’d not discount the single issue voter yet.
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?
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 would be the point but we’re discussing why she’s still pro-fracking
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.
Nope, if she could count on 58% of the votes, it wouldn’t be a battleground state…
I figure some of those 58% are the Republican anti-fracking vote.
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.
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.
Here’s the valid reason:
So Kamala being pro-fracking is zero gain of votes
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.