Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
I loathe the idea that only a handful of states matter in this election. Instead of trying to appeal to the most people in this country, period, we have this ridiculous system where only a few people in a few states matter.
People living in California - their votes are just written off. Think of it: the state with the most people in it simply doesn't count in our Presidential election. So very absurd.
And think about it: if trump is elected, you’re now on his “to drone” list! Me too, bruh.
One of the largest GDP in the world? Doesn't matter what they think.
It's more that they're reliable than not counted.
I mean, in the unlikely event that 99% of Dems in California stayed home the State would turn either turn red or give a bunch of electoral votes to a third party candidate, seriously hurting the Dem candidate's chances with the Electoral College.
But yes - the problem with the Electoral College is that the power of individual voters is unequal, and varies depending on where you live.
58% of PA voters want to ban fracking, but don't expect either candidate to bring it up.
And while most want to ban it:
Pennsylvania voters continue to be split over fracking. A poll out this week, which surveyed 700 likely voters in September, shows 58% support a ban on fracking while 42% oppose it.
Virtually all agree that it can't continue the way it has been:
“Support for taking mitigating measures like regulation and enforcement is strong among all populations that we surveyed,” O’Leary said, “from Democrats and environmentalists on the left to hardcore Republicans on the right.”
Unfortunately for voters in PA, both candidates for president and their Senate seat are fully behind fracking.
Yet people are still scratching their heads like nothing can be done to motivate PA voters.
In general, about half of those surveyed support fracking, while 30% oppose, with 19% unsure.
This is why. In the unlikely event that all 19% end up swinging to pro, we're talking about almost 70% support for it. That not only included moderate Republicans that potentially can be won over, but some conservative Dems that we can't afford to lose.
The 58% is meant to represent "likely voters" but the problem is that if there are enough single issue folks, we may see unlikely voters vote on the issue beyond the lone poll's expectations.
Normally we want to get the vote out, but adopting an explicit anti-fracking stance could energize folks to vote GOP who otherwise would never vote Dem and would stay at home.
There is some hope here though:
90% supported expanding setbacks from schools and hospitals, while 92% wanted increased air monitoring at fracking sites and 94% wanted greater disclosure of fracking chemicals.
So be pro-fracking but also pro-disclosure, pro-monitoring, and pro-setbacks.
Based on, https://www.npr.org/2024/08/30/nx-s1-5096107/what-is-fracking-explained and https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/energy-execs-say-they-believe-vp-kamala-harris-is-indeed-open-fracking-2024-09-17/
It looks like Harris was against it before joining the Biden ticket + administration. Also it only gets buzz during election years. And sadly it also looks like going against the industry would be free cannon fodder for Trump.
Basically it's not worth actually being a campaign issue, and no one actually cares about it outside of elections, so Harris is just taking a pass. Obviously Trump doesn't give a shit and Harris doesn't see it as worth the risk.
It's a shitty situation to be in. On the plus side the numbers you mentioned mean it's close to being unavoidable. Continuing to push is the way forward. Local politicians might also have better luck. Maybe it can get midterm traction.
On the plus side it doesn't seem like Harris is throwing any Hail Mary's, so she must be confident with the current strategy, and hopefully winning the state.
On a post about how important PA is....
And for the record, lots of people heard about her tie breaking vote in support of fracking 2 years ago.
Just because some people only care every 4 years, doesn't mean that's everyone else level of involvement
Associated Press - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Associated Press:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://apnews.com/article/trump-harris-election-2024-pennsylvania-ff03207ad65c9352e36a9054766137b3