• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    1. Pennsylvania is a battleground state Kamala might not win.

    2. 58% of voters there want to ban fracking.

    3. Both candidates are pro-fracking.

    4. 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

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.