• CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s not that it will work out good (though in a sense, it has for the R in that they got what they actually wanted), it’s that if the Rs have ~50% ish support, no matter what they do, because of them going that route, the only way to beat them is to get everyone that isn’t them in a coalition together.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 month ago

      Right and that makes sense…

      Unfortunately that’s not what Kamala is doing.

      I’ll say it till my face turns blue:

      Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take to guarantee trump can’t win, but Kamala is pro-fracking, refuses to give the party voters what they want, and refuses to even explain why being pro-feacking is seen as a good choice by her and her campaign.

      That isn’t the only issue she’s to the right of the party on either.

      It’s like her, her campaign, and the DNC aren’t focused on beating trump, they want to beat Trump while giving the voters the bare minimum it would take, because the more they give voters, the less they get in donations.

      So then telling voters “all that matters is beating trump” it’s obviously bullshit because they’re not doing everything possible to beat trump.

      It ain’t complicated.

      Like you said:

      the only way to beat them is to get everyone that isn’t them in a coalition together.

      That’s the opposite of what OP spends their time on, but considering a month ago they were intentionally spreading misinformation about when early voting started, I’m surprised the mods still let them post here.

      Every single “meme” OP posts is about how Dem voters should fight with Dem voters rather than band together.

      • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 month ago

        Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take, when the largest swing state this election has an economy that leans heavily on fracking?

        It’s not the instant win you think it is.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 month ago

          when the largest swing state this election has an economy that leans heavily on fracking?

          You’re confusing people and corporations…

          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.

          https://www.wvia.org/news/pennsylvania-news/2024-10-10/pa-voters-split-on-fracking-but-show-widespread-support-for-stronger-regulations

          58% of likely voters in PA want it banned…

          • someguy3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 month ago

            58% of likely voters in PA want it banned…

            Did the environmentalists show up for Gore? No they did not.

            Did the environmentalists show up for Clinton who said she’d have a map room to fight climate change? No they did not.

            Were the environmentalists going to show up for Biden after he passed green energy and ev policies? Polls said no they were not going to show up.

            Harris saying she’d ban fracking is an instant loss. She and everyone advising her knows this.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              Yep. When Democrats enact environmental policies, they don’t do it for the votes. Which makes Biden all the more commendable for his environmental action imo.

          • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 month ago

            When people are employed by those corporations, they have a vested interest in their livelihood not disappearing overnight.

            A survey of 700 people leaves considerable room for polling error. Without information on how they selected participants, I wouldn’t say that’s an overwhelming margin.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              When people are employed by those corporations,

              The report finds that about 64,000 Pennsylvania workers are employed in fossil fuel-based industries such as natural gas drilling, coal mining, and supporting activities

              https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2021/01/29/report-pennsylvania-stands-to-gain-243000-jobs-a-year-from-clean-energy-investment/

              64k, not just fracking, that’s all fossil fuel jobs in PA.

              There’s 12.7 million people in the state

              0.5% of people in the state work any job connected to fossil fuels…

              You’re confusing corporations and people homie.

              A survey of 700 people leaves considerable room for polling error

              You didn’t have to tell us you never learned about stats in any educational setting, but I appreciate the transparency.

              700 is more than enough

              • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                700 people is a good sample size if they are a truly random representative sample of your population. In real life, polling error tends to vary far more than 1/sqrt(n) because of systemic biases in how you select participants. Depending on how the survey was conducted, it could intrinsically favor certain demographics.

        • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 month ago

          Not the person you replied to, but 58% of Pennsylvanians support a ban on fracking. It really shouldn’t be surprising. Pennsylvania may be a great hub of fracking, but very few people actually benefit from the wealth it creates. Meanwhile, they’re the people actually on the ground, living there in the areas most affected by fracking. They know its effects better than anyone. It’s their ground water and their wells are being contaminated, all so a few companies owned by out of state wealthy interests can profit mightily. Plus, it’s not like Pennsylvanians aren’t also worried about climate change.

        • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 month ago

          An economy that “leans heavily” on fracking? What sort of economy leans on destroying their water table? What did you say about the economies that “lean heavily” on coal mining?

              • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                Who’s arguing about conviction here?

                I want the US to pull out of fossil fuels. In the immediate future, there is no presidential candidate committing to that, but one of them is completely all-in on expanding fossil fuels so I will be voting for the opposite candidate.

                Less than a month before election day is not the time for purity politics.

                • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Which candidate are you referring to? And it certainly hasn’t been just in the last month that fossil fuel policies have been a political issue.

      • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take to guarantee trump can’t win, but Kamala is pro-fracking, refuses to give the party voters what they want, and refuses to even explain why being pro-feacking is seen as a good choice by her and her campaign.

        I’m skeptical that there’s a huge swath of voters refusing to vote just because of fracking. And if there are people claiming that, I don’t believe they would be voting even if Kamala did come out against fracking anyway. Everyone knows Trump would be much, much worse for the environment than Kamala, and to refuse to vote over one single environmental issue is either very dumb or completely disingenuous.

        It’s like her, her campaign, and the DNC aren’t focused on beating trump, they want to beat Trump while giving the voters the bare minimum it would take, because the more they give voters, the less they get in donations.

        because, unfortunately, donations are important. It’s a shitty system, and this is what they have to do to win in the system.

        It ain’t complicated.

        actually it is.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I’m skeptical that there’s a huge swath of voters refusing to vote just because of fracking

          No one said there was.

          I said a majority of voters in PA want it banned, and Kamala would gain votes there if she agreed with the Dem voter base nationally and wanted to ban it

          https://www.wvia.org/news/pennsylvania-news/2024-10-10/pa-voters-split-on-fracking-but-show-widespread-support-for-stronger-regulations

          58% of PA voters want it banned

          What is Kamala gaining by being pro-fracking?

          Donations so she can try and convince the people who live by fracking and know how bad it is that they should vote for her anyways because Trump is probably fracking?

          Even if that works…

          You know that means they still have fracking in their backyards, right?

          actually it is.

          I can admit when I’m wrong, I really didn’t think it needed this much explaining.

          • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            No one said there was.

            you clearly implied it by saying, “Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take to guarantee trump can’t win”.

            I said a majority of voters in PA want it banned, and Kamala would gain votes there if she agreed with the Dem voter base nationally and wanted to ban it

            https://www.wvia.org/news/pennsylvania-news/2024-10-10/pa-voters-split-on-fracking-but-show-widespread-support-for-stronger-regulations

            58% of PA voters want it banned

            …which does not mean she’d gain voters from changing her position. How many of those people are voting for her anyway? How many would actually vote for her if she did change her position? you don’t know this, and neither do I, but I’m guessing they have a pretty good idea.

            What is Kamala gaining by being pro-fracking?

            Donations so she can try and convince the people who live by fracking and know how bad it is that they should vote for her anyways because Trump is probably fracking?

            Even if that works…

            You know that means they still have fracking in their backyards, right?

            Yes. I’m not arguing that it’s a good thing. I’m saying this is the way it is, and this is what they need to do to win in the system we have. If you want to fix the system, you need to vote D to gradually re-take SCOTUS and overturn shit like Citizens United that is fucking our politics with money.

            I can admit when I’m wrong, I really didn’t think it needed this much explaining.

            again some things are not as simple as you think.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              you clearly implied it by saying, “Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take to guarantee trump can’t win”.

              That doesn’t say anything about non voters…

              How many of those people are voting for her anyway?

              If 58% of PA voters were voting for her anyways, why is it still a battleground state?

              But why are you questioning every reason for why Kamala should match the party and ban fracking…

              And you can’t offer a si gle reason why she’s pro-fracking besides:

              I’m saying this is the way it is, and this is what they need to do to win in the system we have. If you want to fix the system, you need to vote D to gradually re-take SCOTUS and overturn shit like Citizens United that is fucking our politics with money.

              So are you just admitting that the reason both candidates in 2024 are pro-fracking is because they’re taking bribes in the form of donations?

              Like, and I hate that I have to say this:

              Just because trump takes fossil fuel bribes doesn’t mean Kamala does.

              Like, by that same logic you’re using to defend fracking, a foreign government can buy off the Dem party to support and find their invasion of sovereign countries…

              Because trump and the Republicans do it too.

              Is that what you meant to say or do you not even realize what you’re defending here?

              • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Yes, in order to win in a shitty system, sometimes you have to do shitty things. Welcome to the real world.

                If 58% of PA voters were voting for her anyways, why is it still a battleground state?

                because there is more than one issue at stake in this election, and fracking ranks far down on that list for most people. there is also likely a significant amount of trump voters who are against fracking but would never change their vote to kamala.

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

                  So you legit think it’s better to piss off voters and then use corpo donations to try and claw back some?

                  Your priority isnt getting votes then, it’s getting donations. Donations that will need to be spent in an attempt to get back some of the votes we lost to get the donations…

                  Nothing will ever get fixed if we do that.

                  It’s just creating an extra step that pisses off the people we need votes from

                  • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    it depends on how many votes, and how much money. You are just assuming the votes clearly outweighs the money, but you don’t have enough political experience or information to know that (and neither do I to be clear). But I guarantee you the Harris campaign has done the cost-benefit analysis. They could be wrong because nothing in politics is 100%, we’ll just have to see.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        WHY do you dumbasses always think everyone agrees with your personal beliefs??

        A LOT of people like fracking, and even more are indifferent. Harris is not looking at this huge fucking majority of Dems who hate fracking and going “nah, I don’t wanna win this election”. She is accurately representing the positions of a majority of Democrats.YOU are the minority.

        (And me too, because I’m also anti fracking, but I’m a realist)