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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s the point of switching to pro-frack?
That would be the point but we’re discussing why she’s still pro-fracking
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.
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.
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.
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.