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

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

          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.

          Are you not aware of the overlap with the 2016 and 2020 campaigns?

          2020 we won by literally tens of thousands of votes, it worked but just barely and mostly because trump was already in office.

          The people running this campaign and the dnc don’t know what the fuck they’re doing. They’ve locked in as donations as a metric and only chase that one single metric, even to the point of ignoring votes.

          It’s ok to criticize them, we’re not Republicans

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

            i’m not saying you’re not allowed to criticize them. i just doubt that you know better than they do. just because the elections are close doesn’t mean your strategy is better. they are fighting an uphill battle with the electoral college and too much money in politics, on both sides.

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

              i just doubt that you know better than they do.

              If you look at who “they” are, it’s mostly the people who couldn’t beat trump in 2016 and barely beat him in 2020 after Sanders drug them kicking and screaming to the left in the primary

              We didn’t get that this year, no one is dragging Kamala left…

              They’re not “the best at what they do” except in raising donations, seriously, look I to the people running shit, they’re in positions of power because they brought in the most money, they’re always going to side with the money because their metric is how much they can bring in.

              It is not a good way to run a political party, and most voters don’t even know it’s happening.