Kamala and fracking: Can she convince both opposed sides that she supports their side?

Not surprisingly, politicians take positions that their base voters like.  Since presidents run things, if the other party doesn't like your policies, tough shit.

But when elections roll around, suddenly pols try to make it seem like they're moderating their stance, to win more independent voters.

This can lead to some very amusing flipflops, as we're seeing now with Cackles.  She's been caught on video taking scores of positions the Left loves, but most voters don't, and is now faced with the choice of either embracing or repudiating her earlier positions.

This is particularly amusing in the case of "fracking."  The Left hates it, even though most leftists have no idea what it really is.  But states that depend on it for oil and gas production support it.

During a "townhall meeting" in 2020, Cackles told CNN “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.”  Unfortunately for Cackles, Pennsylvania is a must-win state, and it has an oil boom going on that relies on fracking. Promising to kill off thousands of high-paying oilfield jobs is a winning message in San Franciso and Boston, but it doesn’t play so well in western Pennsylvania.

So Kamala has a problem.  She hoped no one would find the video of her earlier statement, and that if anyone did, they wouldn't ask her if she still stands by it.  But if she's pressed, she's got a problem: continue to support her earlier statement that she would ban fracking, to make her Democrat base happy, or reverse course (flip-flop) and say she rejects her earlier position.

Of course she hopes no reporter will ask her, and she's likely to get away with that.  But if she debates Trump she's likely not be so lucky.
 
Both candidates need to win Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes--largest among the battleground states.  Harris knows she'll lose more votes if she stands by her "ban fracking" position--but if she flipflops, she'll anger the activist Dem base.  

So the trick is to take the "no ban" position, then quickly reject charges that she's flipflopped.  And sure enough, her staff is already saying "All candidates change their positions over time."  Then the only remaining need is to quietly tell the base that she HAD to say that to win, *but that she doesn't really mean it.*

Her flipflop must fool mainstream voters, while her lackeys quietly reassure the activist base that she doesn't mean it--that she was forced to say it to win the presidency.  Sure, of course.  And the left will have no trouble with that.

But normal Americans should know that the Democrat party hates the petroleum industry and wants to end the production and use of oil and gas, cuz...Globull Worming.

“Harris courts swing voters with fracking reversal” [The Hill – 8/01/2024]  But don't you dare call it a flipflop.

Kamala’s faux-support of fracking is also causing problems for other Democrats who can't admit that her current (alleged) position is a transparently phony political maneuver.

Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, a left-wing Democrat who is running for re-election in Ohio and is hostile to the petroleum industry was recently asked about Kamala’s now saying she will NOT ban fracking.

A flustered Brown mumbled “I’ve endorsed Vice President Harris.  I don’t know what she said on fracking.”  

Sure, shill.

Source: buck at Ace of Spades

https://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=410905