You guys are having a real problem understanding the argument. I am not arguing the merits of fracking or oil or coal or anything else. I’m simply pointing out that promising to end PA’s gravy train and enact policies that cost tens of thousands of jobs in Pennsylvania might explain why the state might be in play.
You can argue the rightness of your policies all day long and it won’t change electoral reality. Ask the Liberals in Canada, whose promise to end oil and gas cost them every single seat in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and nearly wiped them out in BC and Manitoba.
These things are generally true of all rural areas of the United States. They aren’t unique to Pennsylvania, and they don’t explain actual voting results in Pennsylvania over the last 30 years or so.
Not explicitly and not here. But you’ve been around long enough that most people can infer where you stand on environmental legislation. Plus the glee in your ‘voice’ isn’t as concealed as you seem to think.
according to 538 there are 2 scenarios that trump can win without pa, biden has 4 scenarios where he can win without pa. the other 94 scenarios all have the winner winning pa.
pa with the tricky privacy envelope on the mail ballot. no privacy envelope, no vote; this is going through the court now.
