It’s not like fighting environmental regulations is just smart vs. dumb. Smart selfish rich people can avoid environmental impacts quite easily. A lot of the not caring about climate change is people just rationally seeing that in the short and mid-term anyway, climate change isn’t likely to impact them significantly and not caring about what happens to millions of poor people mostly in low-lying countries near the equator. And this includes the rich rich rich people, but also includes the upper middle class.
There’s something quite similar that goes on with Trump and fascism and immigration that happens with climate change. Some people exaggerate the danger to themselves, either saying they are likely to get put into a camp or they are going to die from climate change, and it’s not really true. Most Americans, especially those above the median, aren’t going to suffer much from either. And wealthier Americans are likely to see their stock portfolio do better if corporations are allowed to pollute. They’ll make enough money to install an extra air conditioner.
I don’t know where the best overall strategy is, but for some people anyway, it would be better to be honest and just admit that, yes, fighting climate change is about helping hundreds of millions of people in India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, etc. and having to frame everything as “what’s in it for you” isn’t necessarily the best tack when they can see that having cheaper gasoline is probably going to be better for them and probably even for their children.
I don’t think there’s data on the voting patterns of the 1% or 0.1%, but w/e, the data there is suggests that richer means more likely to vote for Trump.
Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1% It does look like their published total (not sure what goes into the “adjusted total” thing) got Clinton +2, so it looks to potentially be tied for that distinction, yeah. They had what looked like some weird outliers in favor of Trump winning the popular vote leading up to that last result, but the final result was largely lined up with what other pollsters landed on.
Both elections with Trump at the top of the ticket had a 3-5 point polling error in Trump’s favor. I have to believe that’s true this year as well. Anything less than Harris +7 in swing state polls is pretty concerning IMO.
Yeah, the people I’m thinking about are well aware of that and have all sorts of options available when it gets too hot. They still (as far as I can tell) are conscious about the environment and are generally for policies aimed at protecting it. They also like tax cuts. It’s a real two button meme for them.
Man I might be a total sucker but I have some hope that if by some miracle we get fucking Trump out for good we might actually make some incremental progress.
Just following the trend. Based on the last two POTUS elections, dems way underperformed their polling averages. Yeah mid-term polling was fine but there is something about Trump that fucks it up. Could it just be noise? Sure, anything could. But with each data point we get, it’s less likely. I’m just saying that mentally anything less than Harris +5 feels like a toss up and Harris +1 or 2 feels like a Trump win.
My understanding is that pollster’s “likely voters” screens were incorrect and did not capture a significant chunk of “nonvoters” who came out for Trump. Pollsters changed these screens based on new data (and every election is more data), but it’s as much art as science. Still, given the EC I think we need a consistent lead in battleground states.
Really tells you everything you need to know about modern American politics that Republicans are legitimately concerned about losing support from Kyle Rittenhouse.
ianal, but providing housing for thousands or millions has a public purpose. seems like there’s a way to make at least a contrived argument that helping people move out of public spaces like parks and sidewalks is not dissimilar to building more parks and roads.
Something like this would keep some people off the streets and out of the parks and is not for exclusive use by anyone in particular - not for more than one night anyway.
