It's more that they're reliable than not counted.

I mean, in the unlikely event that 99% of Dems in California stayed home the State would turn either turn red or give a bunch of electoral votes to a third party candidate, seriously hurting the Dem candidate's chances with the Electoral College.

But yes - the problem with the Electoral College is that the power of individual voters is unequal, and varies depending on where you live.

One of the largest GDP in the world? Doesn't matter what they think.

And think about it: if trump is elected, you’re now on his “to drone” list! Me too, bruh.

In general, about half of those surveyed support fracking, while 30% oppose, with 19% unsure.

This is why. In the unlikely event that all 19% end up swinging to pro, we're talking about almost 70% support for it. That not only included moderate Republicans that potentially can be won over, but some conservative Dems that we can't afford to lose.

The 58% is meant to represent "likely voters" but the problem is that if there are enough single issue folks, we may see unlikely voters vote on the issue beyond the lone poll's expectations.

Normally we want to get the vote out, but adopting an explicit anti-fracking stance could energize folks to vote GOP who otherwise would never vote Dem and would stay at home.

There is some hope here though:

90% supported expanding setbacks from schools and hospitals, while 92% wanted increased air monitoring at fracking sites and 94% wanted greater disclosure of fracking chemicals.

So be pro-fracking but also pro-disclosure, pro-monitoring, and pro-setbacks.

Based on, https://www.npr.org/2024/08/30/nx-s1-5096107/what-is-fracking-explained and https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/energy-execs-say-they-believe-vp-kamala-harris-is-indeed-open-fracking-2024-09-17/

It looks like Harris was against it before joining the Biden ticket + administration. Also it only gets buzz during election years. And sadly it also looks like going against the industry would be free cannon fodder for Trump.

Basically it's not worth actually being a campaign issue, and no one actually cares about it outside of elections, so Harris is just taking a pass. Obviously Trump doesn't give a shit and Harris doesn't see it as worth the risk.

It's a shitty situation to be in. On the plus side the numbers you mentioned mean it's close to being unavoidable. Continuing to push is the way forward. Local politicians might also have better luck. Maybe it can get midterm traction.

On the plus side it doesn't seem like Harris is throwing any Hail Mary's, so she must be confident with the current strategy, and hopefully winning the state.