It tells you that he doesn't have the same base of enthusiastic supporters that Harris does. It's showing up in things like the turnout operations that the campaign has. Trump's turnout operation tricks people and threatens to strand them far from home because they can't get volunteers.
30
Drought Is an Immigration Issue | And Trump's climate policies are designed to ignore that.
(www.theatlantic.com)
US emissions peaked back in 2007
This leads me to believe that you're making an appeal to ignorance.
They make the bulk of their money on things like puzzle games, product reviews, and recipes. The news is kind of a side business.
Newspapers in general have been having a tough time, but the NYT is fantastically profitable. They're basically a games, review, and recipe company with a side of news.
A union may well get their compensation up in line with industry norms
The Democrats have actually passed major new policies, with Harris casting the tiebreaking vote for the Inflation Reduction Act:
It's not yet enough, but they've made over a hundred policy changes in addition
By contrast, the Trump administration went out of their way to roll back as many environmental protections as possible.
Given that choice, it's worth looking at how Stein can operate as a spoiler:
Scenario 1:
Harris: 1001 votes
Trump: 1000 votes
Stein: 0 votes
Harris wins
Scenario 2:
Harris: 1000 votes
Trump: 1000 votes
Stein: 1 vote
Tied vote, which goes to the courts and Congress, putting Trump in power
Scenario 3:
Harris: 999 votes
Trump: 1000 votes
Stein: 2 votes
Trump wins outright
This spoiler effect makes it really imperative to actively vote for Harris if you want to see any kind of climate action going forward. Republicans know this, which is why they're the ones funding the Green Party.
It's bad enough that the European green parties have asked her to step down.
The reality is that the Democrats are investing huge amounts in green energy
The Biden administration initially expected the law to provide some $370 billion in spending and tax credits for clean energy projects, but other groups expect the figure to be far higher as more companies and households take advantage of the law’s tax credits. The Brookings Institution estimated the I.R.A. could be worth $780 billion through 2031, while Goldman Sachs set a potential total cost of $1.2 trillion.
They're asking that people stay off NYT games and cooking-related pages:
NYT Games and Cooking are BEHIND THE PICKET LINE. Please don’t play or engage with Games or Cooking content while the strike lasts!
News coverage — including election coverage — is NOT behind the picket line. It’s okay to read and share that, though the site and app may very well have problems.
Thanks for pointing that out; I clearly made a cut-and-paste error. Fixed now.
It can certainly happen when things are close, as they are now. Even if all you do is change it from "close" to "not close" the impact is to keep it out of the courts.
In the US, right now, who holds power is still decided by who gets the most votes in elections. Even non-swing-states have congressional races, races for state legislature, and elections for local government.
If you're in a spot where you think your local vote won't be close, you can volunteer to turn others out to vote
You're seriously underestimating the kinds of things that academia generates
Edit: and yes, the whole thing is meant as a joke. If you're actually using sabotage to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, turning around and selling social permission to pollute is just plain silly.
If my experience is any guide, Harris weekday rallies are full of people who have already voted, and have been canvassing in the area. People don't go to one because they're expecting a reason to vote for her; they're going because it's a way to stay excited at times of day/week when people are less likely to answer the door.