Even the blues will want to know that their constituents are paying attention. Swing state blues especially tend to lose their spine without support from their base.
Call them anyway and tell them to replace Biden with someone that can actually make a coherent case against Trump. These backroom discussions are happening right now.
People who need encouragement to vote aren't going to do their own research and dont have the ability to analyze the repercussions of their vote. NOAA policy isn't going to be mentioned on the campaign trail.
I bet there are legal and practical requirements for that. For instance, a lack of a pretense of neutrality would probably undermine the voters' feeling that they're exercising their voice, and instead make many of them less likely to vote because feel like they're being used to serve someone else's goals.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats have such a policy platform. The official 2024 Republican Party Platform [0] doesn't mention anything about gutting the NOAA.
Project 2025 isn't part of the Republican platform–it isn't an official Republican Party document. It is just a wishlist from a coalition of conservative thinktanks. While those thinktanks are Republican-aligned, it would be a mistake to think any given GOP politician (Trump included) necessarily agrees with any or all of their proposals (or is even aware of them), and their proposals have no official status in the Republican Party. From time to time, Democratic-aligned thinktanks and groups publish their own "wishlists", and those aren't official Democratic Party policies either.
[0] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-pa...
A hundred million Americans have this insane idea that voting doesn't matter, or doesn't change things, or they don't like their options enough, as if that means somehow one of the two options won't end up in charge in a couple months.
The point of voting is not to get your personal favorite personality at the highest office. The point of voting is to take a poll that explicitly influences the direction your organization goes.
Advocate aggressively for things like ranked choice voting and voting holidays to ensure typically poor, underpriviledged people have no more excuses to not vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States...
Some people may think that first part is hyperbolic but it's really not far off from the real numbers. In 2020 we had a better than normal turnout with 2/3rds of the voting eligible public voting. Even with that, though, 80 million or so eligible voters didn't vote.
I have faith that their kindness will always win, as the vicious must hurt those around them by their very nature. =)
You are not punished for your sins. You are punished by your sins.
Call your congresspeople and demand that they put a candidate on the ballot that can make a coherent case against this policy.
Backroom discussions are happening right now to determine whether or not Biden will be replaced by someone that can actually win.
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/16/biden-dnc-vote-nomination-s...
As an organization it is data driven, where countless airlines, maritime shipping, and agricultural entities can't properly function without the service.
Any states that lose NOAA will also see just about every insurance premium balloon into the stratosphere.
Someone is letting the dog drive, lol =)
Trump and the GOP already tried doing this in the last admin.
He tried to appoint the CEO of AccuWeather, who publically lobbied against NOAA, to the head of NOAA.
Business and international trade partners would put a great deal of pressure on any administration which threatened to screw with NOAA to this extent and I don't believe any administration would actually follow through with such a thing, it would have massive negative effect on trade and would probably cost the US far more than it would save. This is just politics exploiting that most people don't actually know what NOAA does.
I'd love to share that certainty, it's a rational position but the Republican party are fully in thrall to an ideological commitment to capture or destroy the institutions of state and can't be relied upon to behave rationally. If you think the political right won't commit economic vandalism in the name of this idiological crusade just take a look at my home, Britain, where first austerity, then Brexit, then Liz Truss's free market extremism dumpded our economy in the trash and pushed our public services to the brink.
The effect these changes would have on the international economy would be massive affecting every country that trades with the US which would compound the internal effects of dismantling NOAA. If the threat was sincere the article would be talking about this stuff instead of how it would effect your ability to plan a weekend picnic.
And another big part of what NOAA does is climate research and they absolutely want to castrate that. Really I don't think you've been paying attention.
Candidate B: "I like clean floors."
Pooping on floors is gross, nobody really wants that, they probably won't do it, just election time fear mongering reporting on floor pooping.
The platform suggests they'll do it. Lots of people in the party suggest they'll do it. They already started to do it last time the candidate was in office. It was only after a good bit of pushback the nominee ended up turning it down in the end.
Candidate A already had their pants down bent over the floor about ready to poop. But I'm sure he won't actually do it given a second chance! Might as well vote for him, I'm sure he won't do what he says he's going to do.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/14/politics/noaa-nominee-accuwea...
The proposal is not to eliminate the NOAA, but to lock it behind paywalls run by private companies. Accuweather already packages up the NOAA data feeds and sells them. This proposal will just eliminate any way for an average citizen to get access to the same data Accuweather gets for free. We will still be paying for it, just will have to pay Accuweather for the privilege of accessing what we've already paid for.
