If you’re referring to the recentish CBS news poll showing a 48/52 split on the topic of fracking bans in general, that poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percentage points, meaning that PA is very literally split down the middle with no majority opinion. This is interpreting polls 101 - you need a clearer spread to actually interpret that polling opinion with confidence, and politicians with boots on the ground meeting people will tell you that opinions on fracking in PA are uncertain. Opinions are changing slowly, so it is wishful thinking at best and deliberately disingenuous at worst to claim “majority support” with confidence for fracking bans in PA.
Basic politics is that if the people are uncertain, you do not implement sweeping changes. By and large people rebel against large changes to the status quo when they feel uncertain, and that is absolutely the driving characteristic of states like PA and WI. When polls that distill a complex topic to a binary choice show a split, it means your voters are undecided and the topic is very nuanced, and that means until the winds show a clearer direction or until places like PA stop mattering, the smart move is to not come down hard on fracking.
I don’t like it either but this is what we have to work with. Vote third party if you want, but that will accomplish less of your agenda than voting for a Democrat. No, really, it will, because it will accomplish 0% at best and possibly a negative percentage at worst. We have two parties in this country and until we get ranked-choice or effectively parliamentary representation in enough places, it’s staying that way, and voting third party ain’t fixing it.
I find it honestly wild that a segment of leftists will on the one hand deride people for believing voting will change anything and then on the other hand insisting that voting for a third party will change anything. You can’t have it both ways.
If you want revolution, assemble your coalition and bring it the polls. That’s easier than picking up guns, and I am exceedingly confident that the vast majority of the “revolutionary left” in this country lacks the temerity to actually shoot their government into existence. That’s a compliment, because people who jump straight to the non-negotiable solution are terrorists and they will continue to terrorize whatever system is put in front of them.
And if it comes to pass that you are forced to take more direct action, you will have already assembled a coalition for polls, so you will have to do less work to respond to whatever situation arises in the aftermath of the election. You don’t want that to happen, but in either scenario the strategically optimal first step is forming a coalition of like-minded voters to take to the polls.
You want electoral solutions, and you want to vote strategically, because the alternative is not a world anyone who you want around actually wants to exist - and once again, if you actually do want that level of instability, then I don’t want you anywhere near any political movement, because you will sabotage it.