But for how important this election will be for Planet Earth and the humans who live on it, the issue itself isn’t getting much airtime. Earlier this month, The Guardian examined the campaign websites of Democratic and Republican Senate candidates in eight battleground states. Of all the candidates surveyed, only two explicitly mentioned climate change.
This retreat hasn’t happened by accident. Over the last two years, some of the Democratic Party’s most influential strategists, donors, and think tanks have been explicitly telling candidates to shut up about climate change and focus on the economy instead—as if those were two separate issues.
It’s a strategy known as climate hushing. And with the midterms fast-approaching, it’s worth asking: Who convinced Democrats that ignoring climate change was a winning strategy? Does the evidence actually support that argument? And what is that silence costing the rest of us?
But right now, wanting to take care of the climate is taking a back seat to not wanting to live in a fascist dictatorship ran by geriatric toddlers who can’t even string a coherent sentence together unless it’s about some kid they want to fuck.
The good news is that the best thing we can do in the United States is get rid of the giant pile of rancid shit.
It’s not hyperbole to say everything that is bad right now is his (and his cronies) fault, including the present affordability crisis.
Geriatric, misogynistic toddlers who also want to re-establish some of their lost ownership over women. This pesky liberation shit needs to be dialed back. 50 years is long enough, daddy’s home now.
(It creeps me out and repulses me typing that post comma part but that’s their language).
The big question here is: Why not both? Clearly this is an issue that voters care about (as of May 26th), so it’s not going to lose votes. This explanation simply doesn’t work to explain establishment Democratic candidates’ behavior, and frankly I don’t understand the urge to look for alternative explanations when we already know they’re corporate shills that don’t care about the climate.
Because at this point climate change can easily be twisted into more BS culture war propaganda used by far right fascist. Like all we want is affordable gas so we can drive 40 mins one way to a dead end job but the damn tree huggers be blocking my commune in the middle of a heat wave during rush hour. See?
Climate change is already culture war BS and has been for a while. Anyone who would buy this is already lost to the Democrats anyway. Like we have decades of data on the subject; for large parties elections are won or lost by motivating one’s base of support to turn out not by competing over a mythical median voter, and evidently 90% of the Democrats’ base of support wants more to be done about climate change.
From a campaign perspective you want a clear, concise message.
There are a gazillion things that need taking care of, but the reality is if you spend time talking about all of them, the message won’t get out and elections will be lost.
This is very true. Slogans work. “We’re not going back” was stellar, but the dunbasses running Kamala dropped it.
A phrase as simple that resonates not just with Lemmy, but the middle of the bell curve people, is needed.
Republicans are really good at it. Dems, never. Too many wet cats swiping at each other and arguing about what’s most important.
A main message sure, but the idea that an electoral campaign can or should only have one message doesn’t match up with reality and is—I’m sorry—frankly bullshit. Pick a Senator or Representative at random and see what their platform was when they got elected. Candidates right now are running on parallel messages of affordability and protecting democracy, and Abdul El Sayed—one of the most successful progressives currently campaigning—also has healthcare as a core part of his platform and I’m pretty sure I remember him talking about foreign wars. Before you respond next you should take a moment to consider why you just said something that’s so obviously untrue.
Edit: Besides, somebody should at least be talking about all the wildfires.
Sure, in interviews they can parse shit out, and that is a good thing, but what is the sell phrase? Whitmer won in Michigan based on “Fix the Damn Roads!” Having driven on them, I can tell you, it’s a byline that could reach every person in that state.
People are busy. They’re not reading what you read. No one is reading what you read, or what I read, that’s how fractured information dissemination is right now. We all consume different news, if any at all.
When the working class majority walk to their voting center, dragging their asses there after having worked 11 shifts in the 7 days prior, what’s the single line that’s going to make them want to spend the energy and not just collapse on their bed?
If you spew multiple things at them they’ll probably just go to bed.
I’m not going to write a bespoke reply for every single person saying the same thing so I’m going to just copy and paste this around:
First, I’m going to have to ask for evidence for that. We have a quarter century of reality we can measure these claims against and see how they hold up. Second, there’s no point in arguing against a position whose proponent won’t substantiate, so until that happens I’ll rely on a good old appeal to authority: Abdul El Sayed, possibly the most successful progressive this election, is outspoken about his climate policy, the right is going totally insane about it and he’s winning anyway. In the absence of better evidence, this is fatal for your argument.
You should take a moment to understand American voters. And also to not be an ass.
I’m sorry that you don’t under stand that US politics is decided on a small handful of issues. Recognizing that isn’t “stupid” it’s simply paying the fuck attention.
If you really want to know where a candidate stands on climate change, I’m sure you can find that, or just ask their campaign and get an answer. But they’re only going to hammering on a few issues because that’s how the America voter just is.
Re-read what you just wrote about El-Sayed.
That’s two things.
His messaging in detail about what those two things means and what he’s gonna do about it include things like Medicare for all, and ending costly foreign wars and removing corruption. Personally, it’s actually only one thing. Because right now Trump’s and the rest of the admin’s rampant corruption is the primary cause of affordability.
You’re acting like they have to message on every topic. And no single campaign (especially national campaigns, but state wide campaigns are bad enough,) can cover every single topic you might be interested in; and right now these things are what Americans are into so that’s what they’re driving home.
Well I’m trying but it’s really hard when everyone keeps offering the same myth without a lick of evidence (and with a fair bit of condescension) and with no concern for whether history or the data backs it up and I’m supposed to just accept it. And if you just thought “what condescension,” this condescension:
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Before I write a wall of text explaining why I think you’re wrong, I’m going to have to ask for evidence that you’re right. But so I don’t leave you hanging, Abdul El Sayed, possibly the most successful progressive this election, is outspoken about his climate policy, the right is going totally insane about it and he’s winning anyway. In the absence of better evidence, this is fatal for your argument as it currently stands.