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?
I’m not sure what type of person answers questions that come via random, not really identified text spam, but I don’t think they’re representative of the middle of the bell curve populace. Middle of the bell curve, my money is on “delete and report spam”, or, sadly, “STOP”, letting the spammers know it’s working so they get more.
If you’re implying that Pew Research’s polls have a significant selection bias I’m going to have to ask for evidence for that.
I’m offering up common sense. That is all.
Well my common sense says that an organization as reputable as Pew Research has either taken this into account or concluded it doesn’t cause significant error. Now where do we go from here?