89
Why aren’t Democrats talking about climate? (heated.world)
submitted 13 hours ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 11 hours ago (12 children)

Half the comments are saying this but the vast majority of Dem voters and a simple majority of US adults want more to be done about climate change. People are very much able to care about multiple things at once.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 hours ago

    The challenge is that for it to be a good campaign issue, it has to be a big priority with minimal exploitable downside. While people might abstractly want to address climate change, they care more about their economic well being. So taking time away from talking about economy is taking time away from the more impactful messaging. Also, gives opportunity for the opposition to assert the obsession with climate change will hurt their economic outcome. The good answers address all at once with nuance, but nuance sadly does not work well in a campaign.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 hours ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 10 points 9 hours ago (8 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 hours ago

    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).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago (6 children)

    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 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 9 hours ago (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

    From a campaign perspective you want a clear, concise message.

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 hours ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 hours ago

    Before you respond next you should take a moment to consider why you just said something that's so obviously untrue.

    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.

    Candidates right now are running on parallel messages of affordability and protecting democracy, and Abdul El Sayed [snip] also has healthcare as a core part of his platform and I'm pretty sure I remember him talking about foreign wars.

    That’s two things.

    1. protecting democracy
    2. affordability

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent