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
[–] 7 points 6 hours ago (1 child)

The answer to this question, no matter the topic at hand, is always "because it doesn't serve their donors goals."

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 hours ago*

    I think the real answer is that anyone who cares about the climate already isn't voting for Republicans. That vote is already secured, so why waste resources saying something that may just piss people off by not calling for extreme enough changes or whatever else. 0% of the people who voted for Trump in 2024 give a fuck about the environment. Those are the people they are trying to convince to not vote for a Republican again, even if it's just to get them to not vote because they sow doubt about how he's starting wars/raising costs and whatever else they think Republicans would care about.

  • source
  • parent