Long story short: Billionaire-backed centrist groups told them not to. But with the midterms days away, is that really a good idea?

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?

  • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
    33·
    3 days ago

    And also to not be an ass.

    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:

    You should take a moment to understand American voters.

    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.