Michigan and other battleground states might have swung for Trump, but they elected environmentalists to U.S. Senate seats, too.
Where did the fucking climate messaging go? If democrats wanted to be elected because of their stance on climate change maybe they should have said something about it.
Yes, but it’s obvious that Trump is abominably worse on the topic. Only hope is that the tariffs vastly minimize global trade.
This is a big part of the Democrats problem, it feels like their stance on every topic is “Trump is worse”. Harris supports genocide in Gaza, yeah but Trump is worse. Harris embraces fracking, yeah but Trump is worse. Harris embraces the criminal migrate narrative, yeah but Trump is worse. Running to the right and yelling but that guy’s worse has always been a losing strategy for Democrats but they just keep doing it. Why did Bill Clinton and Obama win? They embraced progressive policies and offered a vision of hope. Why did Biden win? He tried to go right but between some early issues like “working with segregationists” and the crime bill along with Bernie’s success in the primaries he was dragged back left and there was meaningful policy separation. Why did Hillary Clinton and Harris lose? They ran right and yelled “but the other guy is worse.”
That would be almost hilarious; the world meets our CO2 emission targets because Trump tanks the US economy with tariffs first, and then another plague second (my bet is bird flu this time)
Dems didn’t run on climate change. And also just simple doomerism doesn’t motivate people. They would have needed a solution, which the Dems aren’t willing to offer.
which the Dems aren’t willing to offer.
Of course not, because it would affect voters negatively. And voters don’t give a shit about the climate, unless it is just something they can contribute to with token gestures.
Of course not, because it would affect
votersdonors negatively.FTFY.
I think voters do give a shit, but absolutely don’t see why they should be the only ones it affects negatively.
Billionaires emit more carbon pollution in 90 minutes than the average person does in a lifetime
Headline as of 29. October 2024 (https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaires-emit-more-carbon-pollution-90-minutes-average-person-does-lifetime )
I understand why voters may not be so willing. At the same time, anyone actually imposing actual, effective, enforceable sanctions on carbon pollution either goes bankrupt or brings upon armed conflict. Wars have been waged for much lesser threats to maintaining wealth (see RUS vs. UKR, oil/gas reserve competition). I personally don’t think we’ll manage it meaningfully until things get really bad, so I’ll do my best, but will definitely not go out of my way to not eat a steak a few times a year, when theoretically I could punch a billionaire so they have to stay in bed a day and have balanced my family’s CO2 footprint.
Your article is cute, but really talks around the issue, seemingly obfuscating it as “polluting investments”. Those billionaires own businesses, the ones that you buy at or buy from in one way or another. It ultimately still falls back to us and our consumerism, as well as just our general way of life and necessities in our developed countries. Sure, you can tax them more, but who do you think is going to pay for those additional costs?
Remember the downturn during covid? That also came with a drop in emissions, one that would have to continue until 2035, just for us to meet our emission targets. People already went on the barricades at that time, losing their businesses and being able to afford less and less due to rising prices. And that was just after about a year of it, causing massive demonstrations around the globe. If your average voter is already fed up by being mildly affected like this, what do you think would happen if this would have continued indefinitely?
The inconvenient truth is that absolutely no one wants actual climate policies, except for a very minor fringe movement of climate “extremists”.
Yes you are correct in that it’s painful to do the things that are required, and if given the choice, nobody would do it willingly.
My point was, that if everyone has to make sacrifices, there’s a tiny chance. If the deal is “you get to suffer through economic downturn” and at the same time large investors see double, triple digit gains (COVID) then that chance goes to zero/negative.
The article clearly states that voters who prioritized climate doubled this year. It was just not enough to overcome economic headwinds at the presidential level.
Pair this with the article regarding bullet voters who only vote for the President and not down ballot races, and you start to paint a picture of what happened here.
The economy and Trump’s rabid fan base won the presidency, but past that, the electorate still cares about more complex issues like climate change, likely more than ever.
We’re a bit screwed at the national level for now, but this highlights that the states need to take charge until we can get our federal house in order.
if they only voted for president then how did republicans take the house and senate?
I’m going to answer your question as if you are being serious and are genuinely curious.
- House Gerrymandering. Over the last few years - the GOP has gotten rid of multiple D-leaning house seats in Florida, Wisconsin, Texas and North Carolina (they tried in Alabama too). Even with that, they are just barely going to win the house on what should have been a decent election year for them.
- Senate - 2018 was a bad year for the GOP and a good year for the Dems. Due to that, them Dems picked up some seats that are less likely (Montana, Ohio, Ruby Red WV). This cycle, there are multiple states that picked an R president but a D senate member, albeit by smallish margins. This time around, the winds were more in the R favor, so Rs recouped those redder states, but didn’t so much in the purple states. The exception is Pennsylvania, which often elects one Senator from each party.
Heads up - 2026 Purple NC is also one of those states that often elects a senator from each party, so expect lots of ads during the race there. The beatings will continue until the color improves.
Double heads up - 2030 will be 2 years after the president who is elected after Trump (if that remains a thing). I’d say there’s a decent chance that the president will be a Dem unless someone can capture the same energy that DT rouses in certain demographics. That election cycle is usually one where the party in power gets trounced (though there are some exceptions), it also happens to be the year that the census occurs and redistricting takes place thereafter. The Rs won that fight last time. Following the trajectory I outlined, it’s likely the R’s will win it, again.
I still think folks may ignore judicial retention and the waste commissioner but I think most who vote for president also will vote on senate and house seats. I don’t think they do president and president only. Things were pretty gerrymandered in 2022, 2020, 2018, and so on.
Where did all the climate voters go?
Long time passing…
Where have all the climate voters gone?
Long time ago…
The politicians ignored them, every one…
Oh when will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
Sorry you gave me a Pete Seeger Flashback
The climate voters voted against climate change because Democratic propaganda is of increasingly low quality.
It took a back seat to people who can’t buy groceries and who believe Trump is bringing back 2016-2020 prices with him.
And men, who either out of spite or are just tired of hearing about reproductive rights, or just don’t care. What about their capacity to be single earner providers for a family?
