Yes, climate change has been moved to the back burner due to the daily stress imposed on the populace by the train wreck that is trump 2.0. Perhaps the best way forward on climate change is indeed a sideways strategy, in which the more immediate benefits of green energy are highlighted, in lieu of more distance concerns like rising seal level, heat waves, desertification, species migration, inevitable dystopian existence, etc. One has only to look at the benefits already being realized by the rest of the world to see every day examples. Like many problems we face these days, the opposition is mostly organized and directed by the oligarch class, and so climate change could be folded into a broader strategy for the average person to reclaim their power - call it a new populism.
“And the omission of clean energy from a PAC of clean energy enthusiasts is a recognition that their issue is not going to persuade swing voters who are skeptical of Democrats.” How does the omission of an issue in messaging targeted directly and specifically at Republican primary voters have literally anything to say about swing voters? I read this piece with an open mind, as I’ve had some questions about this study’s claims. But it feels quite in keeping with Searchlight’s whole deal to criticize someone for making moderately substantiated claims with a piece that makes a ton of poorly substantiated claims.
It’s a recognition that you can do climate politics without actually messaging about climate. In this case the audience is republican primary voters, but the same could be said about most swing voters as well. Im having trouble seeing the disconnect here.
The disconnect on this particular point is that the post says it “is a recognition that their issue is not going to persuade swing voters,” which is not what that GOP primary messaging choice is recognition of at all.
You say “but the same could be said of swing voters,” but that’s the whole point of controversy, and one that Searchlight has been quite dishonest about, even in how you’ve portrayed your own survey results! So, again, funny to see a post like this about someone else’s claims.
Yes, climate change has been moved to the back burner due to the daily stress imposed on the populace by the train wreck that is trump 2.0. Perhaps the best way forward on climate change is indeed a sideways strategy, in which the more immediate benefits of green energy are highlighted, in lieu of more distance concerns like rising seal level, heat waves, desertification, species migration, inevitable dystopian existence, etc. One has only to look at the benefits already being realized by the rest of the world to see every day examples. Like many problems we face these days, the opposition is mostly organized and directed by the oligarch class, and so climate change could be folded into a broader strategy for the average person to reclaim their power - call it a new populism.
“And the omission of clean energy from a PAC of clean energy enthusiasts is a recognition that their issue is not going to persuade swing voters who are skeptical of Democrats.” How does the omission of an issue in messaging targeted directly and specifically at Republican primary voters have literally anything to say about swing voters? I read this piece with an open mind, as I’ve had some questions about this study’s claims. But it feels quite in keeping with Searchlight’s whole deal to criticize someone for making moderately substantiated claims with a piece that makes a ton of poorly substantiated claims.
It’s a recognition that you can do climate politics without actually messaging about climate. In this case the audience is republican primary voters, but the same could be said about most swing voters as well. Im having trouble seeing the disconnect here.
The disconnect on this particular point is that the post says it “is a recognition that their issue is not going to persuade swing voters,” which is not what that GOP primary messaging choice is recognition of at all.
You say “but the same could be said of swing voters,” but that’s the whole point of controversy, and one that Searchlight has been quite dishonest about, even in how you’ve portrayed your own survey results! So, again, funny to see a post like this about someone else’s claims.