NoneOfUrBusiness

That’s theoretically possible, but there’s a limit to how well people can repeatedly lie about their core beliefs. Also it’s not as if progressives aren’t watching out for stuff like that; most potential plants will have some kind of history that can be inspected to ascertain their intentions, and large-scale conspiracies have a tendency to leak. It’s not impossible (see: Fetterman), but the noteworthiness of Fetterman should tell you how hard it is to pull this kind of thing off, and even Fetterman had people warning about him during his campaign, not to mention he literally had a stroke. So basically the GOP doesn’t do this sort of thing more/at all because it’s really hard to pull off and would have diminishing returns as people wisen up (again the progressive attitude post-Fetterman is informative). They probably have better (meaning worse) things to be doing.

It’s like that thing in fiction where people become villains to unite the world against them. I will remember your sacrifice, Haley Stevens; rest in piss.

There seems to be no point in trying to have a conversation, so I’m just going to say: Anyone who wants to come to an informed opinion on this should read the original article by The Guardian cited in the OP. Also reported for incivility because like yeah.

To your second point: The centrists are already as terrible as they can realistically be and still win primaries (and they usually lose them anyway when progressives get serious), so that niche is already filled. There’s no point in running terrible candidates when they’re either going to lose their primaries or be Chuck Schumer clones.

AFAIK parties in America straight up can’t expel their members or otherwise control their membership. It sounds dumb but it’s the only way to make a two-party system even vaguely democratic.

What OP said, but also parties in America don’t get to control their membership. Anyone can run as a candidate of any party if they can win the primary.

bro, people want to experience life and that means not worrying about climate change

But they are worrying about climate change. Your reply before this one was literally a response to me proving they did. Why would you say something so obviously false?

I’m not going to write a bespoke reply for every single person saying the same thing so I’m going to just copy and paste this around:

First, I’m going to have to ask for evidence for that. We have a quarter century of reality we can measure these claims against and see how they hold up. Second, there’s no point in arguing against a position whose proponent won’t substantiate, so until that happens I’ll rely on a good old appeal to authority: 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.

I’m not going to write a bespoke reply for every single person saying the same thing so I’m going to just copy and paste this around:

First, I’m going to have to ask for evidence for that. We have a quarter century of reality we can measure these claims against and see how they hold up. Second, there’s no point in arguing against a position whose proponent won’t substantiate, so until that happens I’ll rely on a good old appeal to authority: 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.

Well my common sense says that an organization as reputable as Pew Research has either taken this into account or concluded it doesn’t cause significant error. Now where do we go from here?

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.

Kind of wild how it’s always radio silence from the “Vote Blue No Matter Who” brigade

I’m not one of those guys and have my fair share of problems with them, but VBNMW around here is essentially “as a black man” rhetoric; you have self-proclaimed progressive who tell other progressives what they as progressives should do. What they feel about centrists is unimportant because there are barely any centrists on Lemmy and they get downvoted to hell. They could be saying the same stuff to them on platforms with any real centrist presence.

I’m gonna have to see the numbers on that one chief.

That vote is already secured

Only if we assume 100% turnout. Calling for better climate policy can and probably will motivate more potential Dem voters to turn out since this is such a popular issue with the Democratic base.

0% of the people who voted for Trump in 2024 give a fuck about the environment.

Actually surprisingly many do, but in any case if the history of American politics proves anything it’s that this idea of taking away swing voters from the other side simply doesn’t work.

You’ve already received well-reasoned and logical answers in this thread as to why this topic is not a viable campaign issue amidst the socioeconomic and existential threats.

I’ve received centrist mythology offered without a lick of evidence. Again, we have actual history and data that can be used to confirm or refute these answers; these aren’t arguments so good I have to accept them without evidence. Speaking of evidence, it’s a bit outdated being from earlier this year, but climate change is still a huge issue among Dem voters. Besides, clearly some candidates are talking about climate change, so the “not a viable campaign issue” thing falls flat on its face. Logic and reason is frankly pointless if it’s not grounded in reality.

Climate change is already culture war BS and has been for a while. Anyone who would buy this is already lost to the Democrats anyway. Like we have decades of data on the subject; for large parties elections are won or lost by motivating one’s base of support to turn out not by competing over a mythical median voter, and evidently 90% of the Democrats’ base of support wants more to be done about climate change.

If you’re implying that Pew Research’s polls have a significant selection bias I’m going to have to ask for evidence for that.

Sounds to me like it’s probably safe to say almost all Dem candidates probably care about it, too.

I’m going to have to ask for evidence for that one.

Dem candidates aren’t trying to win only card-carrying Dem votes, there may be other, more on the fence, demographics.

Centrist swing voters either don’t exist or aren’t a significant campaign demographic; we have a quarter century of data proving this. When Republicans vote for Democrats they do so for progressives with a vision (or people who can trick them into thinking they’re progressives with a vision). Aside from that American elections are decided almost entirely on turnout, so the question is how to make all of those Dems/lean Dems vote instead of staying home, and that’s where appealing to an issue almost all of them agree is important would be useful.

If anyone decides to stay at home for the election because climate didn’t get brought up, then I’m sorry but they ultimately deserve the MAGA world they’d be enabling through their inaction.

Who deserves what is completely irrelevant to this conversation.

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.