As midterm elections approach, Democratic politicians have increasingly eschewed discussions of climate change, a topic once framed as a defining crisis. This shift, sometimes termed "climate hushing," has led some, like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), to accuse the party of downplaying the issue to avoid alienating voters.
This trend gained momentum following the 2024 presidential election, where theories emerged that Democrats had focused too heavily on social justice and environmental concerns, neglecting more immediate voter priorities like the cost of living. Whitehouse, however, argues that climate change directly impacts household expenses through increased insurance premiums, grocery costs, and utility bills. "Climate change is right now raising costs for families across the country through higher property insurance premiums, grocery and electric bills, and health care expenses," Whitehouse stated.
The notion that discussing climate change is politically disadvantageous has become widely accepted. The Democrat-aligned think tank Searchlight Institute advised against using the phrase, and a New York Times op-ed suggested remaining silent on the issue. An early draft of the Democratic National Committee's post-2024 election analysis indicated that messages about climate change and green energy transitions might have caused anxiety among workers in traditional industries.
However, political science professor Matto Mildenberger of the University of California, Santa Barbara, noted that there is a lack of empirical evidence supporting the idea that discussing climate change harms Democrats electorally. In fact, studies and surveys suggest that addressing the issue can provide a small boost in voter support. The perception that climate change is a low-priority issue, ranking 24th out of 25 concerns in recent polling, is often cited. Yet, experts caution against assuming that because voters do not rank it as a top priority, discussing it is a political liability.
Mildenberger and others argue that deemphasizing climate change could have long-term consequences, potentially stalling momentum for climate action. "You actually need to have conversation and attention to an issue to slowly build the coalition and policy work necessary to address it," Mildenberger said. He further contends that this silence cedes rhetorical ground to opponents, even though policies championed by former President Donald Trump, such as blocking wind farm construction and withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, are broadly unpopular. "All of this is, frankly, doing the service of the fossil fuel industry, ultimately, because it’s helping climate delay," Mildenberger added.
Whitehouse criticizes this approach as "poll-chasing," suggesting Democrats should actively engage in the climate debate rather than avoid it. He posits that confronting what he terms "Central Casting villains (the fossil fuel industry climate denial fraud and dark money corruption operations)" could resonate with voters concerned about economic well-being, especially as oil companies profit significantly while Americans face rising costs.
Economist Matt Burgess of the University of Wyoming agrees that Democrats may have alienated some voters with messaging focused on cultural issues and affordability, with climate change messaging being part of that dynamic. However, he also asserts that climate change is not inherently a losing issue for Democrats. A 2024 study he co-authored suggested that if climate change had not been a factor in the 2020 election, Republicans could have seen a 3 percent swing in the popular vote, potentially altering the outcome.
Exit polling from the 2024 election indicates that climate change was not a significant problem for Democrats, unlike issues such as inflation, the economy, and immigration, which were top voter concerns. A Navigator Research survey found that swing voters favored U.S. efforts to fight climate change by 21 points. Bryan Bennett, a consultant who directed the Navigator Research post-election survey, stated, "The very simple version is, Trump winning those voters won the election."
Analysis from the Center for American Progress suggests that federal investments in infrastructure and manufacturing projects under the Biden administration had a minor positive impact on vote share at the county level. The issue, according to the analysis, might have been voters' lack of awareness regarding the government's involvement rather than a negative reaction to climate policies themselves.
Beyond electoral considerations, the fragmented media landscape poses challenges for politicians in making their message heard. Bryan Bennett notes that the Democratic Party's increased focus on "message discipline" may inadvertently detract from other issues. "So much of the oxygen in the room is taken up by, ‘How do Democrats deal with, and how do progressives deal with, talking about the economy in a way that really meets voters where they are?’" Bennett said.
Some Democrats are framing climate action indirectly, by promoting clean energy as "cheap energy" and linking it to electricity costs. Polling data from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication indicates that a significant portion of voters, 41 percent, want political candidates to discuss global warming more frequently. This suggests a potential misperception among politicians and the public, as studies indicate an underestimation of Americans' willingness to support climate action measures. Mildenberger summarized this tension: "We have this tension where, I think, empirically, talking about climate change provides a net benefit. It’s a very small net benefit, but it is a net benefit. But we have a discourse that somehow says that it’s this massive cost."