Democrats dump climate change debate, recognizing how badly it will bomb with voters

If you want to win an election, yelling about global warming and blaming air conditioners, cars, plastic straws, and jets -- while jetting in to do it -- is probably not the best way to sell it to voters.

So to the surprise of no one except the far leftists hollering about it, the Democratic Party's leadership has decided to cancel a proposed presidential nomination debate on climate change, enraging the party's extremists

"This decision is as baffling as it is alarming. Our planet is burning— the least we can do as a party is debate what to do about it," [candidate Beto] O'Rourke said on Twitter following the vote.

Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez claimed that, ahem, if they do a one-issue debate with one issue, they'll be condemned to doing one-issue debates with all issues. And besides, he wouldn't dream of "chang[ing] the rules in the middle of the process" he explained. According to a much-disappointed ABC News report:

Democrats have shut the door to a presidential debate focused on climate change.

The proposal dominated the party's convention this week in San Francisco and pitted party officials who oppose single-issue debates against activists, who see climate change as an existential threat that deserves special attention heading into the 2020 election.

On Thursday, the proposal failed in the Democratic National Committee's resolutions committee, and on Saturday the DNC leadership delivered a final "no" vote.

We all know what was really going on here:

Global warming may excite the Democratic Party's base, but it's an absolute loser of an issue to the broader base of voters, ranking down there at the absolute bottom of voter priorities according to polls, meaning, the audience for this one's likely to be composed of viewers mainly there to see if there are outrageous statements to tweet out. With each crazy claim coming as each Democrat tries to outdo the next one, there's little doubt they'll repel voters.  Controlling, choking, and micromanaging the economy will be what comes of it, along with lots of bad quotes for the Republican opposition researchers -- everyone get out of their cars and take the bus. Gas prices through the roof. Nationalized electrical power grid, (like Venezuela has). Texas economy tanked. No straws for you. Virtue-signalling and saving the earth assured, just trust the government -- led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her green new deal, even as everyone loses their jobs. They won't say this, but the next conclusion will be Chicoms in the solar market, one, two, many Solyndras up the wazoo, and Saudi and Russian petrotyrants ascendent as they alone retain control of global energy.

As green-queen Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's guru, Saikat Chakrabarti memorably said:

“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said. “We really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

Here's the second problem: Democrats may say climate change is a big deal to them, but actually, it isn't. According to this item in the Atlantic, by a climate-change correspondent, citing the crash and burn of greenie candidate Jay Inslee's bid for the Democratic nomination:

Jay Inslee, for his part, made his ranking clear. He entered the primary earlier this year swearing to put climate change front and center, and he did. His more than 200 pages of climate proposals are some of the best and most complete I’ve seen anywhere, and they should serve as a blueprint for the next Democratic administration. (True to form, he released his last climate proposal on the day he dropped out.) He mentioned climate change in every debate, he seemed well liked by both moderate and leftist online tastemakers, and he was even deemed hot.

For months now, Democratic primary voters have told pollsters that climate change is a top-tier issue, tied with health care for importance. Inslee made that idea central to his campaign. He is an accomplished politician who oversees one of the country’s fastest-growing state economies. As governor, he passed a health-care public option, a long-term-care benefit plan, and—after three failed efforts—a statewide climate policy.

Yet for all that effort, he never cracked 1 percent in the polls.

Nate Silver, the editor in chief of FiveThirtyEight, tweeted his verdict: “People will try to spin it differently but Inslee’s lackluster performance is an obviously bearish indicator for the prioritization of climate change in Democratic politics.”

Verdict? It's a total loser of an issue even with left-wing voters. Fox News's Stewart Varney has a kickass verbal editorial well worth listening to here or here:

 

 

Does Tom Perez want to put that sort of thing out for voters at a time when he's desperately trying to raise funds and win an election? He may be left-wing, but he's not that stupid. He knows this is a loser of an idea to put in front of voters, especially for two hours, which multiplies the potential for mischief. Much better to get elected first and then spring the nightmare onto the voters.

It's left him with lefties yelling, but the rest of us can see that he's no idiot. Pity, we would have enjoyed all the lunacies that would have come out of it.

Image credit: Fox Business screen shot, via Twitter

 

 

If you want to win an election, yelling about global warming and blaming air conditioners, cars, plastic straws, and jets -- while jetting in to do it -- is probably not the best way to sell it to voters.

So to the surprise of no one except the far leftists hollering about it, the Democratic Party's leadership has decided to cancel a proposed presidential nomination debate on climate change, enraging the party's extremists

"This decision is as baffling as it is alarming. Our planet is burning— the least we can do as a party is debate what to do about it," [candidate Beto] O'Rourke said on Twitter following the vote.

Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez claimed that, ahem, if they do a one-issue debate with one issue, they'll be condemned to doing one-issue debates with all issues. And besides, he wouldn't dream of "chang[ing] the rules in the middle of the process" he explained. According to a much-disappointed ABC News report:

Democrats have shut the door to a presidential debate focused on climate change.

The proposal dominated the party's convention this week in San Francisco and pitted party officials who oppose single-issue debates against activists, who see climate change as an existential threat that deserves special attention heading into the 2020 election.

On Thursday, the proposal failed in the Democratic National Committee's resolutions committee, and on Saturday the DNC leadership delivered a final "no" vote.

We all know what was really going on here:

Global warming may excite the Democratic Party's base, but it's an absolute loser of an issue to the broader base of voters, ranking down there at the absolute bottom of voter priorities according to polls, meaning, the audience for this one's likely to be composed of viewers mainly there to see if there are outrageous statements to tweet out. With each crazy claim coming as each Democrat tries to outdo the next one, there's little doubt they'll repel voters.  Controlling, choking, and micromanaging the economy will be what comes of it, along with lots of bad quotes for the Republican opposition researchers -- everyone get out of their cars and take the bus. Gas prices through the roof. Nationalized electrical power grid, (like Venezuela has). Texas economy tanked. No straws for you. Virtue-signalling and saving the earth assured, just trust the government -- led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her green new deal, even as everyone loses their jobs. They won't say this, but the next conclusion will be Chicoms in the solar market, one, two, many Solyndras up the wazoo, and Saudi and Russian petrotyrants ascendent as they alone retain control of global energy.

As green-queen Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's guru, Saikat Chakrabarti memorably said:

“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said. “We really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

Here's the second problem: Democrats may say climate change is a big deal to them, but actually, it isn't. According to this item in the Atlantic, by a climate-change correspondent, citing the crash and burn of greenie candidate Jay Inslee's bid for the Democratic nomination:

Jay Inslee, for his part, made his ranking clear. He entered the primary earlier this year swearing to put climate change front and center, and he did. His more than 200 pages of climate proposals are some of the best and most complete I’ve seen anywhere, and they should serve as a blueprint for the next Democratic administration. (True to form, he released his last climate proposal on the day he dropped out.) He mentioned climate change in every debate, he seemed well liked by both moderate and leftist online tastemakers, and he was even deemed hot.

For months now, Democratic primary voters have told pollsters that climate change is a top-tier issue, tied with health care for importance. Inslee made that idea central to his campaign. He is an accomplished politician who oversees one of the country’s fastest-growing state economies. As governor, he passed a health-care public option, a long-term-care benefit plan, and—after three failed efforts—a statewide climate policy.

Yet for all that effort, he never cracked 1 percent in the polls.

Nate Silver, the editor in chief of FiveThirtyEight, tweeted his verdict: “People will try to spin it differently but Inslee’s lackluster performance is an obviously bearish indicator for the prioritization of climate change in Democratic politics.”

Verdict? It's a total loser of an issue even with left-wing voters. Fox News's Stewart Varney has a kickass verbal editorial well worth listening to here or here:

 

 

Does Tom Perez want to put that sort of thing out for voters at a time when he's desperately trying to raise funds and win an election? He may be left-wing, but he's not that stupid. He knows this is a loser of an idea to put in front of voters, especially for two hours, which multiplies the potential for mischief. Much better to get elected first and then spring the nightmare onto the voters.

It's left him with lefties yelling, but the rest of us can see that he's no idiot. Pity, we would have enjoyed all the lunacies that would have come out of it.

Image credit: Fox Business screen shot, via Twitter