How candidates are (quietly) talking about climate change – 3 election strategies you’ll see across the US

Polls show that a majority of American voters in 2026 are worried about climate change as temperatures and disaster risks increase. For example, 49% of voters believe global warming should be a high priority for Congress and the president, according to Yale’s spring 2026 survey. This concern is shared across party lines, with 70% of moderate or conservative Democrats and 84% of liberal Democrats prioritizing climate action. Even 1 in 3 liberal-to-moderate Republicans considers it important. However, other issues like the cost of living are currently more pressing for many voters. The article notes that climate change is not the top concern for most Americans, but it remains a significant issue for a large portion of the electorate.

Despite rising public concern, fewer Democratic candidates are openly discussing climate change in their midterm election campaigns compared to just a few years ago. This shift is partly due to the fossil fuel industry’s long-standing efforts to polarize public opinion over the phrase climate change. The article highlights that campaigns often pit economic concerns against environmental ones, making it harder to build support for climate policies. For instance, candidates are focusing more on affordability, such as the cost of filling up cars, paying electric bills, and insuring homes against disasters, rather than directly addressing climate change.

One group of Democratic candidates, called energy populists, focuses on lowering energy prices for consumers without directly mentioning climate change or fossil fuels. They often blame rising electric rates on entities like data centers and utilities rather than fossil fuel producers. For example, former North Carolina governor Roy Cooper and Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown argue that their opponents’ policies have led to higher energy costs. This strategy aims to appeal to swing voters who prioritize affordability. While these candidates may support renewable energy, they avoid framing their policies in climate terms to avoid alienating voters.

Another group of Democratic candidates, referred to as climate champions, openly advocate for bold action on climate change, such as investing in clean energy. For instance, Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey and Maine Senate candidate Troy Jackson argue that climate change and affordability are not mutually exclusive. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island links higher costs like home insurance to climate change risks and criticizes fossil fuel industry influence. These candidates aim to convince voters that climate policies can coexist with economic concerns, though they may need to reassure independent voters that climate action won’t overshadow other priorities.

A third group of candidates adopts an all-of-the-above energy strategy, promoting both renewable energy and fossil fuels. They avoid blaming specific villains and instead focus on lowering costs like gasoline and diesel while supporting climate policies. For example, Iowa Senate candidate Josh Turek and Texas Senate candidate James Talarico highlight rising insurance costs due to extreme weather but also advocate for policies that benefit fossil fuel industries. This approach reflects a balancing act to appeal to voters in states with strong cultural or economic ties to fossil fuels, such as Iowa’s abundant wind power.

While climate change is a priority for many voters, affordability remains a more pressing concern. Messages that emphasize cost savings, such as lowering energy bills, are more likely to resonate with voters across party lines. For example, a recent survey found that voters open to Democratic candidates are more likely to support a candidate who prioritizes climate change. Young voters, particularly those aged 18 to 29, are more likely to view climate change as an urgent crisis. However, the effectiveness of climate messaging may vary by state, and candidates must tailor their approach to local concerns and priorities.