October, 12 2020, 12:00am EDT

New Analysis: GOP's Green New Deal Attacks Fall Flat
With less than a month to go in the election, this past week showed that Republicans up and down the ballot are making their false claims about the Green New Deal and attacks on climate action a centerpiece of their closing argument. A review of publicly available polling data shows that these attacks, as well as attacks on Vice President Joe Biden's plan to build an equitable, clean energy future are falling flat with voters.
WASHINGTON
With less than a month to go in the election, this past week showed that Republicans up and down the ballot are making their false claims about the Green New Deal and attacks on climate action a centerpiece of their closing argument. A review of publicly available polling data shows that these attacks, as well as attacks on Vice President Joe Biden's plan to build an equitable, clean energy future are falling flat with voters.
"Deciding to close the election with false attacks on the Green New Deal and other pro-climate action policies is a big mistake for Republicans," said Climate Power 2020 Executive Director Lori Lodes. "In reality, voters overwhelmingly support bold government action on climate and are more likely to back candidates who support it. In Trump's must-win state of Pennsylvania, for example, data shows a debate over fracking and climate change significantly boosted Biden's standing with voters. Voters see through Republicans' bizarre lies about banning cars, airplanes, and hamburgers, and they are punishing Trump and Republicans for their COVID and climate denial."
A new comprehensive analysis of the Green New Deal and pro-climate policies by Data for Progress found a plurality of voters have a favorable impression of the Green New Deal when asked directly. A plurality of voters also think the Green New Deal is a good idea. Support among Democrats for the policy is more intense than opposition among Republicans; independents are split almost evenly. As Data for Progress concluded, "the policy is not as big of a boogeyman as pundits make it out to be."
Republicans Go On the Attack on the Green New Deal; Democrats Tout Climate, Clean Energy and Conservation
In recent interviews, at events on the campaign trail, and during the presidential and vice-presidential debates, both Trump and Pence have spent considerable time leveling false and misleading attacks on the Green New Deal and other pro-climate policies. For instance, in the 90 minute vice-presidential debate, Pence mentioned the "Green New Deal" 15 times. The attacks are not limited to the top of the ticket. In recent weeks across the Senate battlefield, Republican candidates and outside groups have run anti-Green New Deal ads in Alaska, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, Iowa, North Carolina, Maine, and Georgia.
Despite these false attacks, the Real Clear Politics (RCP) average shows Vice President Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris are currently leading in all of the following states: Pennsylvania (+7.1), Ohio (+0.6), Florida (+3.7), Wisconsin (+5.5), North Carolina (+1.4), Michigan (+6.7), Minnesota (+9.4), Iowa (+1.2), Arizona (+2.7), Nevada (+6.0), New Hampshire (+9.0), and Colorado (+10.0).
In addition, the 538 forecast currently predicts a victory for Biden and Harris in Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, Minnesota, Michigan, Colorado, Maine, and Nebraska's 2nd District.
Pro-climate candidates and outside groups understand climate, clean energy, and conservation are winning issues, and they are making it a key part of their advertising and voter contact strategies in the final month across the Senate battleground.

In the fight for the Senate, 538 predicts a 68% chance of voters returning a pro-climate Democratic majority. In individual races, pro-climate Democrats remain favored to win or be competitive across the battleground. As the New York Times reported, Republicans are on defense and spending tens of millions of dollars in deep-red states such as South Carolina and Kansas.
Climate and Fracking Debate Boosts Biden in Pennsylvania, While Green New Deal Attacks Fall Short
Late August polls conducted by CBS News and Climate Power 2020 and League of Conservation Voters both show the conventional wisdom around fracking is no longer true. The Climate Power 2020 poll found that not only are Pennsylvania voters supportive of climate action and additional regulations on fracking, engaging in a debate around fracking and climate clearly helped Joe Biden, strengthening his favorability rating and increasing his lead over President Donald Trump in the state.
In that survey, Biden led Trump by a margin of 8 percentage points (50%/42%). Notably, that advantage increased to a 15-point lead when the debate was centered around fracking, clean energy, and climate change -- dispelling the conventional belief that a focus on fracking will pull down support for Democrats and Biden in the state.
The messages presented to voters in the survey closely mirror the frequent attacks leveled against Biden's plan for clean energy investments, including negative messaging on the Green New Deal and socialism, and false claims that Biden's plan will cost Pennsylvania 600,000 jobs. You can see the exact language on fracking and the Green New Deal tested in this memo.
Another key finding from the poll was that Keystone State voters, including those in Southwestern Pennsylvania, strongly support bold action on climate change, investments in clean energy infrastructure, and stronger regulations on the fracking industry. By a 61-30 margin, voters in the Pittsburgh DMA support placing stronger regulations on oil and gas fracking, such as increasing the minimum distance between fracking sites and homes and requiring the disclosure of all chemicals used in fracking.
Pennsylvania Voters also overwhelmingly favor two policies that form the foundation of Biden's climate plan:
- 74% support transitioning the country to 100% clean electricity by 2035 and 73% support a clean energy economy by 2050.
- 71% favor investing $2 trillion over the next four years to build clean energy infrastructure.
Battleground Voters Strongly Support Bold Action on Climate
Biden has pledged to achieve 100% clean electricity by 2035. Late September surveys conducted by Data for Progress found strong support for this policy in key presidential and Senate battlegrounds:
- In Arizona, 58% of likely voters, including 54% of independents, support this goal.
- In Iowa, 55% of likely voters, including 53% of independents, support this goal.
- In Maine, 65% of likely voters, including 61% of independents, support this goal.
- In South Carolina, 52% of likely voters, including 57% of independents, support this goal.
Data for Progress surveys conducted in August in Arizona, Iowa, Maine, and North Carolina also found strong support for bold action on climate.
By large margins, voters were more likely to support a candidate backing 100% clean electricity by 2035:
- Arizona: 54-26
- Iowa: 53-26
- Maine: 57-23
- North Carolina: 50-29
Similarly, voters in these battleground states were also more likely to support a candidate backing $2 trillion in clean energy infrastructure:
- Arizona: 57-26
- Iowa: 57-24
- Maine: 55-26
- North Carolina: 53-30
When Biden was named and the Republican counterattack was presented, voters still supported the Biden clean energy investment plan by substantial margins:
|
Climate Power 2020 is putting the Trump administration on defense every single day for ignoring experts, refusing to believe in science, surrendering our government to big oil executives, and gutting public health protections, all at the expense of future generations. The 2020 presidential election is the defining moment for how our nation addresses the climate crisis--our leaders must be emboldened to take immediate action on climate change and to build a just and equitable economy. The time to act is now. Learn more: climatepower2020.org
LATEST NEWS
'Only the Beginning': Santa Marta Summit Heralded as New Dawn in Fight to End Fossil Fuel Era
“Amid a tense geopolitical context and worsening climate extremes, Santa Marta helped spark a feeling of renewed energy, but delegates must now follow through to deliver action, not just words," said a senior climate adviser at Greenpeace.
Apr 30, 2026
Environmental activists are hopeful after a six-day climate summit in Colombia resulted in a coalition of more than 50 countries agreeing to start developing plans to move away from planet-heating fossil fuels. But they say action must now follow talk.
In marked contrast to the annual United Nations climate summits, which have been routinely overrun by oil and gas industry lobbyists and concluded with agreements that largely ignore the imperative to divest from fossil fuels, Shiva Gounden, the head of Greenpeace's delegation this week in Santa Marta, said the conference that concluded Wednesday "was a breath of fresh air, a real sign that the wind is finally shifting."
The 59 nations that attended the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels did not ultimately end with a binding agreement to transition away from fossil fuels within a specific timeframe, which activists say is urgently necessary as global heating rapidly approaches 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.
Many of the world's biggest polluters—including the United States, China, and India, as well as petrostates like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates—were also absent.
However, the summit did end with attendees, nearly half of whom are fossil fuel producers and who represent more than half of global gross domestic product, agreeing to form tangible "frameworks" for how they plan to transition away from a fossil-fueled model of capitalism that Colombian President Gustavo Petro decried as "suicidal."
Perhaps the single biggest breakthrough at the conference was France's unveiling of a national roadmap to phase out fossil fuels in the coming decades. It became the first developed nation to lay out such a plan, with the goals of removing coal from its national grid by 2027, phasing out oil by 2045, and fossil gas by 2050.
The French climate envoy, Benoit Faraco, described it not only as an obligation but an opportunity: “This process has made us realise we want to be an electro-superpower,” he said, according to The Guardian. “We want to be the electricity Saudi Arabia of Europe, selling green electrons to the UK, Ireland, Germany, and other countries.”
Many attendees also agreed that any collective movement away from fossil fuels would require addressing the debt crisis in the Global South, which many countries—especially those in Africa, where national debts have doubled in the past five years—have found themselves cranking up fossil fuel production to cope with.
While the conference concluded without any binding plan for debt forgiveness, which many delegates from developing countries had proposed, the participants agreed that poorer countries would need support to move out of debt and finance a green transition.
"Fossil fuel dependency deepens economic instability, fuels conflict, and traps countries in cycles of debt," said Bronwen Tucker, public finance lead for Oil Change International. "As long as Global South countries remain locked in this system, while Global North governments write the financial rules, public resources will continue to flow away from people and toward the systems driving crisis."
Laura Caicedo, the campaigns coordinator at Greenpeace Colombia, described the conference as "an important space to put the just energy transition on the agenda ahead of the Climate COP," which will take place in Turkey this coming November.
"There is willingness and a sense of fresh momentum that is worth celebrating," she said. "But this is only the beginning: more time is needed for this process to mature into a true platform for dialogue that can inform decision-making in this and other cooperation spaces on key energy issues."
The next conference on Transitioning Away From Fossil Fuels is set to occur early next year in Tuvalu, a low-lying Pacific island nation that is at risk of becoming uninhabitable within decades due to sea-level rise.
While climate activists were heartened by the progress made in Santa Marta, Gounden said countries need to come to Tuvalu with concrete plans.
“When we get to Tuvalu, the conversation has to change," she said. "We can’t just bring more ambition; we have to bring proof of implementation."
This week's conference took place against the backdrop of the US and Israel's war in Iran, where US President Donald Trump has suggested a key goal is to "take the oil" controlled by Iran. The obstruction of oil shipments has become a critical piece of strategic and economic leverage and simultaneously inflicted chaos upon the global economy, disrupting humanitarian aid for some of the world's poorest and most vulnerable people.
"Amid a tense geopolitical context and worsening climate extremes," said Rodrigo Estrada, Greenpeace International's senior climate adviser, "Santa Marta helped spark a feeling of renewed energy, but delegates must now follow through to deliver action, not just words."
While the war has sent energy companies' profits soaring, the climate advocacy group 350.org estimated this week that the continued blockade of the Strait of Hormuz could cost households and businesses an additional $600 billion to $1 trillion.
"It’s never been clearer that fossil fuel phase-out is imperative for stability and peace," Tucker said. "Every step away from fossil fuels weakens the outsized power and wealth that allows the US to wage illegal wars in the name of energy dominance."
At the next conference, she added, "The richest polluting countries must show they are serious. Canada, Norway, the UK, and the EU must make real plans to accelerate their fossil fuel phaseout at home and come to the table with real economic collaboration."
Mariana Paoli, the climate policy lead for Oxfam, said the lack of action by rich countries was "disappointing" and needed to change.
"Wealthy governments have still not stepped up to provide sufficient climate financing for poorer countries, which face the brunt of the impacts of the climate crisis," she said. "Rich countries hold the historical responsibility for the climate crisis, therefore they must not only move first and faster but also provide finance at scale for others to follow them."
"A just transition," she said, "must make rich polluters pay for the crisis they have caused."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Falls to Lowest-Ever Rank on Press Freedom Index as Trump Pours 'Gasoline on the Fire'
"Trump and his administration have carried out a coordinated war on press freedom since the day he took office, and we will live with the consequences for years to come."
Apr 30, 2026
Reporters Without Borders warned Thursday that the United States is facing a "press freedom crisis" as President Donald Trump and his subordinates wage an aggressive assault on the media that has included threats of treason charges and imprisonment against journalists.
The Trump administration's active disdain for press freedom has pushed the US to its lowest-ever rank on Reporters Without Borders' (RSF) World Press Freedom Index, which ranks countries based on numerous indicators including legal protections for journalists, reporter safety, and overall political hostility toward the press. The US landed at 64th out of 180 countries on the latest version of the index, falling seven spots compared to last year.
"The US has experienced a steady decline in the RSF Index over the past decade, but President Trump is pouring gasoline on the fire," said Clayton Weimers, executive director of RSF's North America section. "Trump and his administration have carried out a coordinated war on press freedom since the day he took office, and we will live with the consequences for years to come."
"The index shows that this decline is measurable and ongoing, but preventable," Weimers added. "Our message is clear: Protect legal rights, ensure accountability for attacks on media professionals, and support independent media to restore American press freedom."
RSF specifically cites Trump's efforts to dismantle public broadcasters, weaponization of government agencies to punish media outlets and figures critical of his administration, and lawsuits against "disfavored outlets" as factors contributing to the erosion of press freedom in the US.
The index also points to rising violence against journalists during Trump's second term in the White House. "According to the US Press Freedom Tracker," RSF notes, "there were more than 170 attacks on journalists in 2025, nearly double the previous year, driven by an increase in violence against journalists while covering protests and law enforcement activity."
The precipitous decline of press freedoms in the US comes in the context of growing attacks on and criminalization of journalism worldwide. For the first time in the 25-year history of RSF's index, more than half of the world's countries currently fall in the "difficult" or "very serious" categories for press freedoms.
The country that ranked last on the index for 2026 was Eritrea, a nation that is "sadly notorious for detaining journalists longer than any other country in the world," said RSF.
Norway ranked first on this year's index, with RSF praising the country's "robust" legal safeguards for press freedom, "vibrant" media market, and "extensive editorial independence" for publishing companies.
Anne Bocandé, RSF's editorial director, said that "current protection mechanisms" for journalism worldwide "are not strong enough" to withstand escalating attacks by "authoritarian states, complicit or incompetent political powers, predatory economic actors, and underregulated online platforms."
"How much longer will we tolerate the suffocation of journalism, the systematic obstruction of reporters and the continued erosion of press freedom?" Bocandé asked. "The ball is in the court of democracies and their citizens. It is up to them to stand in the way of those who seek to silence the press. The spread of authoritarianism isn’t inevitable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mills Suspends Flailing US Senate Bid, Clearing Platner's Path to Nomination
"Now let's unify to defeat Susan Collins," said one progressive.
Apr 30, 2026
Maine Gov. Janet Mills on Thursday officially suspended her campaign for the US Senate, clearing the path for progressive candidate Graham Platner to secure the Democratic nomination.
In a statement posted on social media, Mills claimed that she no longer had the financial resources to continue with the campaign, which multiple polls projected she was losing badly to the upstart Platner.
"I step back from campaigning with unending love, admiration, and hope for Maine people," wrote Mills, "a people whose hearts are filled with love and whose integrity and humility is surpassed only by their kindness, generosity, and compassion."
Shortly after Mills announced her decision, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) released a statement supporting Platner's candidacy.
“After years of allowing Trump’s abuses of power, Senator Collins has never been more vulnerable," they said, "and we will work with the presumptive Democratic nominee Graham Platner to defeat her."
Mills' decision to suspend her campaign came less than a week after she vetoed a bill passed by the Maine Legislature that would have imposed a statewide moratorium on building artificial intelligence data centers.
Mitch Jones, the managing director of litigation for Food & Water Watch, described Mills' veto of the data center moratorium as symbolic of her out-of-touch Senate campaign, saying "it is no wonder" that the Maine governor's "political career seems to be limping to a feeble conclusion."
While Mills' decision to end her Senate campaign was not entirely unexpected given how badly she trailed Platner in both opinion polls and fundraising, some observers nonetheless found it a stunning development given that she's a two-term Maine governor running against a populist oyster farmer who has never held political office.
"A sitting two-term governor recruited by the leader of the Senate Democrats just lost to a Bernie Sanders-endorsed guy who started the race with zero name ID," wrote Zeteo News reporter Prem Thakker.
Kevin Robillard, senior politics editor at HuffPost, said that Mills' campaign will go down as "one of the most stunning flops in recent political history."
"Suspending a Senate campaign because you ran out of cash is something that happens to gadfly state legislators," he observed, "not sitting governors running with the endorsement of party leaders."
Tommy Vietor, a former National Security Council staffer under President Barack Obama and cohost of Pod Save America, questioned Mills' claim that she was suspending her campaign due to lack of resources.
"Her problem was lack of support from Maine voters," Vietor wrote, "not money."
Faiz Shakir, a longtime adviser to US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), graciously welcomed Mills' concession.
"Tough to make these kinds of decisions, but kudos to her for making the right one," wrote Shakir. "Now let's unify to defeat Susan Collins."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular



