U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 13, 2014 08:32 AM UTC

Tom Steyer's Mission To Stamp Out Climate Denialism

  • 21 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

steyer

A story from FOX 31's Eli Stokols looks in detail at billionaire Tom Steyer, who was in Aspen yesterday for the American Renewable Energy Day summit conference–talking about his ambitious plans to aggressively take on politicians in 2014 and beyond who deny the general scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to global climate change:

Steyer’s plan mirrors that of mega-donors on the right — leveraging his personal fortune on behalf of candidates who support his agenda: supporting Democrats who will push for action to combat climate change and going after Republican incumbents who deny climate science…

Steyer, who has come under fire of late amidst disclosures that much of the fortune he amassed at Farallon Capital Management came in part from investing in companies that operate coal mines, is supporting Colorado Democratic Sen. Mark Udall in his reelection bid against Republican Congressman Cory Gardner, who has denied that climate change is impacted by human activity.

“We tried to go into states where there is a big difference between the candidates,” said Steyer, who explained that the 2014 strategy is more about turning out pro-environment voters than persuading swing voters to care more about the issue of climate change.

“A lot of people who support pro-environment candidates like Mark Udall are some of the likeliest drop-off voters. [Pols emphasis] So we are focused not so much on TV ads but on the things that will be old-fashioned, 18th- century politics, trying to get local people to talk to local voters and citizens and why it’s important enough for them to get off the couch and go down to the polling place in the second Tuesday in November,” Steyer said.

As Stokols reports, Tom Steyer has announced his intention to spend $50 million this year to elect pro-environment candidates who acknowledge the role of industry and carbon energy sources in global climate change. Objectively speaking, compared to the amount of money conservative mega-donors like the Koch brothers have invested in American politics over the years, this isn't that much. Liberals also have many other well-established channels for aggregating and strategically spending money like the national Democracy Alliance. What makes Steyer's push different is the electoral focus on the environment. Not to change minds on the issue, but to motivate voters already responsive to the issue to get to the polls.

What Steyer wants is simple: for the voters who turn out in presidential election years to show up this November. Obviously, all Democrats are looking for the key to doing just that: it could help put a stop to the damaging recent cycle of political representation in the United States swinging drastically from left to right between presidential election years and midterm election years. In the polling done by backers of this year's abortive local control ballot initiatives showing enduring public support for locally regulating oil and gas drilling, you can see the electorate Steyer wants to reach clearly. It's a major reason why we believe those measures could not only have passed, but could have helped Democrats at the polls even if Democratic politicians steered clear.

Bottom line: Colorado environmental liberals who are upset by the resolution to the local control debate this year are about to see the issue clarified in the form of a straight-up climate change denier, GOP Senate candidate Cory Gardner. The intra-Democratic debate over fracking in our energy producing state will take an inevitable back seat to a much more fundamental question: does Colorado want to be represented in the U.S. Senate by a man who simply rejects out of hand the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are contributing to climate change?

That message, with a few million dollars behind it, could honestly be a game-changer.

Tweet
Share

Comments

21 thoughts on “Tom Steyer’s Mission To Stamp Out Climate Denialism”

  1. There is so much hypocrisy in this blog post it's hard to know where to begin. Damn you Pols are slippery libs.

    Wealth is evil, except when it isn't. And you wonder how conservatives like Richelle sleep at night? I marvel that anyone connected with Colorado Pols can. Hypocrites and liars all.

    Or maybe you're already on Tommy Boy's payroll…

    1. You caught us, Mods. We're all on Tom's payroll. We get paid in gluten-free bread and BOGO abortion coupons. What do the Koch Bros pay you with?

      BTW, I'd like to buy the Kochs a world:

       

       

      <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/MbykzqJ6ens?rel=0" frameborder="0" al

    2. See, that's where you have us confused with you Koch-suckers, Moddy. We believe in what we believe in. We don't believe in things based on what we're paid (or, what someone has promised to pay).

    3. You'd have a point if you didn't start from the false premise that we say wealth is evil. Maybe that's why it's so hard for you to know where to begin? 

        1. How do you translate "the rich don't pay their share" (which is true, whether rich Dem or rich GOPer) into "wealth is evil" (which in my ENTIRE LIFE, I have never heard ANY Dem/Progressive say)?

          1. You don't see any three-cornered hats do you? . . .

            . . . Oh wait . . . sorry Moddy, I can't figure out what the fuck you're trying to say with that incredible stupidity — you're on your own here, buddy . . . 

  4. Yep, my oligarch is better than your oligarch. Tom Steyer is an absolute drag on the Udall campaign. Mark was part of the Senate all-nighter on climate change. He's working at the behest of the coal magnate Tom Steyer.

    1. Um…yeaaaaaah.

      Ask yourself a simple, very illuminating question: What do the Koch Bros stand to gain if they get their way, and what does Mr. Steyer stand to gain if he gets his?

      Motive is everything. Case pretty much closed.

      And if you're dismayed by the amount of dark money floating around in the various campaigns, I suggest you take it up with the openly partisan, nakedly activist GOP SCOTUS.

      1. What does Mr. Steyer stand to gain if he gets his?

        He gets the approval and adulation from his buddies Bill McKitten and Joe Romm. If you read the NY Times article, he was given the choice of going ahead with the coal plant in Australia or standing pat. He decided there was too much money in to bypass the opportunity. And now he's a hero to the green elite.

        Tom Steyer should go to the working class communities in West Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania. He should explain why its OK to make his fortune in coal but its not OK for miners to continue their livelihood.

        The absolute worst kind of hypocrite, doesn't:t care who he effects!

            1. No, I'm sorry. If you cite a source, the onus is upon you to provide access to that source.

              By the way, did you ever take a moment to ponder what the Kochs stood to gain if they get their way, or did you focus solely upon Mr, Steyer?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

98 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!