A Memo from NextGen Climate: How Millennials Upended Conventional Wisdom and Made Climate Change a Key Issue in the 2016 Elections

---

Before the 2016 election even kicked off, conventional wisdom held that climate change would not play a significant role in voters’ decisions about the next president. That view had some basis in reality, though it failed to account for the changing electorate and the importance of segments of the electorate that would be crucial to the outcome. But now, with four days to go before polls close, it’s clear climate change has played a significant role in the presidential election.

Over the summer, Hillary Clinton struggled to win support from millennials, particularly supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders’ campaign, who strongly favor immediate action to address climate change. These were voters Clinton would need in order to win on Election Day. Recognizing this, the Clinton campaign, with help from Sanders and former Vice President Al Gore, undertook an aggressive effort to court these voters by drawing a clear contrast between Clinton and Donald Trump on climate policy. Coupled with the on-the-ground efforts from NextGen Climate and other outside groups, this strategy succeeded: Clinton’s support among millennials grew dramatically, and more voters saw Clinton as the right candidate to tackle the climate crisis. Clinton is now positioned to potentially match Barack Obama’s impressive margin of victory among young voters, not to mention that she’s now polling as strongly as Sanders among this demographic. This climate-driven growth in the millennial vote for Clinton could prove decisive, especially as Trump continues to beat Clinton among older voters.

Climate was not a significant electoral issue in 2012, and wasn’t expected to be in 2016

Though the pressing need to prevent further damage to our climate has been established, this crisis has been relegated the periphery of our political discourse—when it has been discussed at all.

The 2012 presidential election exemplified this gap between the urgency of the climate crisis and the issue’s prominence in the political discourse.

The 2012 election was the first election cycle climate change went unmentioned in the presidential and vice presidential debates since 1984—not a single question from any of the debate moderators, and the candidates didn’t bring it up themselves. As ABC News reported in November 2012, climate change was “largely absent from this presidential campaign and mainstream political discourse for nearly two years,” with President Obama “rarely mentioning a global solution to climate change as a candidate for re-election.”

An October 25, 2012 New York Times article headlined “Both Romney and Obama Avoid Talk of Climate Change” was more blunt:

Throughout the campaign, Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney have seemed most intent on trying to outdo each other as lovers of coal, oil and natural gas — the very fuels most responsible for rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

While President Obama would go on to do more than any other president to achieve important climate policy successes in his second term—most notably the Clean Power Plan, the Paris climate accords, and rejection of the Keystone pipeline—climate change was all but absent from his reelection campaign.

In October 2012, Time magazine tried to explain this omission, theorizing that “Beyond committed environmentalists, there hasn’t been much evidence that Americans even want to think about global warming, much less vote on it.”

That remained conventional wisdom as the 2016 presidential campaign began. A May 2015 New Republic article headlined “The 2016 Candidates Aren’t Talking About Climate Change Because Voters Don’t Care” demonstrated how little seemed to have changed since 2012:

[C]limate change has yet to emerge as a major issue in U.S. presidential elections, which is consistent with the recent history. […] [F]or most voters climate change is a marginal issue, and it has been this way for a long time. When Americans are asked to identify the most important problem facing the country—a question that pollsters often use to gauge public sentiment—climate change barely registers. In Gallup’s March 2015 poll, just 2 percent of the public stated environment or pollution, which is in keeping with historical numbers.

Climate played a larger-than-expected role in Democratic primaries

The Democratic presidential primaries demonstrated that in at least one political party, candidates recognized the fundamental importance and political saliency of climate change. Responding to NextGen Climate’s call for candidates to produce plans to transition the U.S. to at least 50 percent clean energy by 2050, Clinton, Sanders, and Martin O’Malley showed the country it’s time to move past a debate on science to a debate on solutions by all pledging to meet aggressive climate goals, and engaging in heated debates over which candidate had the best plan to tackle the climate crisis.

In October 2015, The New Republic reported:

Climate change has officially entered prime-time politics. In the initial moments of this year’s first Democratic presidential primary debate, four of the five candidates raised the issue in their opening statements—a stark contrast not only to the Republican candidates, who hardly mentioned climate change at all in their two debates to date, but also to previous election cycles. In the past, climate change has barely rated more than a passing mention from candidates of either party. At best, it’s been presented as part of a laundry list of issues facing America and the world. But now the Democratic candidates have at long last internalized it as a central part of their platforms, and that came through on Tuesday night.

In January, Grist’s Ben Adler wrote:

When was the last presidential race in which the two leading candidates for a major party’s nomination aggressively competed over who has the best plan to address climate change? Oh, right, never.

But 2016 is a new era. This week, the Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton campaigns talked smack to each other on social media, fighting for the hearts of climate hawks.

[…]

Sanders, Clinton, and O’Malley are all actively competing to be the strongest on climate change. It’s a noticeable shift from years past when climate change was considered too low of a priority to become a policy battleground the way, for example, Obama and Clinton’s competing health-care reform plans were in 2008. This time around, the candidates are convinced that the Democratic base is fired up about climate change and looking for real vision.

Throughout the primaries, NextGen Climate encouraged a debate over climate solutions, organizing voters in early primary states around the #50by30 goal and demonstrating the political salience of transitioning to clean energy in order to protect our air, water, and climate.

But with Donald Trump’s victory in the Republican primary, the presence of the most overtly racist and sexist candidate in modern American history atop the GOP ticket threatened to make climate change an electoral afterthought. The voters Clinton needs to win by large margins—women, minorities, millennials—seemed likely to be more motivated by Trump’s bigotry than by his aggressive opposition to climate solutions.

Lagging millennial support for Clinton made climate change more important than ever in general election

As the general election got underway, millennials overwhelming disliked Trump. NextGen Climate polling released in July found 73 percent of millennial likely voters viewed Trump unfavorably, 72 percent thought Trump was racist, 74 percent thought he does not respect women, and 71 percent said they would be ashamed of their country if Trump was elected president. Among millennials, Clinton led Trump 43-24—a sizable lead, but lagging behind the 57-23 lead they gave Sanders in a hypothetical general election matchup, and failing to match support for Barack Obama in 2012. The intense media focus on the candidates’ personalities and controversies left many millennials unaware of the policy differences between Clinton and Trump. 79 percent of millennial likely voters agreed climate change is a “severe threat we must start addressing now,” but while Clinton held sizable advantages over Trump on climate-related issues, large numbers of millennials said they didn’t see a difference between the candidates.

Other polls found similar Clinton struggles among millennials. In June POLITICO reported “Trump has the Clinton campaign and its allies especially nervous because he polls well with younger men and has even come within striking distance among 18-to-29 year olds in some recent polls.” As summer turned to fall, “Clinton’s millennial problem” became one of the most common phrases in campaign coverage.

Bloomberg’s Sasha Issenberg and Steven Yaccino reported:

The youth vote was one of the pillars of the Obama coalition. But thus far it’s proven perhaps the most difficult one for Clinton to rebuild. Polls show the nominee failing to earn the confidence of young voters—only 33 percent of those between ages 18-29 told Gallup this month that they approved of her—and running far behind where she would hope to be against her Republican opponent. The polls also show Clinton currently winning under half their votes, while Obama got over three-fifths of that demographic in both of his campaigns.

As Reason magazine put it: “Millennials Just Aren’t That Into Hillary Clinton, and it Could Cost Her the Election.” In August, Independent Journal Review reported “Throughout this year’s presidential campaign, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton struggled to rally support among the nation’s youngest voters. With the general election now underway, the problem is only getting worse for her.”

But Clinton’s millennial problem had a solution: Climate change. Millennials care deeply about climate change, and as Time magazine noted, “Climate change stands out as perhaps the most egregious area of disagreement between the two candidates, given its stakes and the significant scientific consensus that humans have caused it.” NextGen Climate was on the ground as early as April 2015 in battleground states talking to millennial voters about climate and clean energy, and had spent months building a massive campaign to turn out millennial voters in key battleground states by educating them of the differences between the candidates on climate change. As CNN reported:

Helping Clinton is NextGen Climate, the group funded by liberal billionaire Tom Steyer, which has 550 field organizers on more than 200 campuses across eight swing states—all highlighting the divide between Trump and Clinton on climate change.

“Now that this has come up in such a prominent way, that’s what the next stage of the campaign should focus on,” said Jamison Foser, a senior adviser for NextGen Climate.

“This is exactly what we’ve been laying the groundwork for for a long time,” Foser said. Of Trump’s comments, he said, “It just makes the conversation easier.”

Crucially, the Clinton campaign recognized the importance of climate change in winning over millennial voters, and made a serious effort to draw contrasts between Clinton and Trump on the issue.

Writing in the Washington Post in September, Greg Sargent spelled out the Clinton campaign’s approach to winning millennial votes:

It’s looking increasingly like Hillary Clinton’s struggles with young voters could prove a far more important challenge in Campaign 2016’s final stretch than many expected—and it may prove a decisive one, too.

[…]

The Clinton campaign knows this is a big problem. She is set to give a big speech next week pitched directly to younger voters. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are set to campaign for her in Ohio. And today it emerged that the Clinton campaign has been trying to enlist Al Gore to campaign for her, in hopes that he can win these voters by emphasizing that she takes climate change and climate science seriously, while Donald Trump thinks all of it is a big hoax.

Like 2012, debate moderators again failed to ask a single question about climate change, drawing wide criticism for ignoring the crisis. But climate change did come up during the debates—Hillary Clinton, recognizing the issue’s substantive and political importance, brought renewable energy up unprompted during her very first comments in the first debate, and climate change moments later. After Clinton caught Donald Trump in a lie about his climate denial, The Washington Post’s Chris Mooney wrote:

There is also reason to think that Clinton may have strategically brought the subject up last night because she and her advisers think it helps her politically—specifically, with the millennial voters that she needs to sway away from third party candidates in this election. […] some polling evidence also suggests ways that the issue could favor Clinton over Trump—for instance, there are now quite high levels of public acceptance of climate change amid record high global temperatures. Moreover, there is reason to think it helps her reach those who worry most about the issue, whether millennials or Bernie Sanders supporters now flirting with voting for Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

A CNN article headlined “Could climate change help Clinton win millennials?” confirmed Clinton’s strategy of highlighting her support for climate solutions in order to win millennial support:

The Democratic nominee highlighted her divide with Trump over climate change on the University of New Hampshire’s campus Wednesday—telling the crowd she “never thought when I gave my acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention that I would have to put in the following sentence: I believe in science.”

[…]

Her comments come as Clinton and her allies —particularly NextGen Climate and the League of Conservation Voters—seize on a key moment in Monday night’s presidential debate.

Clinton accused Trump Monday of believing that climate change is “a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.” Trump interjected, insisting, “I don’t say that.” However, as social media users quickly discovered, he had said exactly that in a 2012 tweet.

[…]

After the debate exchange, Clinton’s campaign, said an aide who declined to publicly discuss strategy, sees an opening on climate change—an issue that polls suggest could help the former secretary of state address a key problem area: Millennials.

[…]

Young voters have consistently ranked climate change as an important issue, and Clinton’s position is a major divide with both Trump and Johnson, who in 2012 said that “government should not get involved in this.”

The campaign’s strategic focus on climate change continued as Clinton campaigned with former Vice President Al Gore in Florida, as the Associated Press reported:

Hillary Clinton is bringing in Al Gore as her closer on climate change as she struggles to appeal to young voters who consider the issue a priority.

[…]

“Climate change is one of the issues where the difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is night and day,” said Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon. “For many of the core supporters we are seeking to galvanize in the remaining weeks of the campaign, including young voters, communicating the boldness of her plan is important.”

As the Christian Science Monitor reported, Clinton even stressed the importance of climate change to down-ballot races:

Set against the backdrop of Hurricane Matthew that swept through the state days before, Clinton said that voters must elect leaders “up and down the ballot, of every level of government” that will take climate change seriously.

“Please, we can not keep sending climate deniers and defeatists to Congress and state houses and certainly not to the White House,” Clinton said. “Climate change needs to be a voting issue.”

Climate focus has paid off: Millennial support for Clinton surged in closing weeks of campaign

On October 26th The Washington Post ran an article titled “Hillary Clinton’s millennial surge has arrived” demonstrating the success of the climate push:

One short month ago, millennial voters were severely complicating Hillary Clinton’s path to the presidency. This liberal-leaning but highly nonpartisan demographic didn’t like Clinton and was flirting heavily with going third-party. Her lead among them was negligible — only two points in one poll. It was a big liability.

That was a month ago.

Today, in fact, Clinton looks like she might even outperform President Obama among young voters. And it’s a big reason she’s grabbed a lead in the polls.

A new poll of 18-to-29-year olds from the Harvard Institute of Politics shows Clinton leading Donald Trump by 28 points among young likely voters in a four-way matchup that includes Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, 49 percent to 21 percent. That 28-point margin is notably bigger than Obama’s 23-point margin in 2012, when he beat Mitt Romney 60-37 among this group.

[…]

[T]he rallying effect to Clinton among young voters appears to be one of the big stories of the closing weeks of the 2016 election.

Vox noted that Clinton has “dramatically reversed her struggles with youth voters and is now on track to do about as well with them as Barack Obama did in 2012.” Vox further explained that Clinton’s support among millennials increased much more than her support among the public at large—and that climate change was an important reason young voters who once considered Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson came to support Clinton

The University of Texas’ Energy Poll offered more evidence that climate change is driving millennial vote preferences:

A mounting perception that climate change is occurring could play a role in deciding the upcoming presidential election, particularly if significant numbers of younger Americans turn out to vote, according to the latest UT Energy Poll.

[…]

Younger voters’ views could be especially important in the Nov. 8 presidential election, because a comparatively high percentage (63 percent) of them say energy issues will influence their vote. One-third (34 percent) of voters age 65 and older say energy issues will affect their vote.

A GenForward poll released in October found that “Support for Hillary Clinton among young whites has risen sharply in the last month. […] Hillary Clinton has support from a similar percent of young voters as Barack Obama won in 2012, but Clinton’s coalition includes more whites and less people of color.” Clinton’s improvement over Obama’s performance among young white voters reflects their concern about climate change: The GenForward data shows that 13 percent of young white voters identify the environment and climate change as the most important problem facing the country—tied with terrorism as the highest total of any issue.

On November 3, the Washington Post’s Chris Mooney summarized climate’s emergence as an important issue in the 2016 campaign:

The truth is that in this race, Hillary Clinton has made much of the climate issue, brought it up repeatedly, campaigned with Al Gore in Florida and linked a changing climate to ferocity of Hurricane Matthew, and much more. That’s far more than President Obama did in 2012. Unlike Obama, apparently, Clinton saw it as a political winner for her, particularly with millennials and Bernie Sanders followers.

All in all, you could argue it’s a very substantial change for the issue of the climate in recent U.S. elections. It’s an elevation and a prioritization.

The millennial vote may be decisive—and millennials are voting for Clinton because of climate change

With Trump leading Clinton among older voters, Clinton will need a large win among millennial voters—and the increase in support for Clinton among these voters in recent months may prove decisive. The clear differences between Clinton and Trump on climate policy has been key to that increased support, as NextGen Climate continued its focus on talking to and turning out millennials in key battleground states and the Clinton campaign made a concerted effort to highlight those differences in their appeals to young voters.

A NextGen Climate poll of battleground state millennials who have voted early released on November 1 found Clinton leading Trump 60-29 among these voters, and winning a larger margin among young voters than President Obama won among young voters nationwide in 2012. And it’s clear climate change has been important to Clinton’s success: 78 percent of millennials who have voted early agree climate change is a severe threat we must start addressing now, and early voting millennials think Clinton is the best candidate to tackle the climate crisis by a spread of 60-14.

NextGen Climate is turning that support into votes, having registered nearly 300,000 new voters, sent more than 4 million pieces of GOTV mail and, in the last week alone, sent more than one million text messages encouraging millennials to vote for Hillary Clinton and climate champions in key senate races.

Climate change wasn’t a factor in the 2012 elections, but the importance of the millennial vote to the Hillary Clinton’s campaign has made it a significant issue in 2016—one that could help provide Clinton’s margin of victory. And the political importance of climate change is likely to increase in future elections, as the millennial generation could cast more votes than any other generation by 2020. Bold climate solutions have always been good policy—and now they’re good politics, too.