Does a Democratic Senator who opposes serious climate change legislation deserve re-election?

[Radical Activist]

Let's be frank. We're talking about Democratic Senators who will put the health and safety of every world citizen in jeopardy while they serve corporate special interests. There's no bigger roadblock to serious action on clean energy and climate change than Blanche Lincoln. She opposes any serious climate change bill and is one of three Democrats who co-sponsored a resolution to remove EPA's ability to regulate major new sources of CO2 pollution.

Does someone who so clearly places corporate interests over human interests deserve to be elected as a Democrat?

[tularetom]

1. That particular Democratic Senator does not deserve re-election for many reasons

Others, I'd have to consider on an individual basis. If opposing climate change legislation were their only sin and they had an otherwise clear record of support for true Democratic policies, perhaps I would have a different opinion.

Although there is arguably no more serious matter facing mankind than global climate change, I don't want my support for any candidate to hinge on a single issue. I'd be just like the anti abortion dumbasses if I did so.

[Radical Activist]

2. You make a fair point.

I'm not a fan of single-issue voting either. In this case, besides the drastic consequences of not taking action, it's usually a sign of a Senator's general tendency to serve corporate donors rather than the public. It makes the decision to not support that kind of Senator pretty easy since it spills over into other issues.