Stop Trying to Make Big Oil Happen

The case for “all of the above” energy politics keeps getting recycled… and voters keep rejecting it.

We’re of course pro recycling, but boy does it get boring to respond to the same old arguments about how Democrats should embrace “all of the above” messaging rather than stand up to Big Oil and run on their support for clean energy. The latest version of the tired, pro-fossil fuel case comes from substacker Matt Yglesias in the form of a New York Times oped that argues, “Liberals should support America’s oil and gas industry.”

Yglesias has always had a strange antipathy towards climate activists, regularly beefing with them on X or writing long winded explanations on his substack about just how wrong they are about, well, everything. Maybe he’s still pissed about when some Climate Defiance organizers interrupted an event he was doing? Whatever the reason, it isn’t exactly news that Yglesias thinks Democrats should ignore “the groups” and get back in bed with fossil fuels.

In fact, we’ve heard this same argument from various centrist commentators for just about as long as I can remember. The shtick usually goes like this: if only Democrats would signal their support for fracking/oil/gas/all-of-the-above, millions of voters out there, especially in mythical states like Pennsylvania, would switch their support from red to blue.

The problem with this argument is that there’s…no evidence for it. In fact, all the polling out there, not to mention our lived experience of the last few elections, points in the exact opposite direction.

Let’s start with the polling. Poll after poll shows that not only Democrats, but a majority of Independents, as well as a surprisingly large number of Republicans, don’t like Big Oil for all sorts of reasons. Voters think the oil and gas industry is driving up prices, gouging at them at the pump, and polluting the environment. They think oil and gas companies have too much political power, get too many handouts, and are standing in the way of clean energy.

Likely voters don’t want to ‘support’ the oil and gas industry, they want to hold them accountable. According to a recent poll we ran with Data for Progress, 74% of likely voters think that oil and gas companies should pay their fair share for climate damages. 77% of voters like the idea of “climate superfund” bills that would make oil and gas companies pay into a fund to help states deal with climate impacts. 61% of likely voters say that they’d be “more likely” to vote for a candidate that supports climate superfund legislation – that includes 47% of Republicans, versus only 23% who say they’d be less likely.

This all makes perfect sense when you think about it. Americans everywhere are experiencing the costs of the climate crisis, from the direct impacts of extreme weather events, to the ripple effects of rising insurance rates, skyrocketing electricity prices, and the higher local taxes cities and counties need to respond to disaster after disaster. Or they remember the price gouging Big Oil engaged in during the early days of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, driving gas prices through the roof. Or they’re disgusted by how Trump asked Big Oil for a “billion dollars” to get him elected and has gone on to enact their wildest dreams, slashing clean energy programs, gutting climate science, and handing over our public lands and waters for drilling.

But we don’t need to think about this theoretically. You can just look at the last few election cycles to see how when Democrats embraced a strong, pro-clean energy, anti-fossil fuel message, they electrified exactly the voter they needed to win. I’m old enough to remember when candidate Joe Biden was struggling to mobilize the youth and progressive vote after Bernie stepped out of the race. He was able to do it, largely, because of his commitment to act on climate. Or just look at this last November’s election: Democrats overperformed in New Jersey, Virginia, and Georgia (Georgia!) by running a strong energy affordability argument, blaming Trump and Republicans for rising electricity prices because of (wait for it) their hatred of clean energy and overreliance on fossil fuels.

There’s a larger political strategy question at play here, too. In politics, it rarely makes sense to embrace your opponent’s position, especially if you’re just adopting a weaker version of it. Everyone knows Republicans love oil and gas. Democrats aren’t going to “win over” voters by taking up an “all of the above” message. If support for the oil and gas industry is your number one issue, you’re going to vote Republican.

Instead, the smart thing to do is to run on an issue where your opponents are especially weak – and for Republicans, that issue is climate. Republicans are way out of line with the American public, and even much of their own base, when it comes to climate and clean energy. That provides a big opening for Democrats to push hard on the issue, casting Trump and the GOP as Big Oil puppets who are standing in the way of jobs, technology, clean air, clean water, lower prices, competitiveness with China, you name it. But that argument doesn’t work if Democrats are also cozying up with Big Oil.

Democrats have a huge opportunity in 2026 to simultaneously electrify their base and appeal to the voters they need to win over by running aggressively on their opposition to Big Oil and their support for clean energy. It’s a political platform that 1) gives a clear answer about who is to blame for high energy prices and growing climate damages and 2) offers a clear solution in the form of cheap, clean energy.

Some things really do belong in the trash and “all of the above” energy messaging is one of them. It’s time for Democrats to embrace a clean energy future – and go make it happen.