First, there is no doubt Markey won this race in large part because of his climate messaging. And @sunrisemvmt definitely deserves all the credit it is getting for rebranding him as the Green New Dealer.
I think the potential problems arise when we start to draw wider lessons from this race.

We are talking about a race decided by *Massachusetts Democrats* - not a group that is terribly reflective of the country.
Another thing to note: Kennedy's campaign was a lot like his uncle's 1980 presidential bid. No Mass voter I've spoken to in recent weeks could articulate a reason why he was running except for the fact he was a Kennedy.

Markey, by contrast, had climate as his rationale.
Further, when you look at the race in MA1 between @AlexBMorse and @RepRichardNeal, the Green New Dealer (Morse) lost pretty decisively.

More over, look at the towns Morse won: largely small, very white and very progressive communities in Berkshires and the Valley.
Neal, by contrast, won bigger blue-collar, more diverse (and more representative of the US) communities like Holyoke and Springfield.
There was a lot going on in that race outside climate. But the point is we can't even make blanket statements about Massachusetts Democrats and climate when we look at the primary in its totality. And that's before we even get to the rest of America.
Around now is when someone is going to cite some poll showing Democrats care about climate.

I and every other climate reporter have been getting these polls for at least a decade now. And you know what? Neither Americans or Democrats have consistently voted like that.
Maybe Markey is a turning point for the climate movement. But I'm going to hold onto some healthy skepticism until we see a bunch of other races elsewhere turn out like this.
ccing @billscher for his take
You can follow @bstorrow.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: