Could Going Green Actually Help Mitt Romney?

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/wacphiladelphia/">World Affairs Council of Philadelphia</a>/Flickr


Mitt Romney’s confession several weeks back that he believes humans contribute to global warming led some pundits to prophesize doom for his presidential prospects. For Rush Limbaugh, it was “bye bye nomination.” Indeed, almost the entire Republican field seems to have concluded that the only viable political option is to sneer at climate change science, previous statements to the contrary be damned.

But according to a new study (PDF) out of Stanford, Romney might just be onto something. Not only do Americans overwhelmingly believe that addressing global warming should be a federal government priority, candidates risk alienating voters more when they deny climate change than when they take a green position on the issue.

For the study, researchers polled potential voters’ likelihood of supporting a hypothetical Senate candidate based on a series of policy-related quotes attributed to him or her. In some calls, one of the quotes attributed to the “candidate” indicated a green position on climate change (belief in global warming, support for investments in renewable energy). In others, the candidate was attributed a non-green position (“climate science is junk science,” “cap and trade is a job killer”). In still others, the topic was never mentioned.

Unsurprisingly, candidates with green positions fared best among Democrats, with 74 percent indicating they would definitely or probably vote for them versus 53 percent for “silent” candidates and 37 percent for not-green candidates. Among Independents the breakdown was 79/63/44, and among Republicans, 78/83/76. In other words, Republicans were slightly more likely to support a candidate with a green position than one with a non-green position, although the difference between all three Republican numbers is statistically insignificant.

All of this bodes well for Romney. The former Massachusetts governor, viewed so warily by conservatives, continues to hold a commanding lead in the polls without having to—at least in this case—tether himself to the rightmost fringes of his party. Others might consider following his lead.

 

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.