Why the election wasn’t a referendum on climate change (and why the press flubbed the story)

Exit polls indicate that jobs and the economy were the top issues on the minds of voters on Tuesday when they trotted off to the polls. While climate change and energy issues played a role in a number of campaigns — with environmentalists running advertisements in key districts criticizing Republican candidates for their support of drilling, for example, and praising other candidates for their environmental records — at least one poll shows that it was not a key issue for voters.

The poll — commissioned by major environmental groups — indicates that cap-and-trade was not a major issue for Republican voters in a slew of House races. Republican voters were asked to name their biggest concern with the Democrat running in the race. While 27 percent chose voting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) agenda, only 7 percent said it was because the Democrat supported the House cap-and-trade bill when offered a list of six options. The poll surveyed 1,000 voters in 83 “battleground” congressional districts.

The poll has received a lot of attention in the last 24 hours not just for its content, but for how it has been reported. Environmentalists have criticized Politico and others for reporting the results of the elections as a “day of reckoning” for lawmakers who voted for the House climate bill. They have also criticized reporters (including me) for treating the poll as an effort by environmentalists to spin the election results. Now, the poll certainly *is *an effort to spin the election results, but that doesn’t mean the results aren’t significant.

I thought I’d try to give some insight into why reporters cast the poll the way they did. First, and most obvious, the poll was conducted by environmentalists, the very group that benefits from the poll’s findings.

Second, environmental beat reporters did not take into account the broader election narrative. In many ways, this is a problem created by beat reporting. Environmental reporters scoured the election results on Tuesday night looking for story ideas.

Two key races were foremost on my radar and, I can assume, on the radars of other environmental reporters: those of Reps. Tom Perriello (D-Va.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.). When both candidates lost in quick succession, the cap-and-trade “referendum” narrative began to take shape.

Perriello has become something of a celebrity on the left, having voted for cap-and-trade, health care and the stimulus package as a Democrat, decisions that could put him in a tight spot in his conservative district on Tuesday. Boucher, also from a conservative Virginia district, voted for the cap-and-trade bill as well, after long negotiations with key lawmakers.

When both Perriello and Boucher lost their races, environmental beat reporters (myself included) quickly noted that both lawmakers had voted for cap-and-trade. The problem is, other issues came into play in these races too. The environmentalist poll says, for example, that only 5 percent of the people who voted for Perriello’s opponent, Republican Robert Hurt, said their biggest concern was Perriello’s vote for the House cap-and-trade bill.

So while 43 Democrats who voted for the House climate bill either lost their races or retired their seats, which were then won by Republicans, it’s difficult to say without specific polling data whether they lost because of their climate vote or for other reasons. Further complicating the idea that the vote was a “referendum” on cap-and-trade, 27 of the 43 Democrats who voted against the House climate bill lost their seats.

While we can’t say cap-and-trade was a key issue in the election, it’s important to note that it was an issue in many races. Cap-and-trade is deeply unpopular among Republicans, and the policy was one of many the GOP employed to criticize President Obama and Democrats. The success of the Republican overall argument — which touched on the economy, the role of government, health care and, yes, cap-and-trade — was the reason for the massive Republican gains in the House and Senate.

I’ve spoken to a few environmentalists who point to several Senate races as examples of where climate change played a major role, including Colorado and Nevada. But while there was a lot of talk of climate change in those races (see Ken Buck), I haven’t seen any indication that either of those races turned on the issue. Like many races in the country, climate change was one of many issues that formed voters’ opinions.

One of the only places, it seems, where climate change played a demonstrable role in the election was in California, with Proposition 23. The ballot initiative, which failed after intense campaigning by the oil industry on one side and environmentalists on the other, would have overturned the state’s landmark global warming law.