The Solyndra episode has generated reams of press coverage and fodder for political speeches, but this hasn’t changed voters views on clean energy, new research from a pair of Democratic and Republican pollsters suggests.

Solyndra LLC is far from becoming “dinner table conversation” the way health care reform was in 2009 and has not undermined voter support for public investments in clean energy, according to a poll released this week from Public Opinion Strategies, a firm that generally works with Republican candidates, and Fairbank, Maslin, Maulin, Metz & Associates, affiliated with Democrats. “Thus far, Solyndra is still news junkie fodder,” the pollsters concluded, citing a recent voter survey in Ohio and focus groups in California.

Solyndra filed for bankruptcy earlier this month after receiving a $535 million federal loan guarantee funded by the 2009 economic-stimulus law. (For more on that, click here.)

Of 650 Ohio voters surveyed after Solyndra’s bankruptcy, just 11% said they had heard “a great deal” about the issue, the pollsters said. They also found that while 16% said they had heard “a little,” those people couldn’t talk about the issue in any detail.

California voters who participated in focus groups were more aware of the story, but still supported clean energy and considered Solyndra to be a bad apple rather than an indication of a systemic problem. Nearly two-thirds of voters in the Ohio poll expressed similar sentiment, saying their view was more aligned with a statement that problems with one failed company should not stop clean energy investments as a whole. “When presented with arguments that attempt to use Solyndra to indict public investments in clean energy more broadly, voters reject them,” the pollsters said.

About 43% of Republicans in the Ohio survey agreed with a statement that green jobs initiatives were a waste of government money, compared to 18% of Democrats. But the pollsters noted that figure dropped to 35% among Republican women and 31% of Republicans who did not identify with the Tea Party.

I have a question, how does a company that gets $520 million dollars of our money go belly up after two years?

Keep in mind that Solyndra was pushing for gubment funds when Bush was in office and they didn't get any.

Of course not. Stands to reason. Bush was a whore for the Saudi Arabians and oil industry. Why would he allow money to go to an alternative energy company?

And BTW, the "gubmint" didn't loan money to Solyndra. they offered a loan guarantee.