Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden

Forums: Politics, Science
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate in its 175-year history. This year we are compelled to do so. We do not do this lightly.

The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September. He has also attacked environmental protections, medical care, and the researchers and public science agencies that help this country prepare for its greatest challenges. That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment. These and other proposals he has put forth can set the country back on course for a safer, more prosperous and more equitable future.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 852 • Replies: 17

[+3] - maxdancona - 09/15/2020I don't know why you are arguing this silly point Bobsal... or what you are even arguing. 42% of Americans in general approve of Donald Trump. This is a representative sample of Americans...

@engineer,

We live in times calling all hands on deck.

0 Replies

@engineer,

I agree with them. However, I can't imagine that anyone who reads Scientific American will be voting for Trump anyway.

If "Guns and Ammo" endorsed Biden... now that would be something.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I dunno. They seem pretty average to me:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/mediakit/readers/

https://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/08/business/scientific-american-in-ad-drive-stirs-demographic-battle.html

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

I don't know why you are arguing this silly point Bobsal... or what you are even arguing.

42% of Americans in general approve of Donald Trump. This is a representative sample of Americans throughout the country. Scientific American readers are not a representative sample of Americans in general.

I don't have data on the percentage of Scientific American readers who approve of Donald Trump... but I am going to guess that it is much lower than 42%.

Do you disagree?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I'm not arguing. I'm just curious about what information makes you declare the Scientific American is hot house of Biden voters.

When I looked at the statistics I linked from both sources on the demographics of the average Scientific American reader I don't see anything that is a big indicator of liberal/conservative bias except on the larger than avg income and home ownership which are usually an indicator of conservative bias. I don't know where/what your data is so I am interested how you derived that left lean.

I'm mean if you're just verbalizing a hunch, no problem.

Otherwise I am very interested in your insight and what data informed it.

Whatever I said to piss you off, I humbly apologize.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

I don't have specific data, I am expressing an informed opinion.

These are science nerds. They are my people. I am currently working in software engineering. These advanced STEM fields are heavily anti-Trump. This is an opinion but it is based on personal observation of a community I know very well.

I found data showing a strong correlation between education level and opposition to Trump. This doesn't answer the question directly, but it supports it.

If you show me polling data that scientists are not heavily anti-Trump, I will change my opinion.
\

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

If we're going to bandy opinions. I see no indication from trustworthy, easily available sources I've been through that there is any indication of a strong bias either way though as I said before: I think there is maybe a slight bias to the right.

I like to inform my opinion. Makes a clash of opinion less likely. An honestly held opinion will not make the moon solid green cheese.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

If you show me polling data that scientists are not heavily anti-Trump, I will change my opinion.

You got mad at me for presenting you evidence for my opinion.

My opinion about polls is which poll are you talking about.

I don't particularly trust polls as predictors of victory with a few exceptions like 538. I have problems with sample sizes, the pool the samples come from. What I do believe is as snapshot they are valuable in identifying trends and problems day to day or maybe week to week. Campaigning is strategic and polling itself is tactical, like sending out the scouts.

I'll be glad to read your opinion and then I guess we're done, what with no evidence from any source you trust. But that's OK, we're just shooting the breeze. Two friends well met on a2k. Its not as we are trying to educate ourselves.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I don't have specific data, I am expressing an informed opinion.

How is your opinion "informed" without information?

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

I don't know why you keep saying I am angry. I am not.

0 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

I thought I explained that. The science nerd community is one I know well. It is a mixture of pure liberals and intellectual libertarians. Not a big source of Trump support.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I subscribe to scientific American and I don't think of myself as a nerd. I do like to be well informed and subscribe to several scientific magazines because I find more useful information in them than on radio, TV or the papers which I consider republican propaganda sources. They are mostly owned and controlled by billionaires.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

This made me laugh.

Scientific American is literally controlled by Billionaires. It is part of a large international publishing conglomerate. Stefan Holtzbrinks has a net worth estimated to be at least $3 billion.

You can enjoy it anyway.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Owned by billionaires, read by libruls. Interesting.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

This might surprise you, but it's true. Liberals are just as susceptible to propaganda as anyone else (they just don't notice it in their own bubble).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

No doubt, look at the support Trump has from mouthbreathers with no front teeth! The "grass root" supporters that the Koch Brothers "Astroturfed".

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

If I compare that to the mouthbreathers who drool over Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, there doesn't seem to be that much difference.

(Although Alexandra is definitely more physically attractive.)

0 Replies

Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know