# Scientific Politicians In The Midterm Elections

1. Sep 10, 2014

### jenny_shoars

I want to support a scientifically oriented politician in the upcoming US midterms. I'm not looking to have people argue about which party is more scientifically oriented. Specifically, I want to support someone who either has a primarily scientific background or makes science a top priority. Not medicine or technology. Those are important, but I want to support fundamental science in politics. And again, not someone who just says it's important, but spends far more effort on other areas. Someone who has it near the top of their priorities or who simply has a primarily scientific background. Anyone know of such a candidate?

2. Sep 10, 2014

### Bandersnatch

Angela Merkel! Oh, wait. You mean the US. Benjamin Franklin!

3. Sep 10, 2014

### jim hardy

For what office?

Perhaps you ought to run..

4. Sep 10, 2014

### phyzguy

Rush Holt, a democratic House member from New Jersey, was such a candidate. He has a PhD in physics from NYU. Unfortunately, he has chosen not to run again, at least partly due to the extreme polarization in the federal government. Alas...

5. Sep 10, 2014

### KL7AJ

Without tipping my hand as to my political persuasion, I'd like to state that appointing Dr. Steven Chu as head of the department of energy was the only smart decision our current president has ever made.

6. Sep 10, 2014

### WWGD

You're out of luck; there are a few doctors , but they seem to leave their scientific training aside when , e.g., claiming a woman that has been raped can somehow choose not to get pregnant. There is too much polarization on both sides. Many even fail to grasp the basics of Stats one encounters in undergrad. Maybe the best you , or anyone wanting to do something to address extreme partisanship is to start (or join) a campaign against Gerrymandering, which gives way too much advantage towards getting elected to incumbents.

Or, you can do something like Rob Reich and a Conservative colleague did: get together periodically with someone from a different political orientation and discuss the issues; it will force you both to review and question your own biases and unsupported beliefs.

Last edited: Sep 10, 2014
7. Sep 11, 2014

### StatGuy2000

From what I can see, the political polarization is entirely driven by the extremism within the Republican party, with the rise of the Tea Party and extreme social conservatives based in the American South who often engage in primary challenges against moderate or pragmatic members of the party. In consequence, the Democratic Party has been forced to become more partisan in response.

In the current political climate, I really can't imagine past Republican presidents like Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, or Gerald Ford having even a remote chance of electoral success. Even Ronald Reagan would have faced significant hurdles.

8. Sep 12, 2014

### WWGD

Actually, there are many feminists in the far left, and their claims often go unquestioned; they are just as bad as the anti-women, anti-government crowd on the far right. any encounter between a man and a woman a woman feels upset about is often just deemed a rape, even when the case has not gone to trial, guilty-until-proven innocent be damned.
More up your alley (Stat-wise) , are the claims of unequal pay for equal work, for which I have seen no actual evidence ()and I have asked--many times, and which is a very difficult claim to prove. The far left presents it as a plain-and-simple fact, and the supporting claims for it offered are along the lines of " of course it is true" (Donna Edwards, Md Rep.) , or " Most young people today agree that women are not paid fairly" (can't remember) . If it was true that women get paid $.70 for every$1 made by a man, why would anyone ever hire a man? Hire all women, and pocket the difference in salaries. A man's point of view is barely ever heard on the rabid anti-men left, and facts are repeatedly cherry-picked. And don't tell me about domestic violence againt men, you never hear about it, specially under the "Violence Against Women act" , where pure women are all victims. And how about abortion, where men have all obligations, but no rights. A woman alone decides whether to bring to term a pregnancy; a man has no say whatsoever. But the men will have to pay for half the costs of raising the child, at least $250,000 over 20 years; a lot for most men. But there is never any mention of this, nor of many other facts that do not help to make the case that women are consistently mistreated. And all of this is not just pettiness nor nitpicking. All these bile creates a climate that makes a man's life much harder. What happens under a climate of this sort when a man raises his voice to a woman in a public place? If men as perceived as the opressors, the police may intervene. Or what happens when a man and a woman, both similarly-qualified apply for the same job, and men is seen as having been unfairly given jobs repeatedly, who do you think will get the job? No, I believe there are radicals on both sides. For many reasons; for one, competition from the internet has changed the tone of news, from reporting to (non-fact-based) opinions. The old model of reporting was not attracting enough of an audience, so the new business model is that of appealing to the extremes--on both Fox and MSNBC. Gerrymandering has also contributed to the radicalization -- of both sides. Last edited: Sep 12, 2014 9. Sep 12, 2014 ### jim hardy This guy is a surgeon who appears to have political aspirations, but for 2016 not midterm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson In my humble and naive opinion, Democrats vs Republicans is just two heads of the same eagle.. Both parties place 'staying in power' ahead of national interest, pander to their most vocal factions, and persist in petty partisan bickering . There's so much doublespeak and subtrefuge they can claim both sides of any issue.. I'm fed up with 'politics as usual' . My new bumpersticker: Best thing we could do is a clean sweep of both houses at state AND national levels. Hence my broom. I had a hundred of these bumperstickers printed. My friends love them. We will distribute sample ballots in our neighborhood just before election day that show who are the incumbents. Most people can't name their representative and senators.. Feel free to download that 'No Incumbents' jpg and send to your local printer. Or pm me for address of my guy. http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee289/oldjimh/incumbents_zpsd4697176.jpg old jim 10. Sep 12, 2014 ### WWGD Jim Hardy: Gerrymandering is one of the reasons incumbents win most of the time. They redraw so that the new districts contain mostly people who will vote for them. Maybe we could also have public financing so that both incumbent and challenger have similar amounts of money. 11. Sep 13, 2014 ### jim hardy yep, gerrymandering is one tool. So many people only know who's running for president that lower offices are nearly random, they'll vote for a familiar name. That's what we're hoping to change in my neighborhood. Public financing ? Maybe, if the amount is small and that's all they are allowed to spend. Present system amounts to "government of the people by the lobbyists for the financial sector". Guess i'm getting cynical in my old age. Grumpy old man... I'd sure appreciate a ban on telephone solicitation. 12. Sep 13, 2014 ### phinds Scientists and people who believe in science and take it seriously are at a SEVERE disadvantage in the American political arena because they respect the truth. Because of this, their chances of getting elected to anything range from slim to none. 13. Sep 14, 2014 ### jz92wjaz Most politicians seem to come from business and legal because they like dealing with people and the law. For every false accusation, there are more than ten that aren't. It's difficult to prove in court beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was rape, and not consent. Do you think it's reasonable for people to assume that women who say they've been raped are guilty of defaming/lying? If you're going to have a strong opinion, you generally have to assume someone is guilty until proven innocent. I don't like to form opinions without the facts, but if I had to (and I wasn't on a jury), I'd side with the accuser. On a jury, in the absence of facts, I'd legally side with the accused. Court of public opinion doesn't have to follow the same rules as a court of law. Based on the research I've seen, women's choice accounts for most of the pay gap, but when you compare apples to apples women make something like .94 to the dollar. I've have seen someone publicly state that you should hire women because you can pay them less for the same quality of work (this is a great way to get sued, in case anyone was wondering). Men have been disappearing from the workforce for years as women fill their jobs, perhaps because CEOs have figured out that hiring women is better for their bottom line. 14. Sep 14, 2014 ### WWGD it is not just a matter of defaming/lying; there is miscommunication and a lot of noise that should be settled before making such a claim responsibly, I think. There are women who regret having sex, etc., human psychology can be very complicated. Then there are all these far-out groups getting women riled-up by telling them daily that they are victims, which makes questionable accusations more likely . That is what the courts are for, and, given all the noise and the cherry-picking of the women's group (tho cherry-picking is found in most interest groups), I do prefer to assume innocent until proven guilty; I would personally be given the benefit of the doubt when accused, wouldn't you? Re your willingness to side with the accused, I wonder if you have seen these T.V shows in which women claim a certain man to have fathered their child, only to see the DNA test fail, often failed when many potential fathers are brought up? How many women have lied about who their child's father really is . The American Association of Blood Banks says the 300,626 paternity tests it conducted on men in 2000 ruled out nearly 30% as the father. Why did women lie about the true father of around 90000 children? Would you have assumed accusers were telling the truth here too? The truth is not a priority for most people. Please link me to data/studies purporting to show that women get paid$.94 fo r every \$1 a man makes, for doing the same work. And if you have many people arguing that only women should be hired, backed up by arguments/data/studies then let's see it; you can always find one person to say anything. And perhaps men are disappearing because they are imprisoned at 10X the rate women are --one of many inconvenient facts women's groups are either ignorant about or willingly -ignore when making claims of male privilege. Pure speculation, just llike your claim, until you provide more evidence.

90% + of prison pop. is male, 90% of deaths on the job are male, 60% of college degs. today are female. I haven't seen any feminist group outraged and demanding equal representation. Have you?
The death rate for prostate cancer is almost identical to that of breast cancer. Seen any feminist group lobbying for equal funding to fight prostate cancer?

Statistics/data available to support every claim I made in this post . Let me know if you want them.

Last edited: Sep 14, 2014
15. Sep 15, 2014

### jz92wjaz

I do not believe in equal outcomes, but I do believe in equal opportunity.

If I don't actually know the people involved in a rape case, I avoid forming an opinion all together. When I don't know the circumstances and I don't know the accuser, and the accused doesn't seem like a terrible person, I don't assume the accused is guilty. In the two cases where the girl it happened to was a friend, I had every reason to believe her. I only knew one of "accused", but I knew he mistreated women and was a liar, so I had no problem forming an opinion against him even though she never took it to court. I already had a low enough opinion of him that an accusation of rape didn't really change what I thought of him.

Based on a recent facebook post I saw, I know at least one feminist that agrees that breast cancer is overfunded and prostate cancer is underfunded. I think there are things we should do in our schools that would help boys. Those things would help girls too, but probably not quite as much as they'd help boys.

Last edited: Sep 15, 2014
16. Sep 15, 2014

### WWGD

But you see, it is not just a matter of people making things up; there are misinterpretations, misread signals, etc. Since sexual acts do not come about by explicit consent (except possibly in couples), but instead by implicit social signals/cues, these signals may be misunderstood, or the signals sent may be mixed; one or more of the parties may be drunk. And, of course, there are cases where it is the real thing, and then jail should be the consequence. The male may truly believe the woman is giving him the green light, when the woman is doing something else, etc. Basically, communication is only 7% verbal; the rest is through all sorts of cues, that are liable to being misinterpreted. This scenario should be at least considered. Of course, if a man attacks an unsuspecting woman, then this is clearly a sexual assault, but these cases are not always that clear-cut. It is very difficult to determine whether the relationship was consensual or not; there is plenty of room for grey areas.

17. Sep 16, 2014

### Tobias Funke

It's probably worth noting that WWGD used the words "rabid feminasties" in another thread. Just in case you think this whole "both sides are just as bad" thing is genuine (a good rule of thumb: it never is genuine).

18. Sep 16, 2014

### WWGD

And maybe you should check what I said about the far right before you make false claims. The case against the far right , with claims of "(EDIT)legitimate rape" is too clear t o most. I suggest a change in the order you do things: inform yourself well, _then_ make a claim. And still, do you have any _specific_ counter to anything I said?

Last edited: Sep 16, 2014
19. Sep 16, 2014

### skeptic2

I would like to see politicians from all parties have just a little understanding of the tragedy of the commons with respect to federal lands with grazing, water, logging, mining, and oil and gas recovery. Perhaps even with climate change.

20. Sep 16, 2014

### Tobias Funke

This thread had nothing at all to do with feminism before you brought it up in one of the more bizarre derailments I've seen recently. It may seem self-evident to you that extreme feminist politicians are just as much to blame for government gridlock as the many prominent Republicans who have said in no uncertain terms that gridlock is their main goal, but most people aren't buying it. And I can counter everything you said*, but I won't because 1) I don't owe it to everyone who throws out random statistics to "debate" them and 2) you can find studies that say anything, like you said. Anybody who actually cares doesn't need either of us to link them to such basic things.

*edit: Not literally everything; 90% of the prison population may very well be male. You know that feminists hate the US prison system and actively oppose it, right? They also bring up the races of those men, something conveniently left out of the discussion when prison is brought up by one particular race of men!

Last edited: Sep 16, 2014