# Scientific Politicians In The Midterm Elections

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?

## Answers and Replies

Related General Discussion News on Phys.org
Bandersnatch
Angela Merkel! Oh, wait. You mean the US. Benjamin Franklin!

jim hardy
Gold Member
2019 Award
Dearly Missed
For what office?

Perhaps you ought to run..

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...

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?
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.

WWGD
Gold Member
2019 Award
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:
StatGuy2000
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.
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.

WWGD
Gold Member
2019 Award
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: jim hardy Science Advisor Gold Member 2019 Award Dearly Missed 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 WWGD Science Advisor Gold Member 2019 Award 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. jim hardy Science Advisor Gold Member 2019 Award Dearly Missed 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. phinds Science Advisor Gold Member 2019 Award 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? 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. Most politicians seem to come from business and legal because they like dealing with people and the law. 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. 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. 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. 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. WWGD Science Advisor Gold Member 2019 Award 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. 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:
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.

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?
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:
WWGD
Gold Member
2019 Award
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.

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).

WWGD
Gold Member
2019 Award
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).
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:
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.

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 "voluntary 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?
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:
WWGD
Gold Member
2019 Award
False claim about derailment: Stat 2000 stated that the gridlock had to see mostly with the right. I replied I did not believe that to be the case, and I elaborated on why I believed that the far-left feminists were as extreme as those on the far right. I brought up feminists because they represent the far left which Stat Guy 2000 stated had (paraphrase) little to see with the current gridlock.
And what I brought up were _statistics/data_ not studies; there is an important difference. Please _do_ refer me to _data_ , and not studies that counters _anything_ I have stated. If you show me to be wrong, I will take back what I have said; until then, I stand by what I have said. My point is that the extreme feminists case is weak because of their cherry-picking; I brought up data --please get it right, I brought up _data_ (data mostly from Government agencies, not from interest groups), not studies -- that I believe weakens the case far-Left feminists make, that I have never seen brought up by feminists. This data supports, I believe, the case that the Far Left is , or can be, as extreme as the taxation -is-theft, government-can-do-nothing-right, "consensual-rape" crowd on the right. And this extremism contributes to polarization, which contributes to gridlock. Since most in this General Discussion forum are on the Left , I think it is fair to make this point, as most here , including myself, already accept the negative effects of the polarization on the Right.

And, no, I have not read nor watched on TV any feminist actively argue against the prison system. And please do elaborate on why I am not "debating", whatever it is you mean with that scare quote. So do find _data/statistics_ that show me to be wrong. All I claimed is that the left can be as extreme as the right. Sure, under a Liberal president the situation is different then under a Conservative " Bush is Hitler" government, however much I believe Bush greatly contributed to throwing the country down the toilet and that Cheney and Rumsfeld should be tried.

And of course feminists bring up the race, the fact that Black males have a 28.5 % http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/Llgsfp.pdf , chance of going to prison, because this is actually a legitimate and serious issue, unlike many of the ones they bring up. Putting a legitimate issue together with most of the non-issues of the far-feminists makes their case look stronger than it actually is.

And when you accuse me with little evidence, and without the basic fairness of linking to the posts where you quote me on "rabid feminasties" , so that others can form their own opinion, you are ignoring the fact that I focus on this because these are the issues that were brought up. If someone had tried to argue that the far-Right is not extreme, I would have argued similarly. And two posts of mine are apparently enough for you to make a judgement.

And, ultimately, I am stating that the far-left contributes non-trivially to polarization by riling people up with extreme views. Just watch some of MSNBC's programming, as buffoonish as Faux's Fair and Balanced.

At the end of the day, you could have asked me why I was bringing up the Feminist issue, and told me you thought I was being partial. But from the get go you assumed you knew exactly why I said what I said. This suggests you don't have much of an interest on having a constructive debate we could both have learnt something from. Instead, you already know why I say what I say, and you went on the attack accusing me of derailing and of being partial. This suggests to me you have no real interest of engaging in a constructive debate.

Last edited:
Do I really have to supply you with stuff that's so easy to google? Type in "wwgd rabid feminasties" and it's the first result. See? I hope your big "gotcha!" is not that the two words were never adjacent or something, because anyone who reads it can tell you were railing against whatever you think rabid feminasties are. You used the word rabid in this thread too, and I have no problem at all with saying that I quickly made up my mind about you and I sure as hell don't expect or want a "constructive debate."

Here's a link to feminists opposing the prison system. Again, it took about 20 seconds on google. Is it a key issue for them? No, it doesn't seem to be, although there are plenty of individual feminist blogs that I could link to that are much more vocal about prisons. According to other search results, do feminists mostly focus on women in prison? Yes, and if your criteria for rabid feminasties is people who are actively trying to alleviate women prisoners' suffering, then...you win, I guess. I didn't know that any group that doesn't simultaneously try to tackle all social issues for all people is extremist, but I guess I was wrong. And something else that's interesting: you'll also find feminists acknowledging that maybe they should pay more attention to the issue, which puts them ahead of about, oh, 90% of the general population in terms of caring about male prisoners.

You'll find similar search results for wage gap, and you're right that it's hard to find agreement as to why it exists. Still, studies consistently show that an unexplained gap exists after correcting for variable factors. Is that not something to be concerned about, especially when examples of clear discrimination can be seen elsewhere--hiring practices using identical resumes except for gender, for example?

But anyway, this still really has nothing to do with the thread and I'm not terribly interested in continuing (nor does anybody else seem to be, just like that other thread). Let's not forget that your main point is that the far left is supposedly as bad as the far right, whatever those terms might mean to you. And you back this up by ranting about--among other things--men not having a say in an abortion? Have you considered that StatGuy2000 and others have never noticed this before because it's not true, and not because he wasn't looking hard enough?

WWGD
Gold Member
2019 Award
First of all, you may not be aware that Google searches by different people produce different search results. This weakens many of the points you make. Even opening different tabs and doing searches will lead to different search results. Google taylors its search results to your search and surfing history--look it up if you do not believe me.

And again, I am not against feminists per se (I am pro-abortion, for one), I am against the radical wing, just like I am against the radical Right; it is those that I call rabid feminasties; basically the ones that you see at MSNBC, the ones that pass laws about Violence against Women while ignoring men that are victims of physical and otherwise abuse too. It is those who casually refer to any encounter between a man and a woman where the woman is upset as an assault, or even as a rape attempt, before the case goes to trial. The ones who claim that a man should pay child support even if he is not the father of a child. They are the ones that cherry-pick areas where women do worse than men and ignore the areas where men fare worse, and then talk about male privilege. Those are the ones that I am against and that I refer to as feminasties. I have nothing against feminism nor feminists per se.
I actually did do a search for the wage gap, found zero studies that claimed that women get paid less for doing the same work, and I did look for them for a while. I asked those who disagreed with me in debates I was part of to document their claims, and I got no response.

And if you believe it true that men do have a say on whether a woman that is pregnant as a result of a consensual sexual relationship, please enlighten me.

And here you are self-righteously claiming what I say is not true and telling me a simple search would show that to be the case. Here, how about you practice what you preach:

Incidence of Breast and Prostate cancer:
http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@research/documents/document/acspc-041776.pdf

Death rates by Breast and Prostate cancer

http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@research/documents/document/acspc-041777.pdf

Both rates are 1 in 37 .

And here is the rate of deaths in the job b gender

https://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/0305/a1.htm#Table 1

Now , who is the liar ?

Last edited:
Now , who is the liar ?
I guess I have to continue now, at least to clarify. I made a point to edit my much earlier post just to avoid you taking my remark that I can disprove everything you said literally. I just happened to use the one example of prisoners as something you said that was true (I haven't checked but I believe you). That doesn't mean that's the only thing that may be true. Did I say you were wrong about prostate cancer? I never mentioned it because, well, why would I? What's the significance? Cancer is more common than Parkinson's disease (I'm pretty sure, at least. If not, we'll just say WLOG), yet organizations dedicated to bringing awareness to and curing Parkinson's aren't cherry-picking extremists, are they?

And when I later said "it's not true," I thought it was clear that I was referring to your overall claim that both sides are just as bad, and nothing about abortion in particular (I mentioned abortion in the previous sentence because it was such an irrelevant example to use). It's exactly this getting bogged down in boring semantics, misunderstandings, and blaming google for a lack of knowledge (lol) that doesn't interest me. I only responded because anyone seeing your post would assume that I'm disputing things I never doubted. As long as that's clear, as far as I'm concerned I've said all I have to say and you can post whatever data you have, although why you think it proves so much is still a mystery to me.