Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Dennis Donovan

(22,192 posts)
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 01:15 PM Monday

For only the 2nd time in our 179-year history, editors of Scientific American are endorsing a candidate for president



Scientific American
For only the second time in our 179-year history, the editors of Scientific American are endorsing a candidate for president. That person is Kamala Harris. | Editorial


Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment

Kamala Harris has plans to improve health, boost the economy and mitigate climate change. Donald Trump has threats and a dangerous record

By The Editors
September 16, 2024

In the November election, the U.S. faces two futures. In one, the new president offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience. She pushes policies that boost good jobs nationwide by embracing technology and clean energy. She supports education, public health and reproductive rights. She treats the climate crisis as the emergency it is and seeks to mitigate its catastrophic storms, fires and droughts.

In the other future, the new president endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies. He ignores the climate crisis in favor of more pollution. He requires that federal officials show personal loyalty to him rather than upholding U.S. laws. He fills positions in federal science and other agencies with unqualified ideologues. He goads people into hate and division, and he inspires extremists at state and local levels to pass laws that disrupt education and make it harder to earn a living.

Only one of these futures will improve the fate of this country and the world. That is why, for only the second time in our magazine’s 179-year history, the editors of Scientific American are endorsing a candidate for president. That person is Kamala Harris.

Before making this endorsement, we evaluated Harris’s record as a U.S. senator and as vice president under Joe Biden, as well as policy proposals she’s made as a presidential candidate. Her opponent, Donald Trump, who was president from 2017 to 2021, also has a record—a disastrous one. Let’s compare.

/snip


Unexpected endorsement, but a welcomed one indeed!
56 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
For only the 2nd time in our 179-year history, editors of Scientific American are endorsing a candidate for president (Original Post) Dennis Donovan Monday OP
K & R..................... Lovie777 Monday #1
They laid out the evidence teran Monday #2
It was Joe. Bantamfancier Monday #6
Thanks! teran Monday #37
Wow! Clouds Passing Monday #3
Moved me to tears. Doodley Monday #4
Me, too. 3catwoman3 Monday #22
I hear you. Me, too. wordstroken Monday #40
I'm so surprised! leftieNanner Monday #5
I know, they also didn't choose johnnyfins Monday #42
But, you know... leftieNanner Monday #49
True johnnyfins Monday #50
Well done. Magoo48 Monday #7
Expect MAJOR boycott dweller Monday #8
A boycott by both MAGAts that can read RainCaster Monday #15
Perhaps a concept of science BattleRow Monday #17
Not a problem North Coast Lawyer Monday #19
Goes along with the xian evilgelicals who also only read fantasy - the bible. erronis Monday #26
xian evilgelicals don't read either ancianita Yesterday #56
Oh Guns&Ammo will reply with their big endorsement of the convicted felon. bluesbassman Monday #27
MAGATS are already boycotting science mainer Monday #28
Kick dalton99a Monday #9
Kick. N/T Upthevibe Monday #10
Science! Iggo Monday #11
In Science We Trust. twodogsbarking Monday #12
Good assessment of what a disaster Trump is. It needs to be repeated as often GoodRaisin Monday #13
TY & Scientific American! Cha Monday #14
K&R riverkittenDem Monday #16
Very scientifically done! dchill Monday #18
Who was the other endorsement? Bev54 Monday #20
The most interesting magazine in the world? whopis01 Monday #33
Big Woop. Donald has Taylor Swift's boyfriend's co-worker's wife... progressoid Monday #21
She liked one of his tweets, or whatever they are called but I am not sure she has Bev54 Monday #36
Yep. progressoid Monday #38
No, Taylor did outright endorse her. Elessar Zappa Monday #41
We are talking about Britany Mahomes Bev54 Monday #45
Ah ok. Elessar Zappa Monday #46
The tweet (xeet? truth? argle-bargle? ...whatever) that she liked, Chellee Monday #47
SA: doing what science does. yonder Monday #23
A lot of MAGATs are anti-science and anti-intellectual, so they probably Poiuyt Monday #24
They definitely aren't scientific Americans Nasruddin Monday #29
Something tells me this endorsement will have little influence Mysterian Monday #25
Lib Republicans Nasruddin Monday #30
I disagree. murielm99 Monday #34
Been there and lived that Nasruddin Monday #44
Too bad the first one wasn't Al Gore. LisaM Monday #31
Because science matters! It's something we all take for granted, but without it, we'd all be worse off and ffr Monday #32
The scientists get it: Chump can never be allowed back in the White House FakeNoose Monday #35
Scientists are probably the demographic jfz9580m Yesterday #54
Yay SA! jfz9580m Monday #39
"The failing Scientific American magazine... johnnyfins Monday #43
Correct except it would be jfz9580m Yesterday #53
You can expect the orange monster to say this is fake news and Scientific American magazine is kimbutgar Monday #48
K&R Blue Owl Monday #51
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Monday #52
Lots of good reasons to vote for Harris. Aussie105 Yesterday #55

teran

(40 posts)
2. They laid out the evidence
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 01:19 PM
Monday

clearly and concisely, like good scientists do.

I didn't see a mention of the first time they endorsed, but I skimmed. Do you happen to know?

johnnyfins

(1,100 posts)
42. I know, they also didn't choose
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 05:08 PM
Monday

Bleach under your skin, like a cleaning for COVID Guy either. How about let's explode a nuclear device in the middle of a hurricane guy? Oh...same guy. My bad.

RainCaster

(11,298 posts)
15. A boycott by both MAGAts that can read
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 01:41 PM
Monday

What are the chances that any Republican has not only reading skills, but believes in science too?

erronis

(16,433 posts)
26. Goes along with the xian evilgelicals who also only read fantasy - the bible.
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 02:09 PM
Monday

Last edited Tue Sep 17, 2024, 11:07 AM - Edit history (1)

On edit - I meant to add "only read fantasy - the bible."

bluesbassman

(19,663 posts)
27. Oh Guns&Ammo will reply with their big endorsement of the convicted felon.
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 02:09 PM
Monday

So that'll calm the knuckle draggers down.

mainer

(12,130 posts)
28. MAGATS are already boycotting science
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 03:04 PM
Monday

This will not change their minds. And I doubt they subscribe to SA.

GoodRaisin

(9,392 posts)
13. Good assessment of what a disaster Trump is. It needs to be repeated as often
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 01:37 PM
Monday

as possible how horrible Trump is.

Bev54

(11,415 posts)
36. She liked one of his tweets, or whatever they are called but I am not sure she has
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 04:20 PM
Monday

openly endorsed him. I think now with the "I hate Taylor Swift" confession, Taylor might be a little guarded around them. I would be careful when I am not sure who the other guests might be.

progressoid

(50,407 posts)
38. Yep.
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 04:25 PM
Monday

I imagine Taylor has had to redouble her security efforts.

Not only because of the Austria terrorism event but also because of Drumpf and his unhinged cult.

Chellee

(2,175 posts)
47. The tweet (xeet? truth? argle-bargle? ...whatever) that she liked,
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 06:31 PM
Monday

she later deleted when she got push-back. So she's not his most steadfast supporter. But, I think you're right. I think Taylor should be more cautious around the Mahomes. When someone tells you who they are, believe them the first time.

Poiuyt

(18,209 posts)
24. A lot of MAGATs are anti-science and anti-intellectual, so they probably
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 02:06 PM
Monday

look at this statement as an affirmation of their admiration of Trump.

Mysterian

(5,057 posts)
25. Something tells me this endorsement will have little influence
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 02:08 PM
Monday

on that segment of our population which believe that vaccines contain microbots from that evil mastermind Bill Gates.

Nasruddin

(798 posts)
30. Lib Republicans
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 03:24 PM
Monday

A LOT of scientists and engineers fall into the Republican half of the pie
Many are old - fashioned liberal Republicans or Reagan Republicans
They can be reached.

Cult nut cases pretty unlikely. Pretty Routhian probably.

murielm99

(31,208 posts)
34. I disagree.
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 04:08 PM
Monday

My son works at Fermilab. He has been there for 22 years. The county used to go Republican all the time. That is changing, too. No matter how the county went, the Lab was Democratic. I don't think you can get more scientific than a gaggle of particle physicists.

Nasruddin

(798 posts)
44. Been there and lived that
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 05:21 PM
Monday

Very strong Republican element in scientific/engineering circles - been that way
since they were in high school. I went to school with them, I went to university with them,
& I went to work myself in a national lab and in industry with them. They are out there
and still alive and voting.

It was probably even more true before my time.

It's possible the youngest generation is more left-leaning.

ffr

(22,971 posts)
32. Because science matters! It's something we all take for granted, but without it, we'd all be worse off and
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 03:47 PM
Monday

dumb, like MAGAs.

FakeNoose

(34,738 posts)
35. The scientists get it: Chump can never be allowed back in the White House
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 04:15 PM
Monday

It's not surprising that they're endorsing Kamala, because 4 years ago they endorsed Joe Biden!

Thank you, Scientific American!

johnnyfins

(1,100 posts)
43. "The failing Scientific American magazine...
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 05:13 PM
Monday

blah, blah, blah. IMMIGRANT PET EATERS, HANNIBAL LECTOR, WHY DOESNT MY TOILET FLUSH, ELECTRIC BOAT BATTERY SHARK!!!!

jfz9580m

(14,619 posts)
53. Correct except it would be
Tue Sep 17, 2024, 12:54 AM
Yesterday

THE FAILING SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MAGAZINE

Never speak when you can shout instead..

kimbutgar

(22,480 posts)
48. You can expect the orange monster to say this is fake news and Scientific American magazine is
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 06:48 PM
Monday

A propaganda rag!

But then I doubt any of his MAGAloon supporters even know about Scientific American magazine!

Response to Dennis Donovan (Original post)

Aussie105

(5,982 posts)
55. Lots of good reasons to vote for Harris.
Tue Sep 17, 2024, 03:03 AM
Yesterday

Unlike the Republican Doctrine, vote for us because we just hate everybody, just like you!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»For only the 2nd time in ...