6% of Scientist are Republican

[Juan_Bottom]

Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll

A new study by the Pew Research Center finds that the GOP is alienating scientists to a startling degree.

Only six percent of America's scientists identify themselves as Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats. By comparison, 23 percent of the overall public considers itself Republican, while 35 percent say they're Democrats.

The ideological discrepancies were similar. Nine percent of scientists said they were "conservative" while 52 percent described themselves as "liberal," and 14 percent "very liberal." The corresponding figures for the general public were 37, 20 and 5 percent.

Among the general public, moderates and independents ranked higher than any party or ideology. But among scientists, there were considerably more Democrats (55%) than independents (32%) and Republicans (6%) put together. There were also more liberals (52%) than moderates (35%) and conservatives (9%) combined.

"These results were not a complete surprise," said Scott Keeter, Director of Survey Research at Pew, in an interview with the Huffington Post. He said they can be mostly attributed to "the difference between Democratic and Republican parties with respect to issues."

[Juan_Bottom]

Does this mean that reality has a liberal bias?

[chang50]

Does this mean that reality has a liberal bias?

Really surprising,I wonder if this result would be repeated in other developed countries?Maybe it reflects how far to the right the Republican party in the US has lurched in recent years,in an already right of centre country.Certainly no-one with a sound grasp of reality would want to identify with Palin,Bachmann,et al..

[saxitoxin]

61% of High School Dropouts are Democrats - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... marsh.html

looks like they've nailed both extremes - idiots and the intelligentsia

[jonesthecurl]

Does this mean that reality has a liberal bias?

No, it means that Republicans are aware of the huge con that scientists have been pulling on us ever since Darwin was accepted, so that they don't have to relabel all the fossil exhibits.

[Night Strike]

It's not a surprise when new scientists are taught by those who live and breathe big-government liberalism as that's how they get funded to do their "research". Poll only scientists who work in the private sector and have to actually use their knowledge to develop marketable products and there will be a LOT more emphasis on free market principles.

[BigBallinStalin]

The study was a sample of 2500 from the AAAS...

1. What kind of scientists are we talking about here? (only physical sciencists, social scientists, or a mix?)

2. Also, 39% of scientists might not be politically stupid.

[Dukasaur]

It's not a surprise when new scientists are taught by those who live and breathe big-government liberalism as that's how they get funded to do their "research". Poll only scientists who work in the private sector and have to actually use their knowledge to develop marketable products and there will be a LOT more emphasis on free market principles.

Yes, I'm sure quite a number of scientists in the private sector vote Libertarian.

[AAFitz]

It's not a surprise when new scientists are taught by those who live and breathe big-government liberalism as that's how they get funded to do their "research". Poll only scientists who work in the private sector and have to actually use their knowledge to develop marketable products and there will be a LOT more emphasis on free market principles.

Yeah, like homosexual marriage for example, the freest market principle that ever existed.

[Gillipig]

6%? That's higher than I thought, didn't think there were that many stupid scientists.

[Metsfanmax]

It's not a surprise when new scientists are taught by those who live and breathe big-government liberalism as that's how they get funded to do their "research". Poll only scientists who work in the private sector and have to actually use their knowledge to develop marketable products and there will be a LOT more emphasis on free market principles.

Why do you place research in quotation marks? Are you implying that most scientists do not get funded to actually learn things about nature?

[AAFitz]

It's not a surprise when new scientists are taught by those who live and breathe big-government liberalism as that's how they get funded to do their "research". Poll only scientists who work in the private sector and have to actually use their knowledge to develop marketable products and there will be a LOT more emphasis on free market principles.

Why do you place research in quotation marks? Are you implying that most scientists do not get funded to actually learn things about nature?

No, he is suggesting that getting paid by the government corrupts them, whereas getting paid by a corporation does not.

Because....Aliens.

[Juan_Bottom]

61% of High School Dropouts are Democrats - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... marsh.html

looks like they've nailed both extremes - idiots and the intelligentsia

I'll defend them. Just because someone drops out of school that doesn't make them stupid. Everyone makes mistakes, but it's how you react to them that make the person. I've dated single moms before, and I wasn't sitting there holding their hands while also judging them the whole time. That stuff doesn't bother me, because it reveals character. So for the same reason I wont judge someone that I don't know simply because they dropped out.
Dude, 2Pac was a drop out. 2Pac.

I would hypothesize that because drop-outs make less money, even for the same work, that it would make good sense for them to support Democrats. Overall the Democratic party is far more pro-labor than the Republican party. You'll also notice that according to those graphs, as a person's net worth goes up, they are more likely to support the republican party. It think it's all related.

[Night Strike]

I would hypothesize that because drop-outs make less money, even for the same work, that it would make good sense for them to support Democrats. Overall the Democratic party is far more pro-labor than the Republican party. You'll also notice that according to those graphs, as a person's net worth goes up, they are more likely to support the republican party. It think it's all related.

Correct. That's what happens when people realize that they want to actually be able to choose what to do with the money they earned instead of handing more and more of it over to the government without any choice.

[Juan_Bottom]

I would hypothesize that because drop-outs make less money, even for the same work, that it would make good sense for them to support Democrats. Overall the Democratic party is far more pro-labor than the Republican party. You'll also notice that according to those graphs, as a person's net worth goes up, they are more likely to support the republican party. It think it's all related.

Correct. That's what happens when people realize that they want to actually be able to choose what to do with the money they earned instead of handing more and more of it over to the government without any choice.

There's also a correlation between wealth hoarding and impoverishing those people who have none. For example, does anyone really believe that the three Waltons actually earn 400 billion dollars a year while their workers are on food stamps? I hope not.

[tzor]

The study was a sample of 2500 from the AAAS...

Did you say the AAAS? Any idiot can be a member of the AAAS. (I think I was a member for a while after I got my BS in 83.) That's like saying a survey of retired people based on a sample from the AARP.

[Night Strike]

I would hypothesize that because drop-outs make less money, even for the same work, that it would make good sense for them to support Democrats. Overall the Democratic party is far more pro-labor than the Republican party. You'll also notice that according to those graphs, as a person's net worth goes up, they are more likely to support the republican party. It think it's all related.

Correct. That's what happens when people realize that they want to actually be able to choose what to do with the money they earned instead of handing more and more of it over to the government without any choice.

There's also a correlation between wealth hoarding and impoverishing those people who have none. For example, does anyone really believe that the three Waltons actually earn 400 billion dollars a year while their workers are on food stamps? I hope not.

I hope you realize no one earns 400 billion dollars a year.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I've dated single moms before, and I wasn't sitting there holding their hands while also judging them the whole time. That stuff doesn't bother me, because it reveals character.

wut.

-TG

[macbone]

So what are the implications here? That being a Republican is unscientific? So then 6% of scientists are also unscientific? I'd be curious to see a breakdown by specialty.

What about other political affiliations? Greens? Anarchists? How many refuse to associate themselves with any political party altogether?

This isn't really related, but this study reminds me of a recent xkcd:

Click image to enlarge.

[BigBallinStalin]

So what are the implications here? That being a Republican is unscientific? So then 6% of scientists are also unscientific? I'd be curious to see a breakdown by specialty.

What about other political affiliations? Greens? Anarchists? How many refuse to associate themselves with any political party altogether?

Apparently, 55% of a sample of 2500+ members of the AAAS vote Democrat.

In order to be a member of the AAAS, you can be a student who is willing to shell out $75. One could become a "professional member" for the cool price of $151.

After skimming through the link within the OP's link to the article about the Pew Study, there was no mention of what constitutes as a "scientist." For all we know, anyone with a PhD in English and who is a member of the AAAS could be a "scientist." Even a student at the Yoga Academy could possibly be labeled as a "scientist" if they're included in that 2500+ sample.

But hey, people like JB don't need these questions answered because they're satisfied with the feeling of having 55% of 2500+ "scientists" cheering for his favorite political team, and/or he likes taking the opportunity to annoy non-Democrats. It's kind of sad and regrettable.

[macbone]

I'd love to see a 2012 breakdown. Here's 1968:

In the 1968 election, Richard Nixon won the votes of 31 percent of physicists, 42 percent of biologists, 52 percent of geologists, and 62 percent of agricultural scientists (compared with 43.4 percent of the popular vote).

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Conser ... st/135488/

[jonesthecurl]

61% of High School Dropouts are Democrats - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... marsh.html

looks like they've nailed both extremes - idiots and the intelligentsia

I'll defend them. Just because someone drops out of school that doesn't make them stupid. Everyone makes mistakes, but it's how you react to them that make the person. I've dated single moms before, and I wasn't sitting there holding their hands while also judging them the whole time. That stuff doesn't bother me, because it reveals character. So for the same reason I wont judge someone that I don't know simply because they dropped out.
Dude, 2Pac was a drop out. 2Pac.

I would hypothesize that because drop-outs make less money, even for the same work, that it would make good sense for them to support Democrats. Overall the Democratic party is far more pro-labor than the Republican party. You'll also notice that according to those graphs, as a person's net worth goes up, they are more likely to support the republican party. It think it's all related.

He only calls himself 2Pac cos he can't count up to 6.