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.
Read the rest here.
Science journals are scrupulously apolitical, roughly 99.999% of the time, mostly because politics and science ordinarily should have very little to do with each other. Up until the advent of the Trump administration, that has been true for the large portion. However, with the current administration's denial of climate science and dismissal of anthropogenic climate change, maltreatment of medical issues, particularly relating to the current coronavirus pandemic, and general ignorance of scientific principles in favor of its own misguided opinions, it would appear as though SA can no longer remain silent in the face of such behavior.
And considering their nearly-two-century abstention from such endorsements, that they choose to do so now should indicate the gravity which which they see the current situation and the need for it to be fully and honestly addressed.
As you can feel in Scientific Americans statement it's taken a lot of BS from Trump for them to endorse Joe Biden.
BS more in the form of ignoring the input of qualified scientists and researchers than anything else, I suspect. Trump likes to shoot his mouth off, both to dominate the discussion and appear to know something no one else does. The problem with that is doing so in the age of the internet, where bullshit both religious and political can be debunked in the time it takes to do a Google search.
Trump hasn't caught up to that truism yet, and it's liable to cost him.
Trouble is the internet can be used to debunk lies if you go to the right sites.
Trump supporters only speak amongst themselves.
True. Things such as the SA endorsement of Biden won't move Trump's base (hell, most of them likely never even HEARD of Scientific American!). Independent voters, though, may be an entirely separate kettle of fish, and THEY can be swayed.
I really do hope so.
And many more Biden voters than Trump voters are likely to vote by absentee or mail or advance ballots -- and it will take time to count all those votes, with quite a few states not even starting until Election Day.
Partial results that same night will be meaningless, even if they seem to give Trump a landslide.
This Biden voter will vote in person on Election Day. That has been my tradition for as long as I've been able to do so, and I will make no exception this November 3rd.
Here in the UK we still use the Good old lead pencil to put your X next to the candidate of choice. Primitive I know; but very hard for anything to go wrong.
The candidates agents are present at the count to make sure nothing goes wrong. We've had suggestions over the years to change and modernise the voting system but people resist tht
As it happens, Stephen, Ohio currently uses scanned paper ballots, where filled-in circles (generally with pen!) indicate our votes, and I vastly prefer that method to any fully electronic system. Perhaps 30 years ago, I recall using a computer terminal to vote ONCE, and I didn't care for it at all. Apparently, no one else did, either, because that system was abandoned.
Sometimes, the "old" ways are the best ways!