Why do scientists/Smart People vote Democrat?

[IronRooster2]

As I'm sure you're all aware, scientists vote for Democrats in enormous, overwhelming numbers.

If not, you can catch up with the basic overview here. They believe in all kinds of ridiculous things, like how starting wars isn't a productive enterprise for progress. Or that spending money on making the impossible possible is somehow making the world a "better" place. [1]

Why do you think that is? Are they all just lazy? Did they not have dads growing up? A culture of terrible work ethnics? All that classic rock music rot their brains and gave them an entitlement mentality? What is it??

Why don't they agree with our patriot hero Rick Scott, who solved the problem of climate change by making it illegal for state employees to mention or acknowledge that it exists? He fixed global warming, and now these eggheads want to murder millions of people by digging it up and bringing it back. Why do they hate humanity so much?


[1] But adults like you and me know better; the world is the best it can possibly be. Don't try and change it you hippies.

[tng83]

Honestly? Higher IQ people tend to be more socially liberal. And not all but many also prefer the idea of more socialistic economy, even if the candidate isnt 100% with then fiscally.

[NJStrongbod]

People he are on the right side of the political spectrum tend to be on the lower IQ end , mostly due to inbreeding. Most conservitards are inbred

[WillJohnson1]

Honestly? Higher IQ people tend to be more socially liberal. And not all but many also prefer the idea of more socialistic economy, even if the candidate isnt 100% with then fiscally.

Maybe because they think they can control everything and the demos are for all the rules, taxes, regulations, and shiet like that? They're control freaks who want a big controlling government, like communism.

Were all the Russian and chinese communists all their educated people? The poor people hated communism.

[MangoPort]

A few of the democrats I know vote that way simply as an anti-republican vote. They associate republicans with anti-gay, anti-abortion, super religious zealots. And they look at that and go "No, I don't think so".

And you can point back at the democratic candidates all you like and criticize them as well, but unfortunately that's not how people think. Most Republican candidates are terrible. Some are terrible human beings. It's not enough of an argument to say "Et tu!", even if it's true

[saberu315]

scientist does not = political knowledge

I wonder how many of those scientists are upside on their mortgage, cant keep their personal lives together or couldn't name the three branches of government.

op thought process is that science is a religion. and scientists the clergy.

op should die

[Igmann]

Intellect and knowledge of theories that are only applicable in academia don't mean anything in real life. These things are vastly overrated.

Pragmatism > Intellect
Creativity > Intellect

The market place doesn't care about your intellect, how well you can memorize the laws of physics or how well you can spit information out on some exam. All that matters is pragmatism.

How come wealthy people usually vote Republican/conservative? Because they are practical.

Take your "smartness" where it matters.

[JoocyBruh]

I think I have an answer.

From your article :

Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%).

Translation : ivory tower academics and government employees call themselves democrat. Scientists who work in the industry and hence have a knowledge of the real world tend to call themselves republican.

[mTOR]

I think I have an answer.

From your article :



Translation : ivory tower academics and government employees call themselves democrat. Scientists who work in the industry and hence have a knowledge of the real world tend to call themselves republican.

Waited a few minutes to see if you'd realize your error and delete your post.




But nope, the post is still there. So with that, please note:



47% of private industry scientists self-identify as Democrat.
37% as Independent.
10% as Republican.

Regarding the Independent group in general, the page also notes:

When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP.

[tk217]

Plenty of scientists are military -- and the military often votes Republican.

The main reason I see scientists funding and voting Democratic is because of Republican interests in basically "anti environment" efforts of business.

The you are for us or against mentality has risen in the republican party since the 60's and this ... predication has of course turned a great deal of scientists away from the party when it comes to environmental well being.

Engineers on the other hand (another kind of scientist) vote republican.

[JoocyBruh]

Waited a few minutes to see if you'd realize your error and delete your post.




But nope, the post is still there. So with that, please note:



47% of private industry scientists self-identify as Democrat.
37% as Independent.
10% as Republican.

Regarding the Independent group in general, the page also notes:

Independants are probably libertarians fed up with the Jesus-loving science-denying republicans.

Doesn't change that they're fiscal conservatives.

[darknessmanX]

Honestly? Higher IQ people tend to be more socially liberal. And not all but many also prefer the idea of more socialistic economy, even if the candidate isnt 100% with then fiscally.

it's very tough to quantify such a claim, what exactly defines "socially liberal" in the equation? i bet ANY smart person who says ANYTHING remotely "socially liberal" (which is a huge umbrella) is counted in to the "socially liberal" pile.

the most intelligent people i've ever met, were typically consevative.

People he are on the right side of the political spectrum tend to be on the lower IQ end , mostly due to inbreeding. Most conservitards are inbred

this is a good example of the sort of prejudice rot that is destroying the nation's collective mentality.

[tk217]

it's very tough to quantify such a claim, what exactly defines "socially liberal" in the equation? i bet ANY smart person who says ANYTHING remotely "socially liberal" (which is a huge umbrella) is counted in to the "socially liberal" pile.

the most intelligent people i've ever met, were typically consevative.



this is a good example of the sort of prejudice rot that is destroying the nation's collective mentality.

I'm socially liberal.

I'm fiscally conservative as all hell.

[mTOR]

Independants are probably libertarians fed up with the Jesus-loving science-denying republicans.

Doesn't change that they're fiscal conservatives.

Nothing on that page necessarily suggests that they would be right-libertarian. Indeed, the numbers on that page would seem to suggest otherwise. From the page:

Scientists also are less likely than the public to say that business strikes a fair balance between profits and the public interest: Just 20% of scientists express this view, compared with 37% of the public. And while 78% of scientists say that the government has a responsibility to care for those unable to care for themselves, a smaller majority of the general public (63%) agrees.

Just 14% of scientists agree that “we have gone too far in pushing equal rights in this country.” That compares with 41% of the public. Just a third of scientists – but a majority of the public (53%) – agrees that “the best way to ensure peace is through military strength.”

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/...-and-religion/

With 83% disagreeing.


Those don't seem like very Rothbardian/von Mises free market fundamentalist positions IMHO.

[nutsy54]

OP wants to blame Republicans for wars... While ignoring the last eight years of Democrat warmongering. Partisans gonna partisan

Selective statistics are selective.

[kip22]

high academia is correlated with low test srs. Something like high test ppl focus too much time on sex and competition to keep an interest in a field of study.

I go to school in the south and deal with math, physics, and engineering students/profs almost exclusively. It seems the men are split abt 75/25 cons to liberal and woman are abt 25/75.

[TaeBoNinja]

Simply put, it's the influence religion has on the GOP.

When guys like Scott Walker think a question about evolution is a "gotcha question", this should surprise no one.

[JoocyBruh]

Nothing on that page necessarily suggests that they would be right-libertarian. Indeed, the numbers on that page would seem to suggest otherwise. From the page:



With 83% disagreeing.


Those don't seem like very Rothbardian/von Mises free market fundamentalist positions IMHO.

I'm curious as to which "scientists" were part of this study.



Oh...

[shc99]

If you vote fukn lol

[YesiEvenLiftBro]

Most likely it is because fiscally they understand where their financial interests are and intellectuals tend to be less religious at least within an organized sense (still plenty of theists). So the whole, we will be strong and safe and look towards good christian values rhetoric is lost on them, when they assume that the Republicans are no longer standing for what they used to stand for but have just become a representative for corporatist lobbyists for the military industrial complex and energy companies.

On the other hand the Democrats aren't too much better, they are basically also in the pocket of private education/health care, but they are at the very least the lesser of two evils when you are not in the elite of wealth. People who are not in the top tax bracket who vote for the Republicans are not really looking after their own financial interests as well as they could be but the Republicans definitely have earned the vote from the top 1% of wealth.

[kusok]

Simple. Scientists often vote communist because lots of stolen tax money is given to them by government for their often useless research which should actually be called a hobby. Basically they get your dad's money for their hobby. Ooooh I like looking at shiny things in a telescope, now pay me for it you free market evil capitalist greedy person!

[TruKnight]

grant money, I thought that was obvious.

its not unique to them tho, no one votes for principals anymore, just for whoever promises them more $$$.

this is a sad chapter in history we are writing... =(

[FallOutBrah]

it's very tough to quantify such a claim, what exactly defines "socially liberal" in the equation? i bet ANY smart person who says ANYTHING remotely "socially liberal" (which is a huge umbrella) is counted in to the "socially liberal" pile.

the most intelligent people i've ever met, were typically consevative.



this is a good example of the sort of prejudice rot that is destroying the nation's collective mentality.

LOL at this hypocrite claiming that predjudice is destroying the country while meanwhile, was rustled in the gay open marriage thread.

are you serious brah? you can't fool us. prejudice doesn't become prejudice just because it happens against the group you belong to.

[sawoobley]

If I were to guess I'd say for two reasons for the most part. One, they spend a lot of time in academia which has a way of making people more liberal. From my own experience it is pretty tough to hold conservative views in college due to the intolerance from the professors and the students. Eventually, it rubs off on people and they tend to conform rather than go against the grain.

Second, republicans have different values. Getting an education that is practical and family friendly is a goal of many of the more conservative types. Being a scientist doesn't fit those values for most people especially working in academia.

[threejeers]

People in position of influence want to spearhead *CHANGE*. Ultimately we cannot foresee the future so whether the change is justified or not, doesn't ultimately matter. They simply want to be a part of something that is remembered down the line.

We see this first hand with the White-hate in Universities. No one will remember/name streets/buildings after those that helped the already succeeding. You have to help those at the bottom. And that is essentially the foundation of Liberalism

<------ Grew up Liberal

[AngelKing1992]

they're statists. they think they're better than everyone, thus they are allowed to govern ppl and make decisions for the population. what's funny is that they're STILL wrong because their policies hurt more than help in almost every instance. the true smart ppl are libertarians and vote republican. republicans hurt alot less

[threejeers]

they're statists. they think they're better than everyone, thus they are allowed to govern ppl and make decisions for the population. what's funny is that they're STILL wrong because their policies hurt more than help in almost every instance. the true smart ppl are libertarians and vote republican. republicans hurt alot less

To an extent, it falls on the shoulders of the people being governed. Welfare/universal health care/quality education is a necessary staple of every thriving society. At some point a large percentage of the American society is a lost cause.

You revert the USA back to it's 90% European population and it's a far better nation.

[ODBM]

Independants are probably libertarians fed up with the Jesus-loving science-denying republicans.

Doesn't change that they're fiscal conservatives.

This, basically. I don't think any sane person who has gone through university to land a respectable and well-paying career is in favor of wealth redistribution.

[anonymous]

Wait, who doesn't want the US embroiled in endless wars and armed conflicts? Did I miss a memo?

[threejeers]

Wait, who doesn't want the US embroiled in endless wars and armed conflicts? Did I miss a memo?

The argument my friend offered was: USA will never have the culture of Italy/France, proficiency of Germany, efficiency of Japan, scholastics of Koreans/Scandinavians but it has the technological edge. And military is a major driving force of this.

But why does US society have lower quality of food, crime, family/marriage, health and education than all those I listed? At what point do Americans realize things aren't adding up. Being the global manipulator, robber and killer while enjoying the 20th (lower?) best living standards isn't worth it. Shouldn't American strive for more?