Science And the Election



So far there has been two presidential debates. The debates are important to so the voters can know where the candidates stand on controversial topics. I have not been pleased with either candidate’s performance because both have really focused on what was said what was said or done 20 years ago instead of focusing on the actual issues at hand. So far they have only talked about their stance on one science issue. Kenneth Bone, one of the undecided voters in the audience, asked the question “What steps will your energy policy take to meet our energy needs while at the same time remaining environmentally friendly and minimizing job layoffs?” which spurred about a six-minute discussion on what the candidate’s opinion on what energy will be like in the future in the united states. This is a very short amount of time out of 90-minute debate. This is just one example of how science has taken the back seat in America. It is often an over looked topic. It is thought that voters care more about the candidate’s stance on foreign policy, tax plans, or stance on social issues than they do on science issues. But there is still a large portion of the population who want to know where the candidates stand on science and technology. There is a petition online that you can fill out for the candidates to debate science topics in the next debate. On their page they claim that “91% of Democrats & 88% of Republicans say presidential candidates should debate science issues.” That is a staggering amount people that would want to hear more about science in the debate. So why don’t they talk about science in the debate? It’s an important topic, and people would like to hear more about it. Maybe it is because Science is generally talked about less in the media. What do you think? Should science questions be put incorporated into the third and final debate? Or would you like to hear about other topics?


By: Tom Walters


9 thoughts on “Science And the Election

  1. One reason I think the candidates might be dodging science questions is due to possibly not knowing the topic that the questions present. They could be avoiding it because they don’t want to fall flat and appear to not know something that could be a pressing issue. I really believe that science needs to be discussed more in the next debate, but seeing as how the past two debates have gone that might be wishful thinking.

    – Josh Obermeyer


  2. I can say that I definitely agree with you on everything you talked about. I feel that both candidates have managed to find ways around the important things they should be discussing to bring up and bash each others past decisions. It’s like we have children arguing as to who has made less or not as bad of mistakes to figure out which is better sited to run our country. I also like how your read was short and to the point, making it easy to follow and stay interested in.
    -Josie Silvey


  3. I agree i found it very odd that one of the most important questions, in my opinion, had seemed to be glanced over. Both candidates had very simple and fast answers to this question and neither seemed to have an in depth solution. Its really sad to see how our media is blatantly ignoring the fact that people want to hear more about these issues. I hope they eventually wake up and start focusing more on scientific issues.
    Edwin Doll


  4. While “debating science issues’ is an ideal issue for candidates to discuss due to the strange way many Americans operate, especially in the far right, about completely disregarding the true facts of science I think its probably too controversial a topic to bring up. With such things such as the creation museum gracing our area what hope can there be for so much of our population.
    ~Asha Brogan


  5. The title of your blog should be “Kenneth Bone Goes Unanswered!” Both candidates, especially Trump, turned Ken’s question into another way to bash at the other candidate’s past. Donald stated that the EPA is restricting our energy companies, but isn’t that the purpose of the EPA? Those restrictions make our energy clean and less destructive to the environment. Hillary, at first, targets Trump about foreign steel, but then she talks about how she has an energy policy that fights climate change and also states that the U.S can be the “21st century clean energy superpower.” Neither of the candidates said what form of clean energy they would enable instead of fossil fuels. In my opinion, I think both candidates did not give ideas on what clean energy they will use and how we can remain energy independent with clean energy.

    Awesome post

    David Lehn


  6. Could not agree more! Why is this not talked about more!!!! This seems like a issue that should be a top priority but it is always so lightly talked about.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I agree with you completely. Both candidates seem to find any way that they can to dodge the important questions that all Americans want to be discussed. I do believe that scientific topics and questions that the citizens have need to be addressed more in the final debate. With that being said I think there are a lot of topics they need to discuss rather than bickering back and forth for 90 minutes.

    kelly woodward


  8. I think that this issue os so extremely relevant, but very tiptoed around in todays society. Candidates will dance around the true answer to the question and will avoid including actual answers to policy issues, and ultimately they will dismiss the point all together and make the front page of the paper, internet, news, etc.

    Mikayla Hounchell


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s