Marches defending science are lacking the portion of the population that values feelings over facts? Funny how that correlates.

November will be a Blue Wave. The House is almost certainly going Democrat. The Senate may as well.

Now, the question is, what kind of Democrat?

If we're talking Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp and Tim Kaine, forget it. Nancy Pelosi will once again announce that impeachment is off the table (just like she did for Bush). Even if she doesn't, the House may very well vote to impeach, but the Senate will not vote to remove.

Now, if it's Berniecrats who sweep the primaries and then ride the Blue Wave in, Trump's done. Speaker Ellison will push impeachment through, and Senate Majority Leader Warren will make Trump the first POTUS to be removed from office.

Pence will become POTUS, which is not as bad as you think. Indiana hated Pence by the time Trump picked him up as a running mate. Every major paper in the state was suggesting that Indiana might go Blue for the first time in decades, as there was no conceivable way for Pence to win re-election.

You see, here's the big secret: Pence is incompetent. And he'd have an opposition Congress. He'll embarrass himself for two years, and then lose election in 2020.

can we rename this the "March For Science That Is Convenient"?

Katie, it is lazy and inaccurate to continue saying that Trump alienated "women".
He carried white women by a wide (53-43) margin;
he also carried married women by a wide margin.
The Democrats win among women who do not have a husband;
they have a yearning to be protected and cling to the government to fulfill the role they have not found a husband to meet.

It would be more accurate to recognize that Trump lost among needy women;
strong women who are not dependent on the government supported the Republicans.

Please make a note of it.

@2

Actually;
Leftist university faculty and the stooge media that report the 'news' have a well known liberal bias; this dictates what research is funded and how the results are reported.
Leftists are quite adept at ignoring "science" that embarrasses their world view,
as most of it does.

@5 did Mercury retrograde right into your avocado kale chips this morning, snake person?

6

Where are you getting your data from here? I'd like to see it. My quick Google research only shows that Trump carried non-college educated white women. I don't see anything about marital status.

@11: From his own ass, that's where.

He only shows up to troll Slog, refuses to cite anything he says, refers to himself with a collective pronoun, and has been banned so many times for poor behavior that he now uses themes for his accounts. Lately, it's mountains/parks (his previous profile name was Yosemite).

Don't waste any mental energy on him.

12

It was a moment of weakness. I know all about Bub/Ben/Yukon/Yosemite/etc.

I do think he/we/it has some interesting points sometimes, and he does occasionally drop his gimmick. But I think he's just fucking with us most of the time.

I gotta say, the narrative of late about the superiority of Traditional Heterosexual Families is a bit wierd. Anyway, troll on, ya'll.

11

Non college educated white women voted Trump 64-35

https://qz.com/833003/election-2016-all-…

------------
White women overall voted Trump 53-43

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc…

-----------------

this page deals with marital status but doesn't break it down by gender
and shows Trump winning marrieds 52-44
(I extrapolated that he won married women 'by a wide margin'....)
https://ifstudies.org/blog/marriage-sing…

---------------------------

I didn't see this one before I posted but it s a really nice set of graphs that breaks it down by marital status and gender;

'Gender by Marital Status' shows
Trump carrying married men 57-38
and
Hillary carrying married women 49-47 (gosh, we're so embarrassed...)
non-married men 46-44
and non-married women 63-32

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/…

14

Cool, thanks. I'll take a look at those when I get a few minutes.

I just have to say that no one really has the right to accuse other people on here of not citing sources.

There are about 3-5 commenters on here total that ever even attempt to do that.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201…

14

The last link (Wash Post) posted at 14 is awesome. Great tool for accessing this data. I don't think the data supports the idea that Trump won married women. It it seems to me the divides in this last election were race and education.

So, going back to 6, I gotta disagree with you Bub (You'll always be Bub to me) that Trump lost among "needy" women, and that "strong" women vote Republican.

How about looking at this way? Trump won among privileged women. The women that widely voted for Clinton are not "needy" ... I work among many in these demographics, and the are the strongest, most resourceful, resilient people you'll ever meet ... but in, in fact, face far more significant cultural, instutional, systemic, and economic barriers than the white women that voted Trump. They are not "dependent" on the government or anybody, but they do need a more equitable society in order to prosper, and they vote that way.

I realize you probably know the truth in what I'm saying, and that it's more fun to throw out snark and hyperbole like @6, but I thought I'd put this out there anyway.

Katie, you are missing the bad side of liberal Seattle and this March for Science. Science only works for all people when the people who practice it and use it have those ethics. Right now, bombs are dropping on Syria, bombs made by scientists and engineers, and hawk Nancy Pelosi is speaking at the March for Science rally. Neoliberal Seattle supports war, and its scientists seem to, as well. Take a look at Science for the People (scienceforthepeople.org) to remind yourself that scientists can try to set an ethical path that doesn't parrot liberal politics.