Octopus Overlords

Fireball1244 wrote:Defiant is correct -- Perot drew disaffected voters from both Bush and Clinton in about equal shares. Moreover, Clinton's lead in the states that he won was so significant that Bush would have had to take a supermajority of Perot's voters to win. None of the exit polls indicated that was possible. From the available data, it appears that had Perot not been in the race, Bush might have won Georgia, Montana, New Hampshire and Ohio, worth 41 more electoral votes than the 168 he won with Perot in the race.

Here's a spreadsheet that I built that allows you to plug in percentages of Perot voters voting for Bush, Clinton or Other, and view the recalculated results. You'll find that it's hard to create a realistic scenario where Perot voters put Bush over the top:

http://s195335120.onlinehome.us/files/1992noPerot.xlsx

Interesting spreadsheet (how often do I say that. ) Though, from a preliminary interaction, it looks like spreads the percentage of Perot voters evenly throughout the states. I remember reading that, in general, more Perot's supporters tended to be democratic leaning in states that Clinton won, and more Republican leaning in states that Bush won, suggesting less likelihood of states flipping than that spreadsheet will show.

That said, Perot's candidacy no doubt changed the campaign itself (one more candidate to deal with, attacks from Perot on the other candidates, the political engagement of the electorate, etc). But there's no evidence to suggest a dramatic change in outcome in a two way match up, especially for a president with low approval ratings.

Zarathud wrote: I would much rather rely on Nate's analysis of the relative swings in Obama's approval ratings than historical trends.

You mean the same Nate Silver that's been looking at historical trends to try to analyze who the Republican nominee will be?

Obama will win easily. Probably more easily than last time.

Pyperkub wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

gbasden wrote:There are some reasonable Republican candidates, but what are the odds they will get through primaries seeming run by the tea parties?

Who?

Yes please. Name me one who will stand up to a microphone and state that evolution is not just a theory.

Is this sufficent?

Last week, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. told reporters he believes intelligent design should not be taught in science classes and that the time to talk about other concepts comes largely at home or in religious settings.

Defiant wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

gbasden wrote:There are some reasonable Republican candidates, but what are the odds they will get through primaries seeming run by the tea parties?

Who?

Yes please. Name me one who will stand up to a microphone and state that evolution is not just a theory.

Is this sufficent?

Last week, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. told reporters he believes intelligent design should not be taught in science classes and that the time to talk about other concepts comes largely at home or in religious settings.

He's not a candidate for president, AFAIK, which is what I thought we were talking about.

Note that he didn't state that he didn't believe in the intelligent design credo, only that it shouldn't be taught in biology classes (which is a bold step, but not quite there).

Defiant wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

gbasden wrote:There are some reasonable Republican candidates, but what are the odds they will get through primaries seeming run by the tea parties?

Who?

Yes please. Name me one who will stand up to a microphone and state that evolution is not just a theory.

Is this sufficent?

Last week, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. told reporters he believes intelligent design should not be taught in science classes and that the time to talk about other concepts comes largely at home or in religious settings.

I'd also say that Mitch Daniels falls into that category. He's irritated both sides of the aisle as Indiana governor, and social conservatives are pissed at his call for a "truce" on social issues. He's even mentioned that tax increases may be necessary to balance the budget, which is a heretical position for anyone in the Republican party to take these days.

Pyperkub wrote:
He's not a candidate for president, AFAIK, which is what I thought we were talking about.

Not only is he a possible 2012 nominee, he's been mentioned in this thread earlier.

Note that he didn't state that he didn't believe in the intelligent design credo, only that it shouldn't be taught in biology classes (which is a bold step, but not quite there).

Meh, I only care in how his stance will affect his policies. I don't go to a politician to edumicate myself about science (or religion).

Pyperkub wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

gbasden wrote:There are some reasonable Republican candidates, but what are the odds they will get through primaries seeming run by the tea parties?

Who?

Yes please. Name me one who will stand up to a microphone and state that evolution is not just a theory.

Yes. Because *THAT* is the single and only determination of whether someone is qualified to lead the country.

Some people are are bigger zealots about being non-religious than people who are religious are about being religious.

msduncan wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:
Yes please. Name me one who will stand up to a microphone and state that evolution is not just a theory.

Yes. Because *THAT* is the single and only determination of whether someone is qualified to lead the country.

What if the criteria were expanded to include whether they owned a gun or not? Would that be a sufficiently diverse and high standard?

msduncan wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

gbasden wrote:There are some reasonable Republican candidates, but what are the odds they will get through primaries seeming run by the tea parties?

Who?

Yes please. Name me one who will stand up to a microphone and state that evolution is not just a theory.

Yes. Because *THAT* is the single and only determination of whether someone is qualified to lead the country.

Some people are are bigger zealots about being non-religious than people who are religious are about being religious.

People do that all the time, though. Whether they're single issue voters (gun control, abortion) or they just heavily weight important issues (evolution vs. ID, speech issues). It seems odd to be upset at someone for doing that, when I'm guessing all of us who have voted (and put any thought into that vote) have disqualified or endorsed a candidate based on a single issue at some point.

ImLawBoy wrote:Whether they're single issue voters (gun control, abortion) or they just heavily weight important issues (evolution vs. ID, speech issues).

While I agree with you, I find it odd that you would categorize issues that could fall in either category for some collections of voters.

msduncan wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

gbasden wrote:There are some reasonable Republican candidates, but what are the odds they will get through primaries seeming run by the tea parties?

Who?

Yes please. Name me one who will stand up to a microphone and state that evolution is not just a theory.

Yes. Because *THAT* is the single and only determination of whether someone is qualified to lead the country.

Some people are are bigger zealots about being non-religious than people who are religious are about being religious.

Actually no. I use it as a bellweather in this sense: Either they are willfully ignorant on Science issues, or they are pandering to people who are willfully ignorant on Science issues and probably shouldn't be determining who becomes President, and neither is worthy of my consideration for President.

In my mind, it's like saying that people who believe that there are witches among us who should be burned at the stake have no business being President. It's a non-starter - IMHO they aren't qualified to be President.

Defiant wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:Whether they're single issue voters (gun control, abortion) or they just heavily weight important issues (evolution vs. ID, speech issues).

While I agree with you, I find it odd that you would categorize issues that could fall in either category for some collections of voters.

Well, it made sense at the time I wrote it, but I am kind of sick right now.

Seriously, the distinction in my mind kind of goes to how Pyperkub just explained how he uses the evolution vs. ID. Those latter issues tend to be things that people use as bellweathers, and they figure that if the candidate feels that way on the bellweather issue, they're likely to be problematic overall. People who vote based on abortion or gun control, though, tend to vote solely on the basis on those issues, and they don't really care what the candidate's positions are on other issues.

I'm not sure how meaningful of a distinction it is, and it's based solely on my observations, but that's why I phrased it that way.

Pyperkub wrote:

msduncan wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

gbasden wrote:There are some reasonable Republican candidates, but what are the odds they will get through primaries seeming run by the tea parties?

Who?

Yes please. Name me one who will stand up to a microphone and state that evolution is not just a theory.

Yes. Because *THAT* is the single and only determination of whether someone is qualified to lead the country.

Some people are are bigger zealots about being non-religious than people who are religious are about being religious.

Actually no. I use it as a bellweather in this sense: Either they are willfully ignorant on Science issues, or they are pandering to people who are willfully ignorant on Science issues and probably shouldn't be determining who becomes President, and neither is worthy of my consideration for President.

In my mind, it's like saying that people who believe that there are witches among us who should be burned at the stake have no business being President. It's a non-starter - IMHO they aren't qualified to be President.

Agreed. Anyone who is either so much of a religious fanatic that they would doubt the clear and unquestionable preponderance of data on this issue in order to sustain their unscientific worldview, or someone who thinks that those are the people he or she must most appeal to in order to win, should not be President of a nation whose economic success is directly linked to scientific advancement. Anyone who doesn't accept the science behind evolution has a flimsy connection with objective reality, and that is not the kind of trait you want to see in someone who would be put in command of our nuclear arsenal. In everyday life, its probably not such a big deal. But for the President, you want someone who is prone to rational, evidence-based decision making, which precludes anyone who could look at the issue of evolution vs. creationism and come down on the side of creation mythology.

Pyperkub wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

gbasden wrote:There are some reasonable Republican candidates, but what are the odds they will get through primaries seeming run by the tea parties?

Who?

Yes please. Name me one who will stand up to a microphone and state that evolution is not just a theory.

So you are looking for an atheist/agnostic who will say in public that religion is a fairy tale and anyone who believes in god is just plain wrong? Tell me any major politician in history who has done that and won.

If this is your measuring stick I guess you plan on abstaining from the election process or at least only voting for losers.

One thing that you count on in such a person is they would be hated more than any other in history in the radical Muslim community. The only thing they hate more than someone not worshiping Allah is someone not worshiping god at all.

Rip wrote: So you are looking for an atheist/agnostic who will say in public that religion is a fairy tale and anyone who believes in god is just plain wrong? Tell me any major politician in history who has done that and won.

Science and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I think this standard seeks to weed out those who are unable to separate belief from the scientific process as well as those who pander to those uncritical thinkers.

Rip wrote: So you are looking for an atheist/agnostic who will say in public that religion is a fairy tale and anyone who believes in god is just plain wrong? Tell me any major politician in history who has done that and won.

I think Carter's shown that one can firmly respect science while still being religious.

Rip wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

gbasden wrote:There are some reasonable Republican candidates, but what are the odds they will get through primaries seeming run by the tea parties?

Who?

Yes please. Name me one who will stand up to a microphone and state that evolution is not just a theory.

So you are looking for an atheist/agnostic who will say in public that religion is a fairy tale and anyone who believes in god is just plain wrong? Tell me any major politician in history who has done that and won.

You have to be an atheist to believe that evolution is not "just a theory"? That's odd, because I'm pretty sure that every Democratic candidate from 2008 would be able to stand up and honestly say that they accept the science of evolution, and none of them were (to my knowledge) atheists.

Defiant wrote:Interesting spreadsheet (how often do I say that. ) Though, from a preliminary interaction, it looks like spreads the percentage of Perot voters evenly throughout the states. I remember reading that, in general, more Perot's supporters tended to be democratic leaning in states that Clinton won, and more Republican leaning in states that Bush won, suggesting less likelihood of states flipping than that spreadsheet will show.

That said, Perot's candidacy no doubt changed the campaign itself (one more candidate to deal with, attacks from Perot on the other candidates, the political engagement of the electorate, etc). But there's no evidence to suggest a dramatic change in outcome in a two way match up, especially for a president with low approval ratings.

Admittedly, applying national preferences state-by-state is crude.

I've revised the file now to give a bit of a bump in the share of Perot's vote that each candidate gets in each state to the candidate who won the state. The amount of bump is configurable and is listed as the "Victory Bonus." (Input a negative value if you want to see what would happen if Perot voters were more likely to break to the lower-performing major party candidate on a state-by-state basis).

If I wanted to get really into it, I'd come up with a formula that allocated regional bonuses to each candidate, and also broke down the "available" Perot votes in a way that combines both the national preference you can set at the top with the two-party preference R vs. D in each state.

In any case, the point of the document is to demonstrate how unlikely it is that Perot not being in the race would have led to a Bush victory. If you have to assign Bush a highly unlikely 60% to 25% split of Perot voters to get him to 270 electoral votes, then you just can't make a logical argument that "Perot cost Bush the election."

Rip wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

gbasden wrote:There are some reasonable Republican candidates, but what are the odds they will get through primaries seeming run by the tea parties?

Who?

Yes please. Name me one who will stand up to a microphone and state that evolution is not just a theory.

So you are looking for an atheist/agnostic who will say in public that religion is a fairy tale and anyone who believes in god is just plain wrong?

Bullshit. Even the Catholic Church has accepted evolution for over 60 years and the Vatican has denounced Intelligent Design. Or are you saying that Catholics are atheists/agnostics?

Most branches of Judaism also accept evolution, as well as many anglicans and episcopalians and other branches of the Protestant Church.

Though I suppose only Fundamentalists and Evangelicals are to be considered non Atheists/Agnostics...

Is it a person or a prop? Do you want someone capable of critical thought or someone who will (literally) follow the party line.

Ah, politicians.

So if such a vast number of not just non-religious and organized religions subscribe to evolution being not just a theory than why should it be so hard to get any politician to say it. They do get elected based on popularity so saying something that is apparently backed by a super majority of the public seems so trivial.

Note this is coming from someone who is so foreign to a church that my entering one might cause a collapse of the universe. Also I have never doubted evolution and can't imagine how anyone can. But needing to hear some politician say it is about as important to me as hearing them say they think Pluto should be a planet.

Of course I still refer to nuclear science as a theory as well if only to annoy my nuclear power friends.

Rip wrote:So if such a vast number of not just non-religious and organized religions subscribe to evolution being not just a theory than why should it be so hard to get any politician to say it. They do get elected based on popularity so saying something that is apparently backed by a super majority of the public seems so trivial.

Note this is coming from someone who is so foreign to a church that my entering one might cause a collapse of the universe. Also I have never doubted evolution and can't imagine how anyone can. But needing to hear some politician say it is about as important to me as hearing them say they think Pluto should be a planet.

Of course I still refer to nuclear science as a theory as well if only to annoy my nuclear power friends.

I don't think someone who will sell out Science in order to look good to the Religious Right is qualified to be President. A lot of people disagree with me, and that's fine, but to me it's like saying 2+2=5 in order to get votes, and I don't see how we all end up better off for it, and I fear that we only get dumber for it. These are the same people who introduce bills to make Pi = 3.

On a side note, I wouldn't characterize the Religious Right as a Super Majority though (outside of a few states where it is).

Pyperkub wrote:

Rip wrote:So if such a vast number of not just non-religious and organized religions subscribe to evolution being not just a theory than why should it be so hard to get any politician to say it. They do get elected based on popularity so saying something that is apparently backed by a super majority of the public seems so trivial.

Note this is coming from someone who is so foreign to a church that my entering one might cause a collapse of the universe. Also I have never doubted evolution and can't imagine how anyone can. But needing to hear some politician say it is about as important to me as hearing them say they think Pluto should be a planet.

Of course I still refer to nuclear science as a theory as well if only to annoy my nuclear power friends.

I don't think someone who will sell out Science in order to look good to the Religious Right is qualified to be President. A lot of people disagree with me, and that's fine, but to me it's like saying 2+2=5 in order to get votes, and I don't see how we all end up better off for it, and I fear that we only get dumber for it. These are the same people who introduce bills to make Pi = 3.

On a side note, I wouldn't characterize the Religious Right as a Super Majority though (outside of a few states where it is).

I was referring to the other side as a super majority. I don't know anyone who has ever expressed any doubt in the truth of evolution in a serious discussion. I can't see how pandering to what I think is a wacko fringe is a good political tactic.

I would think there are more people who don't believe that their own government was not behind the 9/11 attacks outnumber the people that don't believe in evolution. But hey maybe I am just fortunate enough to not know anyone who would fall int either of those groups.

Rip wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:

Rip wrote:So if such a vast number of not just non-religious and organized religions subscribe to evolution being not just a theory than why should it be so hard to get any politician to say it. They do get elected based on popularity so saying something that is apparently backed by a super majority of the public seems so trivial.

Note this is coming from someone who is so foreign to a church that my entering one might cause a collapse of the universe. Also I have never doubted evolution and can't imagine how anyone can. But needing to hear some politician say it is about as important to me as hearing them say they think Pluto should be a planet.

Of course I still refer to nuclear science as a theory as well if only to annoy my nuclear power friends.

I don't think someone who will sell out Science in order to look good to the Religious Right is qualified to be President. A lot of people disagree with me, and that's fine, but to me it's like saying 2+2=5 in order to get votes, and I don't see how we all end up better off for it, and I fear that we only get dumber for it. These are the same people who introduce bills to make Pi = 3.

On a side note, I wouldn't characterize the Religious Right as a Super Majority though (outside of a few states where it is).

I was referring to the other side as a super majority. I don't know anyone who has ever expressed any doubt in the truth of evolution in a serious discussion. I can't see how pandering to what I think is a wacko fringe is a good political tactic.

I would think there are more people who don't believe that their own government was not behind the 9/11 attacks outnumber the people that don't believe in evolution. But hey maybe I am just fortunate enough to not know anyone who would fall int either of those groups.

But the Government WAS behind the 9/11 attacks!!!!!OMGWTFBBQ!!!

Rip wrote: I was referring to the other side as a super majority. I don't know anyone who has ever expressed any doubt in the truth of evolution in a serious discussion. I can't see how pandering to what I think is a wacko fringe is a good political tactic.

I would think there are more people who don't believe that their own government was not behind the 9/11 attacks outnumber the people that don't believe in evolution. But hey maybe I am just fortunate enough to not know anyone who would fall int either of those groups.

You would be wrong. On Darwin's 200th birthday in 2009, only 39% of Americans believed in evolution.. More than a third had no opinion either way and 25% were active disbelievers. So much for your super majority.

Check the link for breakdown by religiosity and education.

Rip wrote: I was referring to the other side as a super majority. I don't know anyone who has ever expressed any doubt in the truth of evolution in a serious discussion. I can't see how pandering to what I think is a wacko fringe is a good political tactic.

Almost every Republican presidential wannabe makes a point of declaring his (and now her) doubts about evolution. A candidate who declared that evolutionary theory was an accurate account and that Genesis was more imaginary would be committing political suicide. Disbelief in evolution, or at least cool suspicion, is mandatory for any GOP candidate attempting to appeal to the base.

I would think there are more people who don't believe that their own government was not behind the 9/11 attacks outnumber the people that don't believe in evolution. But hey maybe I am just fortunate enough to not know anyone who would fall int either of those groups.

I've run in very liberal circles for the past twenty years: humanities academia, progressive private school teaching, librarianship. I have never known anyone who voiced a belief that 9/11 was an inside job.

The best comparison might this: how many GOP candidates voice suspicion of evolution? How many Democrats voice suspicion that the government was behind 9/11? I'm willing to bet that the answers are "Pretty much all of them in the Red States" and "None running for anything higher than Berkeley city council."

Kraken wrote:

Rip wrote: I was referring to the other side as a super majority. I don't know anyone who has ever expressed any doubt in the truth of evolution in a serious discussion. I can't see how pandering to what I think is a wacko fringe is a good political tactic.

I would think there are more people who don't believe that their own government was not behind the 9/11 attacks outnumber the people that don't believe in evolution. But hey maybe I am just fortunate enough to not know anyone who would fall int either of those groups.

You would be wrong. On Darwin's 200th birthday in 2009, only 39% of Americans believed in evolution.. More than a third had no opinion either way and 25% were active disbelievers. So much for your super majority.

Check the link for breakdown by religiosity and education.

The thing is that most of them don't even have a clue what evolution or Darwin are and have no idea the relationship. So coming out saying I think evolution is right/wrong would be pointless. Sure a few would love them for it but just as many would hate them. They are only going to state thing that a relevant to the election or gain them way more votes than it loses them. They might as well claim that Justin Bieber is the greatest musician ever.

I am more concerned with their economic, foreign policy, and personal freedoms beliefs/positions.

Holman wrote:

Rip wrote: I was referring to the other side as a super majority. I don't know anyone who has ever expressed any doubt in the truth of evolution in a serious discussion. I can't see how pandering to what I think is a wacko fringe is a good political tactic.

Almost every Republican presidential wannabe makes a point of declaring his (and now her) doubts about evolution. A candidate who declared that evolutionary theory was an accurate account and that Genesis was more imaginary would be committing political suicide. Disbelief in evolution, or at least cool suspicion, is mandatory for any GOP candidate attempting to appeal to the base.

It couldn't be just republicans that doubt evolution or there couldn't be so many. So which democratic presidential candidate has come out and said that Genesis was just an imaginary tale? I must have missed it.

My point is that "cool suspicion" is the smart politician way to play it. It might be the right thing to say but politically it would be foolish and would lose a lot more votes for ANY politician than it would gain.

Rip wrote: It couldn't be just republicans that doubt evolution or there couldn't be so many. So which democratic presidential candidate has come out and said that Genesis was just an imaginary tale? I must have missed it.

The stock Democratic answer is theistic evolution: "I believe God created the world in ways that science may help us to understand." Since most of the people who accept evolutionary explanations are probably Democrats, this answer offends no one on their side. Rejection of evolution is just not an issue for the Democratic base. It *is* politically smart to go there, since it says "I'm sane and my opponent is medieval."

Obviously no candidate will say that the Bible is pure imagination, but wonky Democrats typically relate the Bible and science by saying that Genesis portrays creation beautifully but not in literal, scientific terms.

On the GOP side, however, even something as innocuous as this will get you in trouble. It isn't about the science. It's that non-rejection of evolution marks you as anti-religious and weak on the culture war.

Is there a GOP frontrunner who will go even as far as Theistic Evolution?

Holman, you sparked my curiosity, so I did a quick google search. It looks like one Mitt Romney would go that far:

DES MOINES, May 11 — Mitt Romney expanded on his belief in evolution in an interview earlier this week, staking out a position that could put him at odds with some conservative Christians, a key voting bloc he is courting.

Mr. Romney, a devout Mormon, surprised some observers when he was not among those Republican candidates who raised their hands last week when asked at the Republican presidential debate if they did not believe in evolution. (Senator Sam Brownback, former Gov. Mike Huckabee and Representative Tom Tancredo said they did not.)

“I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe,” Mr. Romney said in an interview this week. “And I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body.”

He was asked: Is that intelligent design?

“I’m not exactly sure what is meant by intelligent design,” he said. “But I believe God is intelligent and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body.”

While governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Romney opposed the teaching of intelligent design in science classes.

“In my opinion, the science class is where to teach evolution, or if there are other scientific thoughts that need to be discussed,” he said. “If we’re going to talk about more philosophical matters, like why it was created, and was there an intelligent designer behind it, that’s for the religion class or philosophy class or social studies class.”

This was back in 2007 when he was running then, so it's possible that he might back-track (I didn't see anything from 2011 or 2010). But then he was already running as a conservative culture warrior then, and was a front-runner at the time.

Good to see. But isn't Mitt's problem precisely that he fails to fire up the base? He is routinely criticized by evangelicals for being soft on what matters to them.

My point is that evolution *does* matter to them.

(Mitt also has the problem of, in the past, having had to sound like the kind of Republican who can get elected in Massachusetts. He has probably said lots of things that will embarrass him with the GOP core when the time comes. I'm sure the Huckabee team is splicing ads together as we speak.)

Holman wrote:Good to see. But isn't Mitt's problem precisely that he fails to fire up the base? He is routinely criticized by evangelicals for being soft on what matters to them.

My point is that evolution *does* matter to them.

(Mitt also has the problem of, in the past, having had to sound like the kind of Republican who can get elected in Massachusetts. He has probably said lots of things that will embarrass him with the GOP core when the time comes. I'm sure the Huckabee team is splicing ads together as we speak.)

Yes, but Mitt Romney is the main front-runner right now, so he's a GOP front-runner who has publicly endorsed what is essentially theistic evolution. The article above doesn't make clear whether McCain was at that debate, but he probably was - and didn't oppose evolution (though he may not have endorsed theistic evolution).

Also in 2007 Mitt was past sounding like a MA Republican (he was no longer governor) and had shifted to full-throated culture warrior mode. So this isn't the "embarrassing previous statements" category - if he was going to walk back on this you'd think he'd have done that as part of his wholesale retreat from moderation in 2007.

More generally, Mitt's problem last election and to a degree this one is not being seen as an authentic conservative - he's certainly said the right things, but there's a suspicion (on the right and left) that he doesn't really believe them. His positions generally certainly aren't soft on what matters to the conservative base, it's the flip-flopping authenticity that's an issue. This may be an issue in the GOP primary, but it's likely to pale in comparison to health care.

In any event, clearly opposition to evolution is largely concentrated in the religious conservative wing of the Republican party. That's a significant part of the GOP base. But Romney is a plausible candidate, and I do think it plausible that a candidate who (like Romney) endorsed this kind of theistic evolution could get the nomination (indeed, that may well have been the case with McCain in 2008).

Yup, from the 2007 GOP debates referenced above:

Q: Do you believe in evolution?
McCAIN: Yes.

Q: I’m curious, is there anybody on the stage that does not agree, believe in evolution?

[TANCREDO, HUCKABEE, and BROWNBACK raise their hands, indicating that they do not believe in evolution].

McCAIN: I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also.

And from the 2008 campaign:

McCain has not clearly stated his position on the teaching of intelligent design in school. “I happen to believe in evolution,” he has said. “I respect those who think the world was created in seven days. Should it be taught as a science class? Probably not.”

But McCain has not ruled out teaching it in other classes, and he has said that “there’s nothing wrong with teaching different schools of thought.” He says that local school boards, not the federal government, should determine school curricula.

Now, McCain has played a little cutesy with "local school boards should decide" and the "I happen to believe in evolution", which probably reflects a desire not to unnecessarily alienate the religious conservative base. But he clearly states a belief in evolution, and was the 2008 GOP nominee.

So yes, evolution does matter for GOP candidates in a way that it doesn't matter for democratic candidates (or more accurately, democrats must be pro-evolution). But you can be a front-runner while endorsing evolution.

What is disturbing is that more people think there is a scientific consensus on climate change than think there is on evolution. There is so much irony in that. It certainly shows evolution has a long way to go.

If only Moses had the forethought to contradict climate change in the bible.

Rip wrote:What is disturbing is that more people think there is a scientific consensus on climate change than think there is on evolution. There is so much irony in that. It certainly shows evolution has a long way to go.

If only Moses had the forethought to contradict climate change in the bible.

Technically it was, when God told Noah that he wouldn't flood the Earth again and gave us the Rainbow as a symbol of that covenant.

Pyperkub wrote:

Rip wrote:What is disturbing is that more people think there is a scientific consensus on climate change than think there is on evolution. There is so much irony in that. It certainly shows evolution has a long way to go.

If only Moses had the forethought to contradict climate change in the bible.

Technically it was, when God told Noah that he wouldn't flood the Earth again and gave us the Rainbow as a symbol of that covenant.

You're forgetting the later part of the Bible where it is revealed that God was crossing His fingers behind His back when he made that promise.

El Guapo wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:

Rip wrote:What is disturbing is that more people think there is a scientific consensus on climate change than think there is on evolution. There is so much irony in that. It certainly shows evolution has a long way to go.

If only Moses had the forethought to contradict climate change in the bible.

Technically it was, when God told Noah that he wouldn't flood the Earth again and gave us the Rainbow as a symbol of that covenant.

You're forgetting the later part of the Bible where it is revealed that God was crossing His fingers behind His back when he made that promise.

So god was a politician as well it would seem.

Pyperkub wrote: These are the same people who introduce bills to make Pi = 3.