the Presidential Science Debate is scheduled for April 18, at Philadelphia's Franklin Institute. (The Pennsylvania primary is April 22.)
The New York Times asks: will the candidates come? A lot of people commenting there seem to think that it would be a bad move for a candidate to go, basically because they either have to claim that global warming and evolution are real (and thus anger the right) or that they're not (and thus anger the left). Yes, I'm caricaturing. But science shouldn't be a political football.
I would clearly support candidates going to this thing, if only because we may actually get an idea to what extent they're members of the reality-based community. (I'm still not endorsing a candidate, but you can probably guess I'm not endorsing Mike Huckabee.) And as a lot of people point out, such a debate will almost certainly include questions about scientific education; as an educator I'd like to see how those get handled. More funding for the schools. And stop sending us at the college level students who can't do algebra properly. This could be tied into funding -- from what I've heard a lot of the school teachers don't know how to do it, because teaching doesn't pay well enough to hire competent people.
Also, if anyone denies evolution on the grounds that there's no way a process based on "random chance" would create an organism, they will lose the all-important probabilist vote. (Okay, that might just be me.)