Since it's so hard to find truly neutral perspectives elsewhere, what would you say the "worst possible outcomes" of the 2016 US election could be, in terms of the actual welfare of the people and the nation?

I'm certain we can find sources that confirm that anti-science beliefs to tend to concentrate on one side rather than the other.

I think it really depends on how you define "anti-science." Here's an op-ed from The Atlantic (granted, written by an admitted former Republican staffer, albeit one that self-describes as a "politically centrist atheist").

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/the-republican-party-isnt-really-the-anti-science-party/281219/

Numerically speaking, according to Gallup, only a marginally higher percentage of Republicans reject evolution completely than do Democrats. Yes, an embarrassing half of Republicans believe the earth is only 10,000 years old—but so do more than a third of Democrats. And a slightly higher percentage of Democrats believe God was the guiding factor in evolution than Republicans. ... Set aside the fact that twice as many Democrats as Republicans believe in astrology, a pseudoscientific medieval farce. Left-wing ideologues also frequently espouse an irrational fear of nuclear power, genetic modification, and industrial and agricultural chemistry—even though all of these scientific breakthroughs have enriched lives, lengthened lifespans, and produced substantial economic growth over the last century. ... Even in the much-maligned “Tea Party-dominated” House of Representatives, the GOP budget proposals provided more funding for the NSF than those of the Senate Democrats for the current 2013 fiscal year. ... It's more important that we collectively recognize that reason and critical thought, the joy and excitement of discovery, the connection between research and economic growth, and the beauty and awe of science are accessible to people of all religious and political stripes—just as people of all stripes are capable of rejecting them.

The piece is at least halfway decently sourced, and The Atlantic is hardly the center of any right-wing echo-chamber. The tl;dr is that it's fundamentally unfair to paint a picture of Republicans as anti-science and Democrats as pro-science, because both parties have their share of science deniers in different areas, and both parties have places where they support expanding science.

/r/NeutralPolitics Thread