The GSS scale does not include descriptors like progressive or socialist, so liberal is as woke as the survey gets (for now):

Note the y-axis starts at 25 and ends at 75. I have an aesthetic preference for focusing on where the action is, deal with it!

Nearly 3-in-4 white Democrats now self-describe as liberal. The trend since 2014 has been an unbroken ascent towards full wokeness. Non-whites are tentatively following along but they are not keeping pace. The liberalism gap between white and non-white Democrats was the widest ever recorded in 2018, the most recent iteration of the survey to date. It is now six times as wide as it was in 2002, after 9/11 pushed self-described liberalism to a local minimum.

The oughts are a foreign country, we did things differently there.

GSS variables: PARTYID(0-1), POLVIEWS(1-3)(4-7), RACECEN1(1)(2-16), HISPANIC(1), YEAR

Though the GSS has asked about the desired legality of abortion since the survey’s inception, it explicitly asked about the perceived morality of the practice for the first time in 2018. The following graph shows the two-way distribution–morally opposed or not–of responses across a host of demographic characteristics:

“It depends” responses are excluded. This likely has the effect of making overall moral sentiment appear more pro-choice than it actually is, since a lot of these respondents presumably have in mind moral exceptions for rarities such as rape and incest but who generally otherwise find it morally objectionable.

Overall, 51.6% of respondents express moral opposition while 48.4% do not.

One aspect of the abortion debate that is virtually never mentioned by the corporate media because of how obviously problematic it is for the preferred narrative is that men are modestly more pro-choice than women.

Among white Democrats, abortion is overwhelmingly viewed as a mere medical procedure. Non-white Democrats, in contrast are split evenly on the question. If a vociferous POC pro-life caucus ever emerges on the left, will pussyhat-wearing Beckies yield to their more intersectional cohorts?

Having children, being Republican, and believing in God are all strong predictors of moral opposition to abortion.

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), SEX, ABMORAL(1-2), GOD(1)(2)(3-5)(6), PARTYID(0-1)(2-4,7)(5-6), CHILDS(0)(1)(2-8), SEXORNT(1-2)(3), WORDSUM(0-4)(5-7)(8-10), BORN(1)

Suggested search completions:

From Trends, results for the top four most queried “it’s okay to be X” phrases suggested by Google, and results for one problematic iteration not included among the ten autofill suggestions:

Even though the assertion that being white is “okay”–when it’s obviously genocidal, exploitative, misogynistic, homophobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, bigoted, racist, transphobic, hateful, supremacist, colonialist, murderous, rapacious, nefarious, and emphatically not okay–generates twice as much search volume as the most queried about phrase helpfully suggested by Google does, we can take some comfort in the fact that the company has affirmatively taken steps to frustrate the troubling organic interest in the evil idea that whites are not inherently evil.

These actions do not go nearly far enough, however. Accounts searching for the phrase should be immediately deleted, the incoming IP addresses blocked, a warning message automatically dispatched to all of the searcher’s contacts–detected by way of other personal information the company has collected–that the searcher is likely a dangerous extremist who should be avoided, and the various US intelligence agencies alerted to the threat of the potential domestic terrorist using the company’s services.

Just as the Latinization of the US does not bode well for Jews, an increasingly non-white America does not bode well for things putatively most concerning to white leftists:

The Green trend is even more pronounced on the other side of the Atlantic. The migration crisis is even more pronounced there, too.

Do Green voters in Britain and Germany really think young soldiers of fortune coming from Africa and the Middle East into cultures alien to them to carve out existences for themselves give a moment’s thought to climate modeling predictions for what the weather will be like in the year 2080?

Is it merely a socially laudable way to virtue-signal in favor of globalism–climate change is a global ‘problem’, after all.

Or is it an indication of increasing existential uncertainty, manifesting itself in a way that is more comfortable for those on the left just as more strident nationalism and populism is a manifestation of the same increasing existential uncertainty among those on the right?

Parenthetically, the collapse in stated material concerns among white Democrats over a generation is staggering. The hard-hat blue-collar concerns that defined Democrats a generation ago is perceived today as embarrassingly declasse, maybe even racist. It’s all culture now.

As has been stated here several times over the years, abortion may become a winning ‘hot-button’ social issue for Republicans. Scientific and technological progress doesn’t bode well for the pro-choice position, especially the harm dimension of morality. It is a dimension leftists put greater emphasis on than others do.

New media is exposing another vulnerability for the pro-choice position. It’s difficult to portray abortion as a mere clinical procedure when videos like these find their way out [edit: EldnahYm points out these are likely rubber dolls used in medical training–we are most vulnerable when we don’t know what we don’t know, so I am glad to be now be aware of the existence of such fetal dolls!]:

This my friends is what EVIL looks like! Our own investigation into the abortion industry saw them playing catch with the babies in the hallway. Another investigation saw them playing "wishbone" with the aborted baby body parts.
Thank you to @TaylorRMarshall for the video link. pic.twitter.com/HVMuiJdPTI

— Fr. Frank Pavone 🇺🇸 (@frfrankpavone) June 5, 2019

Again, the stench of sulfur is coming through my computer screen. If the video ended with a few lab coats turning into pillars of salt maybe that would dispel the smell.

Democrat frontrunner Joe Biden seems to grasp as much.

How can I get away with prognosticating given how poor the prospects for my Kamala Harris prediction appear to be? Audacity, of course!

In my defense, the prediction was made long before Jussie Smollett became a household name. The top three searches related to “kamala harris” give some indication of how little good that hate hoax did her:

Being part Indian, she is surely able to appreciate a little karma!

Despite floundering in the first few months, she’s not out of the running yet. Her path to the nomination remains turning in respectable top five finishes in both Iowa and New Hampshire and then winning South Carolina.

From Trends, a map showing which of the top five candidates in terms of search volume have enjoyed a plurality of searches by state since the beginning of 2019 through today:

Beto O’Rourke and Pete Buttigieg are manufactured candidates, preferred by the Establishment on account of being sufficiently woke without scaring the rubes in flyover country too much. But there isn’t grassroots interest in either of them.

No potential candidate inspires progressives less than Biden does. Bernie Sanders will likely remain a respectable second placer through primary season because although he has a ceiling well under 50% in every state, his base is the most loyal among the field, but it’s hard to see how he actually wins the nomination.

Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang distinguish themselves from the rest of the field by having demonstrated the ability to offer independent thoughts and discuss novel ideas. Maybe one of them will catch a little fire in the early debates.

When it comes to diversity and intersectionality, Harris currently leads the pack, but that’s only because in the land of the blind the one-eyed woman is queen. The field is ripe for a fully fledged POC like Stacey Abrams or Oprah Winfrey to jump in and immediately shoot to the top of the polls. It’s worth noting that at this point in the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump had not yet even announced his candidacy.

Per SFG’s request, the subsequent graph compares self-reported happiness among single men without children to married men with children. The happiness gap is even wider among men than it is among women on these dimensions:

Additionally, the percentage of single men without children who report experiencing poor mental health (defined as “stress, depression, and problems with emotions”) in the last month is 43%. For married fathers, it the figure is 34%.

The usual admonitions about correlation not (necessarily) being causation apply, of course. But anti-natalism propaganda pieces like this must not be allowed to go unchallenged.

GSS variables used: SEX(1), HAPPY, MNTLHLTH(0)(1-30), MARITAL(1)(5), CHILDS(0)(1-8), YEAR(2000-2018)

The following graph and table show the number of The New York Times articles over the last decade mentioning a country at least once per 100,000 people residing in said country. Countries with fewer than one million inhabitants are excluded:

Some caveats: Jordan, Chad and Georgia are also excluded. The number of false positives for these countries is so high that the only way I’d be confident providing data on them is if I combed through every single article to separate the wheat from the chaff. If I were a tenured professor, perhaps, but the diminishing returns on the time it would take to otherwise do this is too much for me.

There are other countries that are likely inflated, but to an extent I’ve judged modest enough that they’ve been included anyway (“Israel” as a first name, “Ireland” as a surname, “Guinea pig” as a rodent instead of Papua New Guinea, “turkey” as an animal rather than a country, etc). So don’t crucify me over this–I’m providing an avenue to critique away any significance this list might errantly be thought to have!

A similar dynamic is in play with the various Guineas, Sudan vs South Sudan, and the two Congos. To address this, I combined the populations for the Guineas, Sudans, and Congos to come up with a per capita rate for total “Guinea”, “Sudan”, and “Congo” article mentions, respectively.

The “United States” result is not particularly useful since many articles having to do with things going on inside of the US are not going to mention the country but instead states or cities within it.

The neoliberal focus predominantly remains on northwestern Europe, North America, and the Middle East. Africa and Asia get short shrift.. That is going to change in the future as Africa moves towards population dominance and Asia moves towards economic and cultural dominance.

There is a modest inverse correlation (r = -.15) between a country’s total population and its per capita article mentions. Being a distinct country probably does increase the mental space people tend to devote to the people living there.

From GoToQuiz.com, the percentages of respondents in the US who express a partisan affiliation other than Republican or Democrat:

The differences are modest (notice the y-axis begins at 20%)–but I did the digging so may as well share what I found–with the only sharp dividing line along sex. Women tend to be more conformist than men for rather obvious biological reasons. The idea that Zoomers resemble the Silents more than the generations separating the two cohorts aside, the relatively low third party–liberally defined here to include independents as well–orientation of those under 18 might just be due to a lack of familiarity with options outside the Uniparty.

Parenthetically, the survey doesn’t ask about registration or electoral intention. Even after taking that into account, though, it’s clear that a lot of people who self-identify as Green or Libertarian vote for one of the big two if they vote at all.

Where do we come up with a thought like that? From what people tell us, that’s where.

For the first time in 2018, the GSS asked respondents if they agreed or disagreed with the assertion that natural environments tend to be uninteresting. The results wouldn’t surprise Teddy Roosevelt anymore than they should surprise Al Gore:

Does the subcontinent seem dirty to you? How about the skies over China? Rendezvous points for aliens illegally crossing the US-Mexico border? Have more trouble spotting a fellow black camper than a black bear? These differential outlooks are a big clue as to why.

The green movement sold Gaia’s soul to the race hustlers and the Chambers of Commerce a long time ago.

GSS variables used: NATLACK(1-2)(3-4), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), BORN, PARTYID(0-1)(2-4,7)(5-6)