Zach Goldberg Profile picture
Oct 29, 2021 7 tweets 3 min read Read on X
1/n Unless this is sampling bias, some signs that the Awokening has stalled--particularly among white independents. For instance, the share of white indeps that 'agreed' with the statement below *doubled* (33%->66%) between May and June (vs 59%->73% for white Reps).
2/n In contrast, the Awokening (at least on this question) persists among white Dems, with agreement *falling* (and disagreement increasing) 25%->14% across this same period.
3/n Similarly, the share that 'agree' that prejudice and discrimination holds back minorities fell nearly 25 points among white indeps (34%->9.2%) and 16 points mong white Republicans (31.7%->16.1%). Curiously, we also see a decline among white Dems (80.9%->64.7%)
4/n Combining and standardizing the two 5-point scales, we see general stability among white dems (likely because the changes cancel out) and non-white dems, and significant dips among white indeps and Reps.
5/n Of course, this could be sampling error. OR perhaps @realchrisrufo is just really good at what he does 🤔
6/n For those that'd like to see the results for racial/ethnic groups overall...
7/n I reverse-coded the scale (so it's now labeled 'racial conservatism') and combined the data for whites with the Google Trends series. Hard not to think there's a causal relationship here

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Zach Goldberg

Zach Goldberg Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ZachG932

Jun 3
1/10

Do Americans broadly oppose military action against Iran?

Recent polling suggests they do. A Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted May 15–18 found that 61% of Americans disapproved of U.S. military strikes against Iran, while 52% said the military action was not worth it.

But generic approval questions may not tell the whole story.
2/10

Our latest @fsuigc survey of 1,059 American adults (also conducted by Ipsos, May 19–28) approached the issue differently.

Instead of asking simply whether military action was “worth it,” we examined how Americans think about the tradeoffs involved—including the perceived threat posed by Iran, the prospects for diplomacy, and the costs people are willing to bear to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

The results paint a considerably more nuanced picture.

A short thread: 👇
3/10

First, baseline attitudes are hawkish on the Iranian nuclear threat itself:

58% of Americans—including 72% of Republicans and 46% of Democrats— say a nuclear-armed Iran would be a Very or Extremely serious long-term threat to the U.S. and its allies.

Only 12% say it’s “not too serious” or “not at all serious.”Image
Image
Read 10 tweets
Nov 19, 2025
1/Thrilled to share @fsuigc’s latest report, based on a national survey of 1,447 U.S. adults we conducted in late September—one week after the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

We examine how Americans think about harmful speech and whether physical violence can ever be justified to stop its public expression.

Link to report: igc.fsu.edu/research-data/…

What follows is a summary of key findings.
2/ First: nearly 60% Americans at least somewhat agree that “certain forms of speech can be as damaging as physical violence” Image
3/ But contrary to popular narratives, it’s older Americans—not Gen Z—who are most likely to agree.

-73% of seniors agree, 17% disagree

-51% of adults under 30 agree, 30% disagree

Note: Young adults are the most likely to choose a neutral position.Image
Read 15 tweets
Sep 25, 2025
1/ I'm delighted to finally share some of the work I've done since joining @fsuigc.

Last month, we published a report about political tolerance based on national survey data (N=1,004) we collected during the summer. In this study, we measure political tolerance as the willingness to interact with or accept people with opposing political views across different relational contexts. For comparison, we also measured tolerance towards ex-felons and flat earthers.
2/ As shown in the table below, across all contexts, people are much more willing to engage with people with opposing political views than the other two target groups. Regardless of the target group, though, openness tends to decline as the intimacy of an engagement increases. For instance, whereas 73% would engage in a social/recreational activity with political opponents (ex-Felon: 54%, flat-earther: 49%) without reservation, just 41% would be willing to date them (ex-Felon: 22%, flat-earther: 19%)Image
3/Consistent with this intimacy 'gradient', our analysis finds that our 7 tolerance items best fit a 3-factor structure, which is depicted in the table below. Image
Read 12 tweets
May 30, 2025
1/ Updated racial ingroup vs. outgroup feeling thermometer differentials from the ANES. In sum, while the 'curve has flattened', the attitudinal effects of the Great Awokening persist (at least wrt race). If you thought or hoped otherwise, sorry to disappoint. Image
2/ Average of all 3 differentials by race/ideological self-placement Image
3/ Averages for whites across the complete 7-point ideology scale Image
Read 9 tweets
May 22, 2025
1/ Needless to say, the recent surge in New York Times articles pairing the word "genocide" with "Israel" is driven by the war in Gaza.

But it would be wrong to single out the Times.

The same pattern shows up across every other outlet I looked at.

Image
2/ In fact, coverage linking Israel to “genocide” now exceeds that of every actual or widely recognized genocide of the last 40 years, including:

Rwanda (1994)

Darfur (2003–2008)

Bosnia (Srebrenica, 1995)

Myanmar (Rohingya, 2017–Present)

Yazidis (ISIS, 2014–2017)
3/ In The New York Times, for example, the spike in 2023–2024 mentions of “genocide” alongside “Israel” is more than 9x larger than the peak for Rwanda in the mid-1990s and nearly 6x the peak for the more recent Darfur genocide.
Read 9 tweets
May 2, 2025
1/ One of the more counterintuitive findings in my latest article:

Historically, when Democrats only control the House, an average of just over 10 race-conscious provisions are added to the NDAA per year.

When they control both the House and Senate? That number drops to about 4.
But why?Image
2/ First, what makes the House so powerful here?

Simple: the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) writes the first draft of the NDAA.

If you control the House, you control the blueprint—and the early language that often survives reconciliation. That’s where ideological riders get embedded.
3/But why are more race-conscious provisions added under divided government?

While I can’t say for sure, my reasoning is this: when Democrats only control the House, the NDAA becomes one of the few legislative vehicles guaranteed to pass.

Standalone race-conscious or DEI bills are less likely to survive the Senate.

But must-pass defense bills? They will.

So they load them up.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(