Via Paul Bedard. I’m using “endgame” ironically, of course. The liberal intelligentsia is patient, my friends. They know what’s right for America. If they need to wait awhile until America realizes it too, well, that’s the price of enlightenment.

They convinced the country that there’s an unwritten right to abortion in the Constitution, but somehow the fight over “Redskins” is over? The fight has just begun.

rs

Per the crosstabs, that 70 percent of Democrats who say “Redskins” isn’t offensive is comprised of 49 percent who say it’s definitely not offensive versus 21 percent who say it’s “probably not.” Democrats are also one of only two demographic groups (postgraduates are the other) that reach double digits — 13 percent — who say the name’s “definitely” offensive. Hmmmm. Room to grow?

As for the separate question of whether they should change the name, feast your eyes:

yg2

Again, it’s Democrats in the lead on opposition, albeit verrrrry tepidly. Look again, though, at the numbers for gender and age. Women are less inclined to say the team should change its name than men, and famously liberal younger voters are less eager to see it happen than their elders. Is there an obvious explanation for those stereotype-defying quirks that I’m missing? I’d never have guessed.

Exit question: If you’re part of America’s broad and deep “keep the ‘Redskins'” consensus, what’s better for your cause? That the ‘Skins continue to play like crap, leaving the media with little to talk about except RGIII’s knee and this already-played-out topic, or that the ‘Skins turn things around, leaving the media to concern-troll about how having a Super Bowl contender with this name gives the league a black eye publicly?