A fascinating poll through and through. If you’re bored and looking for something interesting to munch on, scroll through here and note the results to each question according to racial and partisan ID. Before I saw the topline numbers, I assumed blacks would look more skeptically at Dolezal than whites did for the simple reason that that’s how it played out online over the last few weeks. Dolezal’s got at least as much claim to being black as Caitlyn Jenner does to being a woman, lots of white conservatives said. Ridiculous, countered numerous black authors. Race is indeed a social construct but the touchstone of that construct in America is oppression. You can’t be authentically “black” if you can shed your risk of oppression by taking off your weave and skipping a few days at the tanning salon.

Ask Americans more broadly, though, about whether Dolezal’s new identity is acceptable and here’s what you get:

Majorities of both races reject her “black” identity but a significant minority of blacks are open to it, nearly 20 points more than whites are. When you look at the partisan split, you see a similar if not quite as dramatic result. Among Democrats, 25 percent find it at least somewhat acceptable; among Republicans, just seven percent do. That’s the opposite of what you’ve seen among the online commentariat lately. (Needless to say, there’s lots of overlap between race and partisan ID.) Why the difference?

Before you answer, another intriguing data point. YouGov asked people whether, in general, they believe a person can identify as whatever or whoever they want or whether they’re born with an identity. Top line here is “whatever they want,” second line is “born with a set identity,” third is “not sure.”

Biiiig partisan difference, and in this case the partisan split is more dramatic than the racial split. Whites and blacks are within a few points of each other on this question; it’s ideology that’s driving the distinction. The same holds true when people were asked whether it makes them “angry” that Dolezal identifies as black. Again, there’s little difference between blacks and whites in the numbers. There’s more of a difference between Dems and Republicans, with 17 percent of Democrats saying they’re angry versus 28 percent of Republicans. Online, at least from what I saw, it was the opposite. Lefties disdained her as a phony. Righties wanted to know since when was biology a key component to a modern liberal’s identity.

One more ingredient in the stew. YouGov asked how much black ancestry a person needs before they can accurately identify as black. Historically, the “one-drop rule” held that any black ancestry at all meant that a person was necessarily “tainted” and couldn’t properly call themselves white. One drop of black blood meant you were black. Today it’s … not whites who are more likely to defend the one-drop principle.

Twenty-four percent of blacks versus just eight percent of whites say that one drop is enough, a result that may seem counterintuitive given the history but really isn’t. In the past, one drop was a source of shame among whites; in modern times, as blacks have felt more comfortable culturally celebrating their heritage, one drop is a source of pride. Meanwhile, here’s what happens when you look at the same question along partisan lines:

Democrats are less likely than blacks to support the “one-drop rule” but Republicans are more likely than whites to support the idea that you need at least one black parent and nothing less to qualify as black. What happens when you ask the same question about white ancestry, though? How many drops of white blood does it take to qualify as authentically white? Results:

To qualify as white, a plurality of Republicans insist on two white parents rather than just one, as does the overall population (which is influenced by the GOP numbers, naturally). Rachel Dolezal’s parents are, of course, white, so go figure she’s having trouble convincing people to see her as black.

Put all of the numbers above together and what do you have? Partly, I think, it’s the Caitlyn Jenner effect at work. Some of the reactions here, especially on the “can you identify as whatever you want?” question, are probably being informed by the reaction to Jenner’s transgender revelation a few weeks ago. If you pointed to biology as case-closed proof that Jenner’s a man however he/she might feel, then logically, I think, you’ll be less inclined to cut Dolezal a break on her “transracialism.” That would help explain why Dems are much more open to self-defined identity generally while Republicans are more closed to it, even though both groups look askance on balance at Dolezal’s specific claim to be “black.” Online, the official party line of the left the last few weeks is that Dolezal has nothing whatsoever to do with Jenner; among the wider public, Democrats and Republicans alike, that may be less true.

As for the double standard on black authenticity requiring one black parent while white authenticity requires two, it depends on how cynical you want to be. The cynical take is that it’s a case of deliberately constructing a new “one-drop rule” except with a higher modern threshold (the “one-parent rule”?). The less cynical view is that this sort of math is inevitable in a country where one race is a majority of the population. Odds are, if you deviate from the racial norm, the rest of the public’s going to notice the deviation and define race accordingly. That’s why it takes only one parent to make you stand out from the crowd while it takes two to make you blend in. In fact, YouGov found that not only did a plurality of whites agree that two white parents are required to be “white,” so did a plurality of blacks — 29 percent said so versus just 25 percent of whites. This may be more a matter of racial baselines based on demographics than a matter of deciding how much blood leaves you “tainted.”