A while ago, some asshole with a blog noted this about editorial boards:

Last week, I briefly noted that many respectable pundits (and editorial boards) have always been horrible. In fact, many of the same horrible people from twenty to thirty years ago not only perpetuated themselves via ‘mentoring’ (finding younger, equally horrible people), but they’re still in charge of things–or even have more authority. In case you dang kids don’t believe me, by way of a locked account on Twitter (one of the lefty OGs akshually!), is an editorial–not op-ed piece, but an actual editorial from the Philadelphia Inquirer–not some podunk rag–arguing poor women (who just happened to be Black, especially in Philly in 1990) should not receive government assistance unless they ‘voluntarily’ go on hormonal birth control, titled “Poverty and Norplant Can contraception reduce the underclass*?”

…This was considered an acceptable liberal opinion**…

Keep in mind, many people who openly agreed with this are still opining and editing, including some high-profile opiners on the subject of trans children. Just a coinkydink, I’m sure. Of course, a fair number of them have (very) quietly repented: looking forward, not back, if you will. But too many can read the marketplace and have the brains to keep their bigotries and prejudices to themselves–and bigotry is never contained, it always metastasizes.

With that as prologue, we present these data from Phillip Bump:

You’ll notice that before 2014, there really wasn’t that much difference between Republicans and Democrats (including their leaners), especially once you factor in the Black population, which is overwhelmingly Democratic. While Bump focuses on the role a certain person might have had, it’s worth noting that, before 2014, Democrats weren’t exactly awesome either. The point isn’t to denigrate Democrats, but to remind those who might have forgotten, that attitudes can and do change, in at least part of the population.