| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Moral Blame and Memory | Main | Why we curse »

May 23, 2008

Obama and Affirmative Action

Richard D. Kahlenberg in Inside Higher Ed:

Even as Barack Obama became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee last Tuesday, his continuing failure to win white working-class voters clouds his prospects for November. The inability to connect with noncollege educated whites also undercuts his claim to being a truly transformative candidate — a Robert F. Kennedy figure — who could significantly change the direction of the country. In the fall campaign, however, Obama’s suggestion that he may be ready to change the focus of affirmative action policies in higher education — away from race to economic class — could prove pivotal in his efforts to reach working-class whites, and revive the great hopes of Bobby Kennedy’s candidacy.

Affirmative action is a highly charged issue, which most politicians stay away from. But nothing could carry more potent symbolic value with Reagan Democrats than for Obama to end the Democratic Party’s 40 years of support for racial preferences and to argue, instead, for preferences — in college admissions and elsewhere — based on economic status. Obama needs to do something dramatic. Right now, while people inside and outside the Obama campaign are making the RFK comparison, working-class whites aren’t buying it. The results in Tuesday’s Indiana primary are particularly poignant. Obama won handily among black Hoosiers, but lost the non-college educated white vote to Hillary Clinton by 66-34 percent. Forty years earlier, by contrast, Kennedy astonished observers by forging a coalition of blacks and working class whites, the likes of which we have rarely seen since then.

Posted by Robin Varghese at 01:32 PM | Permalink

Comments

What the hell is a "working class white"? Apparently, the white voters in states like Iowa, Oregon, Vermont, Utah, Connecticut, Delaware, Wyoming, Nebraska, Minnesota, Kansas, North Dakota, Maine, Idaho and others are all so rich they don't have to work.

Heh. Those damn elitist Idahoans.

But even more frustrating than this idea that "working class whites" don't like Obama, is the idea that anyone who votes for one democrat in a primary must hate all the other democrats in that same primary — so much so, that they would vote for the other party in the general election if their preferred primary candidate didn't win. This kind of logic is rubbish and leads to inane arguments like those spouted over and over by various idiots in the press. Arguments such as: Hillary is winning women by large margins, so obviously Obama has a woman problem; Hillary is winning more Jews, so obviously Obama has a Jewish problem; Hillary is winnning more Hispanics, so obviously Obama has a Hispanic problem; Hillary is winning more "working class whites," so obviously Obama has a "working class white" problem; Hillary is winning more elderly voters, so obviously Obama has an elderly voter problem; Hillary is winning more uneducated voters, so obviously Obama has an uneducated voter problem.

Are you kidding me? Does anyone for one second really believe that Jews, women, or Hispanics are going to desert the democratic party this year, 2008, in the worst climate for republicans in memory, when they've been loyal democrats even during the hard years of republican political dominance? Am I supposed to believe that those voters, who have been voting against republican policies this whole time, will now, right when they have republicans on the ropes, vote for a republican?

Not gonna happen.

Guess what? All those voters who voted for Hillary (minus the handful who were just causing mischief) are democrats. Guess who they are going to vote for in November? Yep. The democrat.

Obama has already pulled ahead of McCain in general election polling overall by about 8 points. He's beating McCain in every state Kerry won in 2004, as well as in Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, and Iowa. He's ahead in New Hampshire. He'll probably win New Mexico, and could take one or even both of the Carolinas. He might win Montana, for heaven's sake. He's not hurting for support among key voter blocs. On the contrary, he's on the verge of delivering a historical blowout.

Anyway, if he is hurting so bad for support among "key" democratic constituencies, how the hell is he winning? He has more popular votes, more delegates, more super delegates, more states won, more caucuses won, more money raised, more super cool YouTube videos...

But yeah. If only he had the widespread support Hillary enjoys, then maybe he would have a chance.

Posted by: ghostman | May 23, 2008 2:32:58 PM

Both lucid and optimistic, ghostman -- nice to hear from you!

Posted by: Elatia Harris | May 23, 2008 5:15:04 PM

Hi, Elatia. Thanks. Methinks I lurk too much...

Posted by: ghostman | May 23, 2008 10:15:16 PM

What finally will matter is how he will do with the independents--a key constituency and those Democrats who for whatever reasons have voted GOP for a few years but might now switch back. If th he will probably get those votes.

Posted by: fred lapides | May 24, 2008 7:07:46 AM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

3QD Politics Prize

Donate to Todd Shea

More info about Todd Shea and his work here on 3QD.

3QD ADVERTISING

3QD on Facebook

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google


Recent Comments

czrpb on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

chris on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

odysseus14 on The World's Fastest Animal Takes New York

Daniel on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Robin on The Incomparable Economist

odysseus14 on The Incomparable Economist

Cyrus Hall on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Jane Lenoir on The Humanists: Frederick Wiseman's High School (1968)

Norman Costa on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

Norman Costa on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

czrpb on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Daniel on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Elatia Harris on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

chris on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Carlos on you can't handle the truth

Nick Smyth on you can't handle the truth

eric on you can't handle the truth

Ruchira on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Randolyn Zinn on Shards and Fragments: Eva Hesse Studioworks

Luke Lea on Hollywood gives biologists a helping hand

Chris Schoen on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

Rhea on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

Chris Schoen on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

J.H. on you can't handle the truth

J.H. on The World's Fastest Animal Takes New York

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes


Logos designed by Vicki Winters

Subscribe to this blog's feed