Sorry John, but I’m just not convinced. I’m sure that if McCain took an anti-RP position it would cause him to gain some votes and lose some other votes. The serious question is: would he gain more than he would lose? Nothing you’ve said gives the slightest evidence for this.
You say that this is why Cox won his election, but there are so many variables here that no one can know the real reason(s) why.
The only statistic you give is that (about) 70% oppose racial preferences. But first of all, you know that many of those 70% would be horrified if McCain “opposed opportunities for black people”, which is how an anti-RP position would be described by his opponents. But let’s say that 70 percent truly and robustly oppose racial preferences. Some of those not currently planning to vote for McCain would change their minds if he adopted an anti-RP position. And some of the 30% who support racial preferences and who are currently planning on voting for McCain would change their minds if he adopted an anti-RP position. So would it be a net gain for McCain? In electoral votes?
Somewhere there might be some actual data that addresses this issue, and your conclusion might well be right, but I just don’t know.
Here’s one other problem. I’m sure there are at least some people who are anti-RP, and who would love both candidates to be anti-RP, but who think it would look bad for the country for a White person to take the unusual (for a presidential candidate) position of being coherently anti-RP when running against a Black man.
I think it’s pretty obvious opposing RP will be a net gain. It’s too early to tell whether it will translate to electoral votes, but that’s true of virtually all issues. The 30% racial preference supporters are disproportionately hardcore leftists, public emloyees and hangers-on, and the beneficiaries of preferences. These groups are already locks to vote overwhelmingly for Obama, so there’s very little risk.
The claim that people would be against a representative for something they support is odd, and can only be justified by supposing ignorance and/or intimidation. Obviously such an attempt would be made, and strongly. But the 70% of people against RP are intelligent enough to understand their own position, as evidenced by the fact that Connerly’s state initiatives continue passing even though the usual suspects make the same “denial of opportunity” claims of it. McCain just needs to distinguish RP vs AA, and when his attackers conflate the two, as they will, pounce on that as well.
As for positioning, he doesn’t have to make it the centerpiece of his campaign. I would recommend he position it as an agreement with Obama, since he has stated in the past that he believes preferences should be class based. Obama will have to distance himself or lose core support, and his explanations will alienate the majority of the country. McCain can further press the issue by statign that preferences should be eliminated entirely and we should focus on solving the true problem, the pathetic public education record in much of the country. Then Obama has to choose between the public and the teachers union.
A gaffe-ridden candidate who has trouble articulating any nuanced, or complex concepts on the stump…(remember Shia vs. Sunni, Al Qaeda in Iran, 100 years in Iraq, jobs in Michigan, etc)…is going to have the verbal dexterity to flip-flop on Affirmative Action, and declare he’s against racial preferences, while running against an African-American candidate who’s bent over backwards not to focus on race?
Huh?
John McCain is many things. He isn’t daffy enough to try that one.
Those looking for a candidate like that need to write in “Tom Tancredo” on their ballot this Novemeber.
Sorry John, but I’m just not convinced. I’m sure that if McCain took an anti-RP position it would cause him to gain some votes and lose some other votes. The serious question is: would he gain more than he would lose? Nothing you’ve said gives the slightest evidence for this.
You say that this is why Cox won his election, but there are so many variables here that no one can know the real reason(s) why.
The only statistic you give is that (about) 70% oppose racial preferences. But first of all, you know that many of those 70% would be horrified if McCain “opposed opportunities for black people”, which is how an anti-RP position would be described by his opponents. But let’s say that 70 percent truly and robustly oppose racial preferences. Some of those not currently planning to vote for McCain would change their minds if he adopted an anti-RP position. And some of the 30% who support racial preferences and who are currently planning on voting for McCain would change their minds if he adopted an anti-RP position. So would it be a net gain for McCain? In electoral votes?
Somewhere there might be some actual data that addresses this issue, and your conclusion might well be right, but I just don’t know.
Here’s one other problem. I’m sure there are at least some people who are anti-RP, and who would love both candidates to be anti-RP, but who think it would look bad for the country for a White person to take the unusual (for a presidential candidate) position of being coherently anti-RP when running against a Black man.
I think it’s pretty obvious opposing RP will be a net gain. It’s too early to tell whether it will translate to electoral votes, but that’s true of virtually all issues. The 30% racial preference supporters are disproportionately hardcore leftists, public emloyees and hangers-on, and the beneficiaries of preferences. These groups are already locks to vote overwhelmingly for Obama, so there’s very little risk.
The claim that people would be against a representative for something they support is odd, and can only be justified by supposing ignorance and/or intimidation. Obviously such an attempt would be made, and strongly. But the 70% of people against RP are intelligent enough to understand their own position, as evidenced by the fact that Connerly’s state initiatives continue passing even though the usual suspects make the same “denial of opportunity” claims of it. McCain just needs to distinguish RP vs AA, and when his attackers conflate the two, as they will, pounce on that as well.
As for positioning, he doesn’t have to make it the centerpiece of his campaign. I would recommend he position it as an agreement with Obama, since he has stated in the past that he believes preferences should be class based. Obama will have to distance himself or lose core support, and his explanations will alienate the majority of the country. McCain can further press the issue by statign that preferences should be eliminated entirely and we should focus on solving the true problem, the pathetic public education record in much of the country. Then Obama has to choose between the public and the teachers union.
A gaffe-ridden candidate who has trouble articulating any nuanced, or complex concepts on the stump…(remember Shia vs. Sunni, Al Qaeda in Iran, 100 years in Iraq, jobs in Michigan, etc)…is going to have the verbal dexterity to flip-flop on Affirmative Action, and declare he’s against racial preferences, while running against an African-American candidate who’s bent over backwards not to focus on race?
Huh?
John McCain is many things. He isn’t daffy enough to try that one.
Those looking for a candidate like that need to write in “Tom Tancredo” on their ballot this Novemeber.
–Cobra
C’mon.