We noted after the election the fact that a solidly blue state like California, which voted nearly 2-1 for Biden over Trump, also rejected affirmative action by decisive margins.   Philosopher Thomas Mulligan makes an interesting point in this op-ed about attitudes towards affirmative action (supported by research like this):

Whites oppose affirmative action because they believe it violates merit-based hiring. Blacks support affirmative action because they believe it enables merit-based hiring, by nullifying racial bias and other forms of disadvantage.

Despite appearances, when it comes to affirmative action, there is no moral disagreement. Both Blacks and whites believe that the best-qualified applicant should be hired. What we disagree about is a factual question: Does real-world affirmative action enable, or detract from, our shared moral goal?

I suspect the answer to that last question varies by profession (and region of the country).  In two academic fields I know most about (law and philosophy) it has reached the point where it tends to detract from merit-based hiring, but there are other professions (e.g., law enforcement, especially in some parts of the country) where the available evidence suggests it remains important to "nullify racial bias" as Mulligan puts it.  (I take no position on whether merit-based hiring is a worthy moral goal:  sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, but that's a different topic.)