Racial polarization: What will happen in future elections?

[Calthrina950]

In some ways, the title of the thread is a "joke", for racial polarization is already a fact, seen in presidential, congressional, gubernatorial, and other elections on a routine basis. However, this thread seeks to address the topic of racial polarization, such as it develops in future elections. Now, I am fully aware of all the demographic arguments being made, which in the long run will probably give the Democratic Party a better chance at winning future elections. I am also aware of the generational arguments, concerning the more liberal views of millennials and of Generation Y compared to the Baby Boomers and other earlier generations. But nevertheless, I would like to pose a series of questions, related to something which could very well happen.

What if, by the middle of the century, racial polarization trends developed to such an extent that minorities were voting 90% Democratic, across the board, and whites 70-75% Republican, nationwide. What would the electoral map look like? How would presidential campaigns be conducted? And what would the political landscape of our country look like?

The reason why I am asking these questions is because I am concerned about the ever widening urban-rural divide, the disconnect between the Republican and the Democratic bases, and the currents of racism and of other social phobias which seem to be emerging. I am also concerned by the extreme language used by both the far-left and far-right.

[SingingAnalyst]

I am concerned about it, too.

In some ways, the dystopic future you envision is already a reality. The Black/White divide has been a chasm since 1964 (and in some areas, before that) and shows no sign of shrinking. The religious divide is growing, with non-Christian religious adherents and those with no religion, as well as very liberal Christians (and Black Christians) on one side and white, conservative Christians (whether Catholic, Protestant, or other) on the other. The 2016 Presidential election presented us with perhaps the greatest divide we have seen in this regard.

It does not help that each "side" listens to their own media and regards the other "side" 's media as "fake news".

The mere fact that you wrote this tells me that you love your country and its people, and I'm going to guess that your goodwill extends to those outside the US as well. I would like to think the same is true of me. Personally, I seek to study, from the point of view of a liberal interpretation of my own tradition (Roman Catholicism) ways to bridge the divide, even in small ways.

I'm sure you are familiar with the starfish story. Two people are walking along a beach that is littered with starfish at low tide. One starts throwing starfish back into the water. The other asks "What are you doing? You can't possibly make a difference" to which the first one says "I'm making a difference for the starfish I throw back in".

I think President Bush denouncing Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) in 2002 after he lamented Strom Thurmond's 1948 loss, was a positive step.

I think the voters of SC electing Tim Scott, a Black Republican, as Senator, was a positive step.

I think more people will have to start seeing acts that bridge racial and religious divides as "positive steps" even when they don't line up with their particular political positions.

"Hope springs eternal." -Alexander Pope

[Calthrina950]

I am concerned about it, too.

In some ways, the dystopic future you envision is already a reality. The Black/White divide has been a chasm since 1964 (and in some areas, before that) and shows no sign of shrinking. The religious divide is growing, with non-Christian religious adherents and those with no religion, as well as very liberal Christians (and Black Christians) on one side and white, conservative Christians (whether Catholic, Protestant, or other) on the other. The 2016 Presidential election presented us with perhaps the greatest divide we have seen in this regard.

It does not help that each "side" listens to their own media and regards the other "side" 's media as "fake news".

The mere fact that you wrote this tells me that you love your country and its people, and I'm going to guess that your goodwill extends to those outside the US as well. I would like to think the same is true of me. Personally, I seek to study, from the point of view of a liberal interpretation of my own tradition (Roman Catholicism) ways to bridge the divide, even in small ways.

I'm sure you are familiar with the starfish story. Two people are walking along a beach that is littered with starfish at low tide. One starts throwing starfish back into the water. The other asks "What are you doing? You can't possibly make a difference" to which the first one says "I'm making a difference for the starfish I throw back in".

I think President Bush denouncing Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) in 2002 after he lamented Strom Thurmond's 1948 loss, was a positive step.

I think the voters of SC electing Tim Scott, a Black Republican, as Senator, was a positive step.

I think more people will have to start seeing acts that bridge racial and religious divides as "positive steps" even when they don't line up with their particular political positions.

"Hope springs eternal." -Alexander Pope

I actually haven't heard about the starfish story before. Thank you for sharing it. I think it serves as a good illumination of what is happening, or what is going to happen. I agree with you about what happened with Trent Lott, and especially, about the election of Tim Scott. I am concerned about the way this country is headed, and my concern also derives from what I have seen on this website, and on others. It is amazing how much the posters here, who are Democrats or Republicans, are at odds over almost every issue, thinking in completely different ways.

What do you think the country's electoral map would look like if the polarization trends I indicated above came true?

[super6646]

Considering registered voters are more white than the country as a whole, the GOP could probably until the 2030s if they're getting 75% of the white vote. But demographics are destiny, and they need to do better with Hispanics and or Asians if they stand a chance in the future.

[OneJ]

I am concerned about it, too.

In some ways, the dystopic future you envision is already a reality. The Black/White divide has been a chasm since 1964 (and in some areas, before that) and shows no sign of shrinking. The religious divide is growing, with non-Christian religious adherents and those with no religion, as well as very liberal Christians (and Black Christians) on one side and white, conservative Christians (whether Catholic, Protestant, or other) on the other. The 2016 Presidential election presented us with perhaps the greatest divide we have seen in this regard.

It does not help that each "side" listens to their own media and regards the other "side" 's media as "fake news".

The mere fact that you wrote this tells me that you love your country and its people, and I'm going to guess that your goodwill extends to those outside the US as well. I would like to think the same is true of me. Personally, I seek to study, from the point of view of a liberal interpretation of my own tradition (Roman Catholicism) ways to bridge the divide, even in small ways.

I'm sure you are familiar with the starfish story. Two people are walking along a beach that is littered with starfish at low tide. One starts throwing starfish back into the water. The other asks "What are you doing? You can't possibly make a difference" to which the first one says "I'm making a difference for the starfish I throw back in".

I think President Bush denouncing Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) in 2002 after he lamented Strom Thurmond's 1948 loss, was a positive step.

I think the voters of SC electing Tim Scott, a Black Republican, as Senator, was a positive step.

I think more people will have to start seeing acts that bridge racial and religious divides as "positive steps" even when they don't line up with their particular political positions.

"Hope springs eternal." -Alexander Pope

While Scott shows that there can be black republicans (which is somewhat positive I guess), it sure looks like he isn't doing much to bring black voters to the party or even vote for him. According to 2016 exit polls of the SC senate race, despite Scott winning by approximately 21 points he still lost among black voters by a whopping 90-8 (82 points) margin whch means a lot more would have to be done in order for Republicans to close the gap they have with black voters. It's not impossible for the GOP to decrease the gap, however, as Kasich and Isakson recently got very decent shares of the black vote in their respective races in 2014 and 2016.

[Dr. MB]

I am concerned about it, too.

In some ways, the dystopic future you envision is already a reality. The Black/White divide has been a chasm since 1964 (and in some areas, before that) and shows no sign of shrinking. The religious divide is growing, with non-Christian religious adherents and those with no religion, as well as very liberal Christians (and Black Christians) on one side and white, conservative Christians (whether Catholic, Protestant, or other) on the other. The 2016 Presidential election presented us with perhaps the greatest divide we have seen in this regard.

It does not help that each "side" listens to their own media and regards the other "side" 's media as "fake news".

The mere fact that you wrote this tells me that you love your country and its people, and I'm going to guess that your goodwill extends to those outside the US as well. I would like to think the same is true of me. Personally, I seek to study, from the point of view of a liberal interpretation of my own tradition (Roman Catholicism) ways to bridge the divide, even in small ways.

I'm sure you are familiar with the starfish story. Two people are walking along a beach that is littered with starfish at low tide. One starts throwing starfish back into the water. The other asks "What are you doing? You can't possibly make a difference" to which the first one says "I'm making a difference for the starfish I throw back in".

I think President Bush denouncing Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) in 2002 after he lamented Strom Thurmond's 1948 loss, was a positive step.

I think the voters of SC electing Tim Scott, a Black Republican, as Senator, was a positive step.

I think more people will have to start seeing acts that bridge racial and religious divides as "positive steps" even when they don't line up with their particular political positions.

"Hope springs eternal." -Alexander Pope

While Scott shows that there can be black republicans (which is somewhat positive I guess), it sure looks like he isn't doing much to bring black voters to the party or even vote for him. According to 2016 exit polls of the SC senate race, despite Scott winning by approximately 21 points he still lost among black voters by a whopping 90-8 (82 points) margin whch means a lot more would have to be done in order for Republicans to close the gap they have with black voters. It's not impossible for the GOP to decrease the gap, however, as Kasich and Isakson recently got very decent shares of the black vote in their respective races in 2014 and 2016.

To be fair to Tim Scott, his opponent was also black, but I wonder what % of the black vote he'd get against a white Democrat. Probably not a whole lot more, I'd assume.

[OneJ]

I am concerned about it, too.

In some ways, the dystopic future you envision is already a reality. The Black/White divide has been a chasm since 1964 (and in some areas, before that) and shows no sign of shrinking. The religious divide is growing, with non-Christian religious adherents and those with no religion, as well as very liberal Christians (and Black Christians) on one side and white, conservative Christians (whether Catholic, Protestant, or other) on the other. The 2016 Presidential election presented us with perhaps the greatest divide we have seen in this regard.

It does not help that each "side" listens to their own media and regards the other "side" 's media as "fake news".

The mere fact that you wrote this tells me that you love your country and its people, and I'm going to guess that your goodwill extends to those outside the US as well. I would like to think the same is true of me. Personally, I seek to study, from the point of view of a liberal interpretation of my own tradition (Roman Catholicism) ways to bridge the divide, even in small ways.

I'm sure you are familiar with the starfish story. Two people are walking along a beach that is littered with starfish at low tide. One starts throwing starfish back into the water. The other asks "What are you doing? You can't possibly make a difference" to which the first one says "I'm making a difference for the starfish I throw back in".

I think President Bush denouncing Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) in 2002 after he lamented Strom Thurmond's 1948 loss, was a positive step.

I think the voters of SC electing Tim Scott, a Black Republican, as Senator, was a positive step.

I think more people will have to start seeing acts that bridge racial and religious divides as "positive steps" even when they don't line up with their particular political positions.

"Hope springs eternal." -Alexander Pope

While Scott shows that there can be black republicans (which is somewhat positive I guess), it sure looks like he isn't doing much to bring black voters to the party or even vote for him. According to 2016 exit polls of the SC senate race, despite Scott winning by approximately 21 points he still lost among black voters by a whopping 90-8 (82 points) margin whch means a lot more would have to be done in order for Republicans to close the gap they have with black voters. It's not impossible for the GOP to decrease the gap, however, as Kasich and Isakson recently got very decent shares of the black vote in their respective races in 2014 and 2016.

To be fair to Tim Scott, his opponent was also black, but I wonder what % of the black vote he'd get against a white Democrat. Probably not a whole lot more, I'd assume.

Ah, good point.

[Roronoa D. Law]

The urban/rural divide will negate any further racial polarization. Trump did worse than Romney in almost all major and somecases minor urban areas in the country. The people most afraid of immigrants, homsexuals, possible terroist attack, or brown people in general are those who live in isolated, homogenous, rural areas that are unaffected by most issues Trump talks about. In most major urban areas it unlikely to not have any minorities in your social circle. Urban Whites are more likely to be turnoffed from racial scapegoating and fearmongering than rural whites despite having more interaction with minorities themselves. This is why Atlanta and Houston in particular swung so hard against Trump although most core and surrounding counties have trended Democrat before 2016. Most Americans move to the city during a recession most stay some return. At one point the Republican will become short on vote and will have to dial back the Alt-Right politics. The problem right now how long will it take Republican realize it before it too late.

[Person Man]

What do you think such polarization would do to health, safety, security and ethics?

[SingingAnalyst]

I am concerned about it, too.

In some ways, the dystopic future you envision is already a reality. The Black/White divide has been a chasm since 1964 (and in some areas, before that) and shows no sign of shrinking. The religious divide is growing, with non-Christian religious adherents and those with no religion, as well as very liberal Christians (and Black Christians) on one side and white, conservative Christians (whether Catholic, Protestant, or other) on the other. The 2016 Presidential election presented us with perhaps the greatest divide we have seen in this regard.

It does not help that each "side" listens to their own media and regards the other "side" 's media as "fake news".

The mere fact that you wrote this tells me that you love your country and its people, and I'm going to guess that your goodwill extends to those outside the US as well. I would like to think the same is true of me. Personally, I seek to study, from the point of view of a liberal interpretation of my own tradition (Roman Catholicism) ways to bridge the divide, even in small ways.

I'm sure you are familiar with the starfish story. Two people are walking along a beach that is littered with starfish at low tide. One starts throwing starfish back into the water. The other asks "What are you doing? You can't possibly make a difference" to which the first one says "I'm making a difference for the starfish I throw back in".

I think President Bush denouncing Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) in 2002 after he lamented Strom Thurmond's 1948 loss, was a positive step.

I think the voters of SC electing Tim Scott, a Black Republican, as Senator, was a positive step.

I think more people will have to start seeing acts that bridge racial and religious divides as "positive steps" even when they don't line up with their particular political positions.

"Hope springs eternal." -Alexander Pope

I actually haven't heard about the starfish story before. Thank you for sharing it. I think it serves as a good illumination of what is happening, or what is going to happen. I agree with you about what happened with Trent Lott, and especially, about the election of Tim Scott. I am concerned about the way this country is headed, and my concern also derives from what I have seen on this website, and on others. It is amazing how much the posters here, who are Democrats or Republicans, are at odds over almost every issue, thinking in completely different ways.

What do you think the country's electoral map would look like if the polarization trends I indicated above came true?

Compared to the 2016 map, the GOP could pick up ME, MN, and NH, (maybe even OR in a fantastic GOP year) even as they lost MI, PA, and WI, and eventually GA and NC (and, eventually, maybe even MS). So, not much change. The Dems have finished in the 30s or 40s, more or less, among white non-Hispanic/Latino voters, since 1964. Could it dip below 30%? Possibly, but the white electorate is sharply divided as well. Members of the LGBT community, the nonreligious, liberal Christians, and adherents of non-Christian religions will continue to vote Dem; I don't see blatant racial appeals working with many white members of these groups.

You are right about our thinking being sharply aligned (and it's not just Atlas posters, believe me). I'm sure there's a high correlation between being pro-choice on abortion and being anti-choice on firearms, and vice versa, even though these issues (and many, many other issues that could be "paired off") have little or nothing to do with each other. Questions such as "Don't you think people who need a firearm should able to purchase one legally, rather than resort to dangerous, back-alley purchases?" or "Don't you think it's time to get big government off the backs of those who wish to be in a polyamorous relationship?" work well as thought experiments, but are unlikely to change many minds; in fact they are likely simply to make people angry, unfortunately.

[SingingAnalyst]

What do you think such polarization would do to health, safety, security and ethics?

It may be an issue for FEMA. Could thousands of people be housed together (as they were in the Louisiana Superdome after Hurricane Katrina) safely, if they were so sharply divided by race and other factors? Officials would probably have to regulate personal conversations. At one bar in Waterford, MI, during and for several months after the 2016 election a sign said "House rules: no politics".

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

I think if the Democratic Party goes in a progressive populist direction, and the GOP goes in a Libertarian direction, we may see a future where voters are much more divided on class than race, with poor whites and poor blacks voting roughly the same while rich people of all races vote R for those sweet tax cuts.

[Calthrina950]

I am concerned about it, too.

In some ways, the dystopic future you envision is already a reality. The Black/White divide has been a chasm since 1964 (and in some areas, before that) and shows no sign of shrinking. The religious divide is growing, with non-Christian religious adherents and those with no religion, as well as very liberal Christians (and Black Christians) on one side and white, conservative Christians (whether Catholic, Protestant, or other) on the other. The 2016 Presidential election presented us with perhaps the greatest divide we have seen in this regard.

It does not help that each "side" listens to their own media and regards the other "side" 's media as "fake news".

The mere fact that you wrote this tells me that you love your country and its people, and I'm going to guess that your goodwill extends to those outside the US as well. I would like to think the same is true of me. Personally, I seek to study, from the point of view of a liberal interpretation of my own tradition (Roman Catholicism) ways to bridge the divide, even in small ways.

I'm sure you are familiar with the starfish story. Two people are walking along a beach that is littered with starfish at low tide. One starts throwing starfish back into the water. The other asks "What are you doing? You can't possibly make a difference" to which the first one says "I'm making a difference for the starfish I throw back in".

I think President Bush denouncing Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) in 2002 after he lamented Strom Thurmond's 1948 loss, was a positive step.

I think the voters of SC electing Tim Scott, a Black Republican, as Senator, was a positive step.

I think more people will have to start seeing acts that bridge racial and religious divides as "positive steps" even when they don't line up with their particular political positions.

"Hope springs eternal." -Alexander Pope

I actually haven't heard about the starfish story before. Thank you for sharing it. I think it serves as a good illumination of what is happening, or what is going to happen. I agree with you about what happened with Trent Lott, and especially, about the election of Tim Scott. I am concerned about the way this country is headed, and my concern also derives from what I have seen on this website, and on others. It is amazing how much the posters here, who are Democrats or Republicans, are at odds over almost every issue, thinking in completely different ways.

What do you think the country's electoral map would look like if the polarization trends I indicated above came true?

Compared to the 2016 map, the GOP could pick up ME, MN, and NH, (maybe even OR in a fantastic GOP year) even as they lost MI, PA, and WI, and eventually GA and NC (and, eventually, maybe even MS). So, not much change. The Dems have finished in the 30s or 40s, more or less, among white non-Hispanic/Latino voters, since 1964. Could it dip below 30%? Possibly, but the white electorate is sharply divided as well. Members of the LGBT community, the nonreligious, liberal Christians, and adherents of non-Christian religions will continue to vote Dem; I don't see blatant racial appeals working with many white members of these groups.

You are right about our thinking being sharply aligned (and it's not just Atlas posters, believe me). I'm sure there's a high correlation between being pro-choice on abortion and being anti-choice on firearms, and vice versa, even though these issues (and many, many other issues that could be "paired off") have little or nothing to do with each other. Questions such as "Don't you think people who need a firearm should able to purchase one legally, rather than resort to dangerous, back-alley purchases?" or "Don't you think it's time to get big government off the backs of those who wish to be in a polyamorous relationship?" work well as thought experiments, but are unlikely to change many minds; in fact they are likely simply to make people angry, unfortunately.

I see. There are those elements of the white electorate who will never vote Republican, so that, and the more liberal views held by Millennials, may be the two things that keep Republicans from getting as high as I suggested in my first post. And as for your points about political viewpoints, I am in full agreement. It is unfortunate that polarization has gotten to the extent that people now get into arguments with each other, or are unable to approach things from the same angle.

[dw93]

I think if the Democratic Party goes in a progressive populist direction, and the GOP goes in a Libertarian direction, we may see a future where voters are much more divided on class than race, with poor whites and poor blacks voting roughly the same while rich people of all races vote R for those sweet tax cuts.

I actually think this is a possibility. The Boomer's share of the vote will shrink significantly by the early 2030s, and with this happening, I think the "Culture Wars" will be less of an issue, allowing the GOP to go left socially while staying right wing economically.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

I think if the Democratic Party goes in a progressive populist direction, and the GOP goes in a Libertarian direction, we may see a future where voters are much more divided on class than race, with poor whites and poor blacks voting roughly the same while rich people of all races vote R for those sweet tax cuts.

I actually think this is a possibility. The Boomer's share of the vote will shrink significantly by the early 2030s, and with this happening, I think the "Culture Wars" will be less of an issue, allowing the GOP to go left socially while staying right wing economically.

The only kink in this scenario is that the GOP doesn't seem to be going in anything even remotely resembling a libertarian direction, but that could change once demographics really limit their ability to win elections whilst spewing rhetoric that almost exclusively appeals to whites.

[dw93]

I think if the Democratic Party goes in a progressive populist direction, and the GOP goes in a Libertarian direction, we may see a future where voters are much more divided on class than race, with poor whites and poor blacks voting roughly the same while rich people of all races vote R for those sweet tax cuts.

I actually think this is a possibility. The Boomer's share of the vote will shrink significantly by the early 2030s, and with this happening, I think the "Culture Wars" will be less of an issue, allowing the GOP to go left socially while staying right wing economically.

The only kink in this scenario is that the GOP doesn't seem to be going in anything even remotely resembling a libertarian direction, but that could change once demographics really limit their ability to win elections whilst spewing rhetoric that almost exclusively appeals to whites.

If Trump loses in 2020, that's a blow to the Alt-Right and they'll be hit with another if they nominate another alt rightie in 2024 and lose again. Reagan/Bush style conservatism I think is out as well, so that means either the GOP goes libertarian after a string of defeats or becomes the party of Eisenhower and Rockefeller again.

[Person Man]

What do you think such polarization would do to health, safety, security and ethics?

It may be an issue for FEMA. Could thousands of people be housed together (as they were in the Louisiana Superdome after Hurricane Katrina) safely, if they were so sharply divided by race and other factors? Officials would probably have to regulate personal conversations. At one bar in Waterford, MI, during and for several months after the 2016 election a sign said "House rules: no politics".

Maybe this will eventually lead to segregation and eventually to minority Nationalism.

[TheSaint250]

Hispanics, blacks, and other minorities will (hopefully) swig towards a more moderate GOP.

[Del Tachi]

Whites will continue to trend GOP, whereas all other races will trend towards the Democrats.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

“In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” - Lee Kuan Yew, first Prime Minister of Singapore

This is the inevitable result of diversity. If one group behaves in an ethnocentric manner while the other behaves in a humanitarian manner manner, the ethnocentrics will inevitably exploit and out-compete the humanitarians. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
From the analysis of this research: "The mediation analysis in Study 1 and the restricted strategy simulations in Study 2 support the direct hypothesis for ethnocentric dominance over humanitarianism. Across ethno-humanitarian cluster borders, humanitarians cooperate while ethnocentrics do not. This provides a reproductive advantage for border-dwelling ethnocentrics, who receive the benefit of humanitarian cooperation while donating nothing across cluster lines. In terms of the payoffs in Table 1, for such interactions, ethnocentrics increase their RPs by b, while humanitarians decrease their RPs by c. Ethnocentric agents are thus more likely to succeed in competition for empty locations along these borders."

In other words, not practicing identity politics while others do is suicidal. When whites were 85% of the electorate, they split up based on other traits like union membership, income, catholic vs protestant, etc. As whites approach minority status, these distinctions fade in political importance. Like it or not, the future seems to be rich, secular, virtue signaling white liberals and nonwhites vs all other whites. There will be individual exceptions, of course, but this is the trend.

It doesn't bode well for the US staying together in the long run. Sorry if that was too pessimistic.

[mvd10]

I think if the Democratic Party goes in a progressive populist direction, and the GOP goes in a Libertarian direction, we may see a future where voters are much more divided on class than race, with poor whites and poor blacks voting roughly the same while rich people of all races vote R for those sweet tax cuts.

Highly educated and relatively affluent minorities tend to be the most partisan and ideological minorities. A lot of this is because they tend to focus on social and systemic issues more than other minorities do. Poorer minorities have a higher chance of swinging the GOP’s way, though I think that is unlikely.

According to this poll 41% of Hispanics earning over 75k identifies as Republican versus 27% of all Hispanics. $75k isn't very wealthy (though still quite a lot above the national average) but I don't think the figures for $150k+ or so are that different. Anyway, focusing on winning over affluent minorities probably isn't the best way to way as affluent minorities alone probably won't win you the election. I think moderating across the board (including on economic issues) would be the best answer. Less race baiting should attract wealthier minorities and a more centrist economic platform theoretically should appeal to middle-class minorities (if the poll numbers are true the biggest gains are to be made there) and it should atleast somewhat prevent the WWC staying home. This way they probably won't emulate Trump's succes with the WWC, but we shouldn't forget Romney also won 61% of non college-educated whites.

Then again, maybe recent events showed the GOP is truly lost. I'll keep my blue avatar anyway, for triggering PNM and because I still strongly affiliate with European centre-right parties (blue actually is the colour of most of the European centre-right).

[RINO Tom]

I think if the Democratic Party goes in a progressive populist direction, and the GOP goes in a Libertarian direction, we may see a future where voters are much more divided on class than race, with poor whites and poor blacks voting roughly the same while rich people of all races vote R for those sweet tax cuts.

Highly educated and relatively affluent minorities tend to be the most partisan and ideological minorities. A lot of this is because they tend to focus on social and systemic issues more than other minorities do. Poorer minorities have a higher chance of swinging the GOP’s way, though I think that is unlikely.

According to this poll 41% of Hispanics earning over 75k identifies as Republican versus 27% of all Hispanics. $75k isn't very wealthy (though still quite a lot above the national average) but I don't think the figures for $150k+ or so are that different. Anyway, focusing on winning over affluent minorities probably isn't the best way to way as affluent minorities alone probably won't win you the election. I think moderating across the board (including on economic issues) would be the best answer. Less race baiting should attract wealthier minorities and a more centrist economic platform theoretically should appeal to middle-class minorities (if the poll numbers are true the biggest gains are to be made there) and it should atleast somewhat prevent the WWC staying home. This way they probably won't emulate Trump's succes with the WWC, but we shouldn't forget Romney also won 61% of non college-educated whites.

Then again, maybe recent events showed the GOP is truly lost. I'll keep my blue avatar anyway, for triggering PNM and because I still strongly affiliate with European centre-right parties (blue actually is the colour of most of the European centre-right).

LOL, PNM will just hurl some personal insult at you due to the personal offense he takes if anyone registers with a party he doesn't want them in (and will then extrapolate dozens if not hundreds of beliefs you MUST, by extension, have about *what it means to be in that party*) and then act like you are a psychotically emotional snowflake if you dare respond; I wouldn't bother trying to trigger him.

Also, every exit poll seems to show educated minorities being more Republican than uneducated minorities, but that isn't really convenient.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

The urban/rural divide will negate any further racial polarization. Trump did worse than Romney in almost all major and somecases minor urban areas in the country. The people most afraid of immigrants, homsexuals, possible terroist attack, or brown people in general are those who live in isolated, homogenous, rural areas that are unaffected by most issues Trump talks about. In most major urban areas it unlikely to not have any minorities in your social circle. Urban Whites are more likely to be turnoffed from racial scapegoating and fearmongering than rural whites despite having more interaction with minorities themselves. This is why Atlanta and Houston in particular swung so hard against Trump although most core and surrounding counties have trended Democrat before 2016. Most Americans move to the city during a recession most stay some return. At one point the Republican will become short on vote and will have to dial back the Alt-Right politics. The problem right now how long will it take Republican realize it before it too late.

I just want to point out that the least segregated region of America (in terms of neighborhood demographics, not segregation as in historical policies) is the Deep South, where racial polarization is at its highest. It was also noted during the GOP primaries that Trump did especially well with "whites who live around blacks." Sure, white liberals in Manhattan may say how proud they are to live in a diverse city, but they'll be living in their nice 90% white neighborhood and avoiding most of the Bronx like the plague.

If your theory was true, whites in Mississippi would love diversity and whites in Vermont would hate it. Reality is the exact opposite.

[Beet]

“In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” - Lee Kuan Yew, first Prime Minister of Singapore

This is the inevitable result of diversity. If one group behaves in an ethnocentric manner while the other behaves in a humanitarian manner manner, the ethnocentrics will inevitably exploit and out-compete the humanitarians. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
From the analysis of this research: "The mediation analysis in Study 1 and the restricted strategy simulations in Study 2 support the direct hypothesis for ethnocentric dominance over humanitarianism. Across ethno-humanitarian cluster borders, humanitarians cooperate while ethnocentrics do not. This provides a reproductive advantage for border-dwelling ethnocentrics, who receive the benefit of humanitarian cooperation while donating nothing across cluster lines. In terms of the payoffs in Table 1, for such interactions, ethnocentrics increase their RPs by b, while humanitarians decrease their RPs by c. Ethnocentric agents are thus more likely to succeed in competition for empty locations along these borders."

In other words, not practicing identity politics while others do is suicidal. When whites were 85% of the electorate, they split up based on other traits like union membership, income, catholic vs protestant, etc. As whites approach minority status, these distinctions fade in political importance. Like it or not, the future seems to be rich, secular, virtue signaling white liberals and nonwhites vs all other whites. There will be individual exceptions, of course, but this is the trend.

It doesn't bode well for the US staying together in the long run. Sorry if that was too pessimistic.

Obviously, liberals advocate for both sides to be humanitarian and no one to be ethnocentric. The latter is like the fail case of prisoner's dilemma: it leaves everyone worse off.

[Beet]

The urban/rural divide will negate any further racial polarization. Trump did worse than Romney in almost all major and somecases minor urban areas in the country. The people most afraid of immigrants, homsexuals, possible terroist attack, or brown people in general are those who live in isolated, homogenous, rural areas that are unaffected by most issues Trump talks about. In most major urban areas it unlikely to not have any minorities in your social circle. Urban Whites are more likely to be turnoffed from racial scapegoating and fearmongering than rural whites despite having more interaction with minorities themselves. This is why Atlanta and Houston in particular swung so hard against Trump although most core and surrounding counties have trended Democrat before 2016. Most Americans move to the city during a recession most stay some return. At one point the Republican will become short on vote and will have to dial back the Alt-Right politics. The problem right now how long will it take Republican realize it before it too late.

I just want to point out that the least segregated region of America (in terms of neighborhood demographics, not segregation as in historical policies) is the Deep South, where racial polarization is at its highest. It was also noted during the GOP primaries that Trump did especially well with "whites who live around blacks." Sure, white liberals in Manhattan may say how proud they are to live in a diverse city, but they'll be living in their nice 90% white neighborhood and avoiding most of the Bronx like the plague.

If your theory was true, whites in Mississippi would love diversity and whites in Vermont would hate it. Reality is the exact opposite.

Montgomery county Maryland is residentially diverse as well as ethnically non politically polarized. As is much of the Bay Area.