If you're voting for Barack Obama, The New York Times makes a good argument for segregation today. Stay with me here. In an attempt to solve the conundrum of why Obama wins primaries in urban areas but not urban states and why Hillary Clinton wins rural areas but not rural states, writer Matt Bai posits that ethnically mixed areas have citizens who, as Bai puts it, "[are] less sanguine about racial harmony rather than more so." To wit:

…in the overwhelmingly white states of Wisconsin and Vermont, for instance, [Obama] carried 54 and 60 percent of the white voters respectively, according to exit polls, while in New Jersey he won 31 percent and in Tennessee he won 26 percent. … Obama does best in areas that have either a large concentration of African-American voters or hardly any at all, but he struggles in places where the population is decidedly mixed.

The explanation, of course, is that diverse populations breed people who are wary of everyone, but in an unequal way: don't trust your neighbors, but especially don't trust them if they're not your race. Only in America could we ever owe our first black President to segregation.