There is only one logical choice to the GOP in this dilemma:
Keep trying to win black voters, even when/if their share of the GOP vote is 10-15% in a good election.
...
Except it's probably harder to do, especially without loss of non-Black vote.
In this case, it's not so much the absolute share of the vote gained (yes, it is marginal), but a matter of principle to demonstrate that the GOP is not off-limits to an entire race, even if the marginal cost per vote, as dazzleman stated, is steep.
How many elections do you think the GOP is willing to lose for this principle?
I remember when Jack Kemp ran with Dole in 1996, and talked about how GOP campaigns such as Reagan's that ignored blacks were wrong, and that it had to change.
And yet Reagan won big, while Dole and Kemp got creamed.
I think that until black voters make it clear that they're willing to look at alternatives other than the Democratic party unconditionally, there isn't going to be much movement on this.
I agree with that only to the extent that GOP coolness towards black voters doesn't become an open secret, or worse, a "successful" Democrat attack ad aimed at moderate white voters. And whites, in general, are less antagonistic (if not supportive) toward blacks now than they were in 1980.
Practically speaking, I would favor an outreach two or three degrees warmer than utter tokenism (e.g. a Republican president nominating a inner-city Negroid for HUD secretary).
Furthermore, it's not at all certain the the GOP will be any better at attracting soon-to-be Hispanic voters, although in most cases, Hispanics don't actively
hate the party in the way middle-aged blacks voters do.
