The "dots" may be more a matter of less red, than really blue. Michigan is a notorious swing state. A lot of people are on the bubble about which way to go, so the slightest thing can tip them. Recent polls show the white female corporate Dem with a significant lead over the African American male corporate Repub, for Gov. But the Muslim Dem's lead over the white, Christian, corporate, Repub, for Senate, is razor thin.

I don't think that's necessarily representative of other states, though. The "dots" of Austin and Atlanta and other deep Red states are genuinely blue. And they have very large minority populations, which makes it pretty unlikely that they would switch to the "only white people have value" perspective you identified upthread.

As for individual races, individual candidates matter. El-Sayed's lead is razor thin because of a host of reasons - mostly because he his support is very soft among black, jewish, and moderate voters. His theory of the election is that voters in Michigan (and nationally) are willing to embrace a candidate who rejects centrism and commits to full-throated progressivism - including the elevation of issues like Israel over more prosaic political considerations, which is the source of his problems among black and Jewish voters. The latter obviously, but his support for "Uncommitted" also alienated a big slice of the black community, a large number of whom "experienced that campaign, which demanded an end to U.S. support for Israel’s assault on Gaza, as an attack on a historic candidate they desperately wanted to elect." Every politician makes choices over which issues and which allies are their priority, and those choices can affect future support.

slate.com - Abdul el sayed michigan democrats

But I don't think there's any possibility that the "blue dots" in red state America are at all likely to go full white nationalist groyper.