What this really means is that "identity politics" -works-.
Down in the southern states, where blacks make up 30-40% of the population in some areas, the white folks -know- what they have to do, if they are to avoid falling under "black rule" -- which would happen if the white vote was "divided" as it is in many other states between Republicans and democrats. (Of course, the blacks ALL vote democratic, so if a modest number of whites voted for the 'rats, they would win easily.)
So the whites do what they must to maintain (for the most part) "white rule" -- they vote "their identity", and vote Republican.
You are going to reply to my post by saying this isn't the way things should be.
You're going to say that identity politics isn't what the Republic should be about.
And, in a more perfect Union, I might agree.
But reality is what it is.
It is NOT what we believe it to be, or dream that it should be.
The reality is, again, that in an ethnically/racially/culturally divided nation, identity politics can become the only choice "that works".
Southern whites understand this by necessity. Down there, the Republican party now -is- "the white man's party". There is no reason to run from this. Accept it for what it is.
What works in the south for Republicans, can work elsewhere -- particulary in battleground or purple states.
If the Republicans in 2012 had tailored their message towards whites, and if they had increased their share of the white vote by only 5-8% in a number of states, they could have carried those states and won the election.
This also illustrates why trying to pander to non-Euros is a sure road to defeat for the Pubbies -- not only will they NOT win many minority votes, they may actually drive away MORE white votes than they pick up from nonwhites. Looks good from the viewpoint of diversity, but not so good on the election results worksheets...!