One, how is that racism? I'm especially interested in your answer here given your heated defense of traditional definitions.
It's racism because it's stereotyping based on skin color. It assumes that you can appeal to "black people" as a single demographic when in reality you're talking people across all different demographics. A smaller point, but related: it also doesn't pass the sniff test, in that if someone said they were going after "the white vote" you'd probably assume they were racist.
Two, how do you equate trying to appeal to certain demographics based on thoss demographics voting prefferences to, for example, not letting a person of color shop at your business? Or do you mean to be more specific with the term "other kinds of racism".
By other kinds of racism, I was primary talking about stereotyping, profiling, etc. It's closer to things like "the gays like X" or "black people are criminals" because it judges an entire group based on a genetic component. Again, the issue is "black" isn't a demographic with regard to policy unless you're being racist. Policy, by definition, can't discriminate based on race. If your argument is that you're appealing to "black people" as a politician, there's no way to define what that actually means without being racist.
How does this fit the traditional definition of racism? That being the supremacy of one race oved another? I'll point out that I don't believe that definition should be or is strictly followed, I'm just hoping to help you see your conflicting views.
To the second point, it means appealing to causes black people tend to vote for. It isnt based on genetics, it's based on polling and voting history.
Policy, by definition, can't discriminate based on race
This is odd. I'm interested to hear why you think policy can't be made to discriminate against race. ---