It makes sense to me. From the political strategist's POV, stereotypes and generalizations are everything, because the single voter simply doesn't count, even if he/she is one of yours. To someone targeting votes in the black community, or someone trying to predict them, the operating assumption is that blacks are more likely to vote Democratic, and women are more likely to vote for women, and for the reporter or strategist trying to optimize a campaign, what better place than a black hairdresser's to do some surveying/polling/opinion surveying? Which way certain blocs will vote, and how that vote might split is of immense interest to the campaigns and the political analysts.

I personally find this distasteful, because it converts the electoral process into a statistical game of demographics, not one of issues. You can see it in the primary system too as candidates modify their platforms on regional grounds in order to gain short term advantage in individual states, often at the expense of establishing a consistent position to appeal to the broadest possible subset of voters. In a related issue, it is no secret that both parties design their campaigns to maximize electoral votes, not voters. They know it is better to win states by tiny majorities than to win states by large ones: the former is a more efficient use of campaign resources. It also means certain states will get no say at all if their combined electoral vote is split, regardless of how the total popular vote goes.

In the political analyses on the media, which have to present the appearance of impartiality, the pundits endlessly argue the strategic implications of the candidates' actions instead of evaluating their positions on the issues. As in our economic life, the marketplace has been replaced by marketing, and product value takes a back seat to packaging and advertising. I don't really see any way around this, without threatening free speech, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

As for the black Republican lady getting her hair done, she simply would not matter, because the Carvilles and the Roves have already decided there simply aren't enough like her to matter. The so-called differences in ideology are very much a smokescreen, a tactical maneuver to dictate assumptions on how to organize a campaign strategy. There really isn't that much difference between mainstreams of the two parties. Politicians first need to win before they can implement a philosophy, and winning means getting as much funding as possible, and spending it as efficiently as they can.