Billybobsky? Where did I say blacks elected these guys? AHAHA
OK so I implied it, but is that really wrong? Look at the politics of activism. Speech is so blantantly censored when the mouths speaking it are the wrong color (in both directions, when we're dealing with white and black, add brown, yellow, and red and it gets weirder still, so let's just use black and white.) America is rife with the sentiment "We need one of our own."
So this is not restricted to who elects blacks (a conclusion you drew for yourself), but why and where blacks choose to run. Think about the candidates themselves. There must be a sufficient pool of blacks for whom it makes sense to be republican if there is a new influx of black candidates throughout the party.
For the longest time we looked at the democrats as the only party for black candidates, blacks themselves would look at any republican black as an "Uncle Tom" depending on whereabouts in the country. If there are MORE black republicans coming to the fore, it's also reasonable to think that there are more black republicans in their various districts. At least moreso than in previous years. Whites might still elect them (ie make up the majority of their votes,) but there's a lot more color in that support base than there used to be, color that sees the world in a stereotypically "whiter" way perhaps -- if we want to paint black and white into money lines.
What is interesting about all this is that you have applied a very "democrat" assumption to a logistical inquiry and then criticised me for it. Cute, but not really my fault, I merely implied that Republicans would be happy to catch some of those other kinds of racist votes, along with the idea that more blacks may like republicans (regardless of reason) than many democrats would like to admit.
[political disclaimer mode] As with most things, I am a political agnostic as well [/disclaimer mode off]