Not for nothing, but it's clear when people are being racist, even when they're blowing their dog whistles through a fabric softener and crisp not-yet-worn white sheets.
I think what Jhhnn is getting at is that by calling them what they are over and over, it loses its meaning.
What I try to do, is include it as an aside, or use a more broadly-encompassing term; i.e. they don't care if the middle class gets gutted, as long as those people have it worse / bigotry.
More subtle, effective, and gets at the underlying tribalism, rather than pigeonholing them as racist, which frankly, they may not be.
Trust me, there are plenty of conservatives who aren't racist in the sense of the term, but fucking hate anyone who isn't a member of their conservative tribe. Here, bigotry is a broader term that includes their ignorant hatred of people who they don't consider members of their own tribe.
Be more inclusive in your argument, by being less specific about who you're arguing with. Plus, they don't get the automatic talking point rebuttal of: no, YOU'RE the real racist / everyone that disagrees with you is a racist.
It's a categorical fact that race resentment is pretty much the best predictor for party affiliation. I was quite surprised myself upon discovering this research, but it is what it is.
Also as a matter of history the southern strategy is why american political lines are where they are, and I wouldn't necessarily say for the worse because there came to be a clear division between liberal and conservative parties. Of course not ALL conservatives are racist, but the venn diagram of GOP constituent interest groups approximate a circle; what's why the king of birthers is their head honcho.