No one wants to say it, but the gap in the election was not gender, but race. The proof? According to exit polls being cited by CNN, white women threw their support behind Romney more heavily than did men of all races (56-44 vs. 52-45). Some of this is generational; young people are easily seduced by cheap left-wing romanticism, and the largest minority in the country (latinos) skew younger than any other group. Nonetheless, the question is not What’s the Matter with Kansas? as much as ‘what’s the matter with BET and Univision?’ With the Supreme Court primed to rule on affirmative action in 2013, the race question is likely to come more to the fore of the national conversation.
Update: As Guy Benson points out at Hot Air, Romney won white voters ages 18-29 by seven percentage points, according to exit polls. There’s really no way around it: if you had to pick a single determinative factor, clearly it was race, not gender or generation. What does this say about the political wisdom of amnesty, or how ‘amnesty’ could be defined to make it acceptable to both Republicans and conservatives? At what point does attempting to curry favor with Latino voters by creating, say, five million more of them become self-defeating, or just plain counterproductive, from an electoral standpoint? I’ve been thinking about this for a while, dating back to 2010 and the mass hyperventilation around Arizona’s SB 1070. Probably time to devote a full post to the calculus surrounding the immigration issue.