THE "WOMEN'S VOTE" – AT 10:41 A.M. ET:   I put the phrase in quotes because there are now serious doubts about the strength and solidarity of the so-called "women's vote."  Naomi Schaefer Riley examines a fading myth in the New York Post: 

Rather, in a race between a feminist icon and a man who could generously be called a chauvinist, women voters were remarkably torn. It’s true that the gender gap was about 12 points, the largest since 1972, but, as a report from Pew points out, “it is not dramatically higher than in some other recent elections, including the 2000 contest between [George W.] Bush and Al Gore.” Neither the fact that Hillary is a woman nor the fact that Donald Trump insults women seemed to have much of an effect.

Hillary lost white women but won women of other races. Which isn’t surprising, because race has long been a better predictor of how people will vote than gender. Black men voted overwhelmingly for Hillary — and black women did, too. Hispanic men voted for Hillary — and so did Hispanic women. Class, level of educational attainment and geography are all better predictors of how you’ll vote than sex, says Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

And...

In Slate, Michelle Goldberg writes that Hillary’s “victory would have been a sign that the gender hierarchy that has always been fundamental to our society . . . was starting to crumble. It would have meant that men no longer rule.” She laments, “I thought my daughter was not going to be consigned to a lesser life than my son. I no longer do.”

Oh, please. If anyone besides a few liberal elites believed that, Hillary would have won.

COMMENT:  Very good piece, well argued, with actual facts. 

November 14, 2016