Thomas Friedman, in his typical way, has his own opinion on who turned this election. It's based on, well, I'm not quite sure.
But there also may have been something of a “Buffett effect” that countered the supposed “Bradley effect” — white voters telling pollsters they’d vote for Obama but then voting for the white guy. The Buffett effect was just the opposite. It was white conservatives telling the guys in the men’s grill at the country club that they were voting for John McCain, but then quietly going into the booth and voting for Obama, even though they knew it would mean higher taxes.Okay. That could make sense, I guess, except that exit polls suggest something different.
Women voters typically are crucial to a Democratic presidential victory, and Obama was pulling 55 percent of their votes, compared with 43 percent for McCain, according to exit polls. Obama and McCain were nearly even among male voters, who split 49-49 percent....There was a lot of concern in some circles when Obama defeated Clinton in the primaries that women wouldn't transfer their loyalties to him. I think it's pretty clear that not only was that inaccurate, but that they provided President-elect Obama (wow, that feels good to type) his overwhelming margin of victory. I thank you, and I hope that Obama follows through and proves himself worthy of your trust.
The gap between Obama and McCain was closer among married women. Those with children supported Obama 53 percent to 45 percent for McCain, exit polls showed. Those without children favored McCain 54 percent to 44 percent.
But at least 70 percent of unmarried women with and without children supported Obama, a margin of more than 2-to-1. By contrast, 53 percent of unmarried women opted for Kerry in 2004, said Anna Greenberg, a Democratic pollster and vice president of the research firm Greenberg, Quinlan Rosner.