NYT continues to obsess over women, running a piece discussing how "single women" are up for grabs in the 2012 election.
The problem? As an analytical matter, the piece is worthless. Like "women" as a whole, "single women" are a disparate group, who vote for very different reasons.
First, there are the young, single (presumably childless) women. Contrary to the Times' assertion, they do NOT "already earn less than married people and single men." In fact, by 2008, single childless women between 22 and 30 were earning more than their male peers
. These, presumably, are the "smart" women who are going to believe the Obama scare hype that Mitt Romney is going to take away contraception (please!), despite the fact that he has indicated he would maintain the status quo (aside from the hideous new ObamaCare mandate forcing religious employers to violate their convictions by providing no-cost sterilization, abortifacients and contraception in their insurance).
Then there are the single women with children. They may depend on public assistance, and we all know the Obama administration is working hard to court them. But let's not forget that, as the TImes piece acknowledges, they are some of the people who have suffered most from the Obama economy.
Single women are not a Democrat monolith, as much as the Times wishes they were.
And the ultimate problem for the Times and other Obama supporters is that it's hard for anyone -- male or female, single or married -- to overlook the President's dismal economic record, and his overt hostility to those like the small business owners who work hard, are productive, and create jobs AMericans need, male and female alike.